Mr. Speaker, if I have 10 minutes to respond, I will respond to each of the questions.
My colleague is confusing passion with partisanship. My comments go well beyond partisanship, and at this stage, I have just indicated that my party will never lend its support to such a bad bill.
Furthermore, there are certain constitutional experts who, from the heights of their office, may not have an accurate grasp of the field and the practical realities. If we have a criterion as vague as reasonably foreseeable natural death, we have to know what that means in terms of operationalizing it in the field. People in Quebec were already saying that the law was consensual and posed no problems. We are starting to see that there are certain disparities across regions and institutions. I am therefore very mistrustful of people who are not familiar with the field on a question as serious and delicate as this.
That being said, the amendment you mentioned was minor, relative to the one that consisted in striking and eliminating the totally wrong-headed, unacceptable, and unconstitutional notion of reasonably foreseeable natural death.