Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières, who is absolutely right in saying that we have to wonder about the definition used in the bill.
I have a hard time understanding why the people at the Department of Justice who drafted this bill decided on this and where they got their definition of “enduring and intolerable suffering because of a grievous and irremediable medical condition”. That was in the Supreme Court ruling, but the bill uses a different definition. It talks about reasonably foreseeable natural death.
I have a hard time understanding how the Minister of Justice can defend her bill and say that she will have no problem testing it against the Supreme Court and the Carter decision when she is not using the same terms.
At the very least, she should have used terms similar to those in Carter. That would have prevented yet more cases seeking to overturn the law.