Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members will recall that I had proposed an amendment to this act to include a definition of assisted or supported decision-making. It was my intention to introduce two consequential amendments to effect the idea that an individual could make a decision on their own, or they could get some assistance in doing that. That has now been withdrawn, so there is no debate on that issue any more.
My proposal, however, is still something that is active since we would like to make it clear that an individual does have the right to make decisions and, whenever we can, we should maximize the possibility of that individual making decisions, even though it may mean seeking other people's support and help in making it.
The reason I believe this kind of discussion should take place in this House is that it seems to me that any act, whatever act we propose and pass in this House, which gives direct power over somebody else's life goes to the very heart of our own democracy and offers the biggest challenge, in my opinion, to how we protect individual rights.
This act, in my view, should include the recognition that an individual can be helped or supported in making a decision. And, even if they got help in making it, it would still be their own decision. I was asked by the Minister sponsoring this bill if I would consider an alternative way of achieving that purpose, of maximizing the individual's right to make their own decision, even if they have to seek help in making it.
It may not be as strong as what I proposed and it may be buried in the act rather than highlighted in the act. I know, however, that judges often examine debates in Hansard in order to interpret the spirit as well as the letter of the law. That is the purpose of my general comments today. I thought it was very important that we have on record some discussion on this aspect of the bill, so that whenever it would come to court, the judge could look at the Hansard and know this is really what the Members intended. He would be guided by the spirit of whatever discussion we have here.
My main concern, Mr. Chairman, is that the main focus of this act is on guardianship and trusteeship. I don't have to go into great detail with Members on the origins of the words "guardian" and "trustee," but anyone who watches the late night movies are familiar with the concept of being locked up and having a trustee who looks after all the other prisoners. I know the words have lost that meaning today. They mean something else. But it really means an authority figure who is placed to control somebody's life, rather than a person who may be represented by somebody else.
The act seems to me to be more concerned with the third party rather than with the individual, who should be the focus of the bill, in my opinion. It is designed more for the system than it is for the individual.