Honourable senators, I want to speak to this amendment for a few minutes. I won't take up too much time. Before I do, if you would indulge me, I just want to reflect a bit on what I have observed and listened to over the past 10 days in this debate.

Last week, when this was introduced to the Senate, I was out of town, but I was keenly interested in this debate, so I got online and followed all the speeches. I don't know how they sounded, but when you read them online, you all read very well online. I want to compliment my colleagues for the seriousness and the depth of discussion they gave the subject matter.

I would be remiss if I didn't single out Senator Ogilvie for his work on this file. I think we should all be grateful that we have a man of Senator Ogilvie's probity, discipline and intelligence to carry this file and to give it the due diligence it deserves.

Thank you, Senator Ogilvie.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator MacDonald: Yesterday, Senator Joyal introduced his amendment. I heard a lot of discussion here about constitutionality. Everybody has a constitutional opinion. Well, I respect constitutional opinions. I have constitutional opinions. But, quite frankly, how relevant is our opinion of what constitutional is when it comes to this debate? We do not determine constitutionality. The courts do. We're supposed to be focused on how the law should read, so I have a lot of trouble with the constant arguments over constitutionality. I appreciate them, but I have reservations on how relevant they are in this discussion and debate.

I listened to Senator Joyal yesterday when he spoke, and as usual, Senator Joyal is a reasonable, articulate man who makes a very good argument. I have to confess, until about half an hour before the vote yesterday, I wasn't quite sure what I was going to do. On a personal level, when I'm not quite sure what I'm going to do, I usually say no. It's probably the reason I'm alive today and certainly the reason I never ended up in jail at one time or another. You have to learn to say no.

One of my problems with this bill is a problem of principle for me. And the best analogy I can use is the one with capital punishment. I believe people commit crimes so heinous, so outrageous, that they deserve to be hanged. In fact, I think people commit crimes so outrageous that they can be drawn and quartered and disemboweled for all I care.

However, I don't believe in capital punishment, and the reason I don't is because I don't want to put my life in the hands of the state. I don't trust the state with my life. You can trust the state with your life if you wish, but I can assure you I don't trust the state with any of your lives. The state has no conscience, the state has no remorse and the state is impersonal. That's why I voted against that amendment yesterday, not because it wasn't reasonably argued, not because Senator Joyal didn't make arguments and bring up discussion that we all had to reflect upon, but because in principle I wasn't comfortable with it.

In regard to this conscience protection, I support this amendment because I believe in the primacy of Parliament. We hear it all the time: the unelected senators, the appointed, unelected, unanswerable senators.

But all the judges in this country are unelected. They're all appointed but they're appointed to be judges, not legislators. We are appointed to be legislators. My province of Nova Scotia released its set of guidelines that practitioners must follow in providing medical assistance in dying. They have been very clear. They will force physicians to refer to a willing practitioner if their patient requests assistance in dying.

That reference is essentially an endorsement of this procedure. There's no other way around it. I think this is morally problematic for many of these objectors. I have health care professionals in my family who are very, very uncomfortable with this. They do not trust the way they're going to be treated.

So this will put self-referral mechanisms in place in order to balance the rights of the patients and the physician. I believe this protection is necessary, and I believe this protection is fully within the purview and the rights of Parliament.

I respect the courts. I respect the rule of law in this country. We are a civilized country. That's why we respect the rule of law. But Parliament determines the law in this country, not the courts. That's the fundamental question we have been handed here.

I support this amendment and I intend to vote for it. I encourage all of you to vote for it. Thank you.