Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, let me say two things. First, the idea of autonomy is built on a foundation of intrinsic human value. If one believes that humans have value, that has consequences, obviously, for one's desire to give them choices. Also, however, a belief in intrinsic human value with dignity can limit choices if individuals wish to, in a dramatic way, harm themselves in a way that denies their intrinsic value.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, because of the procedural direction now being taken by the government, I think this will probably be one of the last speeches in this debate. I want to recognize the tone of the debate that has taken place. I know members have spoken politely, softly, and respectfully.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, I think it needs to be acknowledged that the timeline we have is to a substantial extent manufactured by the government. The Liberals removed the direction to the expert panel to provide legislative recommendations, which would have sped up the process. They had an opportunity, as soon as the special joint committee reported, to bring forward legislation.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for an excellent speech and for his excellent work. He is my neighbour in the Edmonton area, and I sometimes feel he knows more people in my riding than I do. I want to ask about a specific case that builds on some of the comments he made. Dr. Nancy Naylor is a case I have mentioned before.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks, and I want to ask the hon. member about the issue of advance review. There are some attempts at safeguards in this legislation, but without any kind of legal process, any kind of review involving anyone with legal authority beforehand, there is no clear way of ensuring that the criteria will be followed.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the member's speech. I do not know if we will agree quite as much on this issue as we did on the Air Canada Participation Act, but I always appreciate his contribution. The member talked about the issue of autonomy. I would like to raise the issue in the context of the social architecture of choice, the factors that are around individuals that may shape a choice such that the choices they end up making are not the ones they would want to make under ideal circumstances.

Criminal Code  Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent remarks and for her great work in general on behalf of the disability community. I want to further probe this issue of palliative care. Some members in other parties have said that palliative care is great but that we do not have to deal with it right now because this is the issue of euthanasia or assisted suicide and that we can deal with palliative care at another time.

Criminal Code  Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member for his thoughts on the timeline. A number of comments have been made about the issue of the timeline and the fact that we did not have to be this rushed. The previous government put in place an expert panel to study the issue and that panel was supposed to report back with specific legislative recommendations.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member about advance review. There are a few interacting problems that create sort of a perfect storm in this legislation. There are relatively ambiguous criteria, and yet there is no requirement for legal review beforehand. There are also opportunities for individuals or family members, who want someone to be euthanized or to take part in assisted suicide, to go from doctor to doctor until they get the kind of review they want.

Iran  Mr. Speaker, the Baha'i faith was founded in Iran, but Baha'is in Iran today face significant persecution, which includes executions and the destruction of holy sites. We are well aware of Iran's belligerence, but the suppression of the Iranian people and efforts to crush the Baha'i community in particular are also part of the record of this vile government, which requires our attention.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, my colleague has talked about the notwithstanding clause and, realistically, that would be anathema to the current government. The Liberals' attitude seems to be that one cannot even disagree or hold a different point of view than that of the Supreme Court. However, at the same time, the government needs to accept responsibility for, in fact, in some ways, going much further than the court decision.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her eloquent remarks, specifically around the importance of palliative care. We have heard from the NDP some agreement with what we have been saying, which is on the importance of palliative care as well as conscience protection. We have actually heard the Liberals in some instances, and in different ways, saying that these things are important as well.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member about the concept of advance review by a competent legal authority. One of the concerns I have with this legislation is that we have various criteria, some of which I think need to be more specific, but there is no mechanism for ensuring that complex legal criteria are met.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, my colleague referenced the government's supposed commitment on palliative care, but it is actually worse than that, because the Liberals have said palliative or home care. One of the members pointed out quite rightly that palliative care can happen in the home, but these are not the same thing.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, I have two specific follow-up questions. The member alluded to the government's commitment on home care, but we need to be clear that there is a big difference between palliative care and home care. Home care is the care that someone receives in their home to support their ongoing independence—it could be at varying stages—and palliative care is specifically the care for those who are dying.