Just a brief question to Senator Lankin.

Last week, Senator Lankin, you voted for Senator Joyal's amendment, which would allow for assisted suicide where the person's natural death is not reasonably foreseeable. Now you've told us late this afternoon that you support Senator Harder's subamendment, which provides that requests where this sort of situation is the case — the person's natural death is not reasonably foreseeable — would simply be studied for the time being.

I'm wondering if you've changed your mind on Senator Joyal's amendment within the last week, or was it because the justice minister has said that she will not be accepting the sort of amendment that Senator Joyal brought forward? And she did say that hours before we even voted on that.

Senator Lankin: Thank you very much, Senator Batters.

It has nothing to do with what the government or the minister will or will not do. In my introductory comments on moving this amendment, I spoke clearly of my support for Senator Joyal's motion and for Senator Carignan's motion, which was to place some kind of greater protection for that group of Canadians for whom natural death is not reasonably foreseeable.

In speaking to that, I made it clear that there are protections in the bill around eligibility for those whose death is reasonably foreseeable: number of doctors, time limits, written application. A number of protections are set out. In speaking to Senator Carignan's motion, I was clear in saying that I think for this group of people the protections may be different, and I supported his amendment. That amendment failed, as you know.

What I am bringing forward in supporting Senator Cowan's subamendment to my amendment is to say that among that group of Canadians for whom death is not reasonably foreseeable, do they meet all the other criteria? There is a group of vulnerable people who require the examination, at least, as to whether more protection is necessary. I think it is prudent to do that study, given that is the reason the government didn't open up the bill in the first place.

Senator Batters: Just a brief supplementary question. I'm confused. For people whose death is not reasonably foreseeable, do you support that they receive assisted suicide, or do you only support at this time that that issue be further studied because more protections are needed?

Senator Lankin: I support Senator Joyal's amendment and I believe that for a subgroup of those people, greater protections could be brought forward. I think the debate we're having is important in terms of exploring this. I hope the study does come forward. That's why I put a timeline on it, to bring forward further amendments potentially.

However, it does not at all change my core belief that the Carter decision is one that provided this fundamental right of access to medically assisted dying to all Canadians who meet the physical illness criteria as stated in Carter and that Bill C-14 narrowed that. I understand that the reason they narrowed it is because they felt they needed more time for protections. I support moving ahead with the broadening of the eligibility criteria as with Senator Joyal's amendment but saying: Ministers, if you believe you need to do more study — and there are Canadians who support you, like the disability community — let's have the review and let's have those recommendations come back to both houses and determine whether or not, as Senator Wallace has said, it's appropriate for there to be any further Criminal Code amendments or not — simple.