Mr. Speaker, the main reason is that the bill introduces the concept of “reasonable means” of alleviating suffering when a person no longer has capacity. It is version 2.0 of the phrase “reasonably foreseeable natural death”. In practice, this will create confusion in clinical settings. That is what the practitioners I have consulted are telling me. That is why I believe that, if the government truly intends to model this legislation on Quebec's law, then it should adopt the wording used in Quebec rather than inventing new concepts, especially concepts that could create uncertainty in clinical practice. That is the main reason. That is why I talk about ordinary means.
The lady I was referring to will be given some sort of medication, and she will no longer be a nuisance. Does that constitute conditions considered tolerable in the eyes of someone who made an advance request and who, under this bill, is being told that their wishes will be set aside? This goes to the very principle of advance requests. The Quebec law is subtle. It refers to clinical judgment and does not refer to “reasonable means”.