Thank you, and I appreciate the spirit in which we're having this debate.
I'm agreeing with Mr. Cooper, in that although I was attracted to Mr. Fraser's amendment, I'm concerned that it doesn't go far enough.
I prefer Mr. Cooper's suggested language, which is on page 91, namely the phrase “direct or indirect medical assistance in dying”. I'm worried, Mr. Fraser, about people like pharmacists who may not be considered to be assisting. They may have provided the medication long ago and, therefore, they may not at the time be seen as under the protection.
It's only a matter of technical drafting that we're debating here. We agree with the principles. I agree with Mr. Fraser and with the fact that we can only deal with federal laws, and I appreciate that uncertainty. I don't think the fact the ministers made a statement is of any relevance at all, but I do agree that we can only deal with federal jurisdiction, obviously, so there is a problem that has been properly flagged.
Regarding “direct or indirect”, or the wording on page 91, would it make sense for the three of us to try to put our heads together?