Information & Ethics committee  Thank you. Good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Cara Zwibel. I'm the acting general counsel at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. I'd like to thank the committee on behalf of the CCLA for the opportunity to appear before you in relation to your study of Bill C-58.

Justice committee  Our submission on this point was that we weren't opposed in principle to a brief period of reflection, what some people call a cooling-off period, as long as there were opportunities for exceptions. I think the legislation does make an exception. It does allow for that 15 days to be abridged in circumstances where...I'd have to look back at the legislation, I'm not sure if it's where the suffering would be intolerable or where the view is the individual doesn't even have that much time, but allowing for a period of reflection and allowing also for exemptions from it is not inappropriate.

Justice committee  The suggestion in our written brief was an addition for a greater certainty clause. I suppose the answer to your question depends what that reasonable foreseeability requirement is trying to accomplish. I have to agree with Ms. Gokool, that if the goal is to make a terminal illness a requirement, that's not something we would support and not something we have suggestions of how to achieve.

Justice committee  That's one I have to acknowledge I haven't looked at as closely. That one seems less vague to me. It seems like a physician would likely be able to appreciate what that requirement means. Whether it's in line with what Carter requires, I'm not convinced that it is. In our view, the biggest problem is this reasonably foreseeability requirement.

Justice committee  I am a bit torn about whether “grievous and irremediable”, that language on its own, is sufficient. I don't fault the drafters of the legislation for trying to put some more meat on the bones, so to speak, and be more specific about what that means and provide some guidance. I would say that to the extent it requires an incurable illness or condition, I would interpret that in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Carter in terms of incurable to the extent that any treatment is not tolerable or acceptable to the individual in the particular circumstances.

Justice committee  The focus in Carter was on suffering; it wasn't on a timeline. The organization was an intervenor before the court in Carter. We were not involved in compiling the record of evidence, so it's been a while since I've examined it closely. But my understanding is that Ms. Carter, for example, whose daughter and son-in-law were applicants, was suffering from a disease that would not have lent itself to that kind of characterization: that death was reasonably foreseeable in any sort of proximate way.

Justice committee  I think it would make it clearer and would arguably also make it unconstitutional. I think the clear direction from the court in Carter was that this was not about proximity to death; it was about quality of life. To impose that kind of requirement, first of all, is asking physicians and health care providers to do a very difficult task.

Justice committee  Our view is that the issue of minors is something that's addressed regularly by people who are practising in the health care field. These decisions about who is a mature minor, and who can make treatment decisions, are decisions that health care providers make on a regular basis.

Justice committee  Thank you. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, on behalf of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association I want to thank the committee for the invitation to make submissions on Bill C-14. The CCLA fights for the civil liberties, human rights, and democratic freedoms of all people across Canada.

Justice committee  I'm not sure I have much to add, maybe just the group that I mentioned in terms of those who are incarcerated. That's certainly a population that faces significant barriers in accessing justice. We frequently hear from inmates who.... I know it's not a population that tends to breed a lot of sympathy, but people who are denied access to health services they need, people who are denied accommodation for disabilities they might have, and people who are denied religious accommodations have issues that I think deserve to be addressed.

Justice committee  Thank you for the question. As I said, there's much that the Canadian Bar Association said that I agree with, and with respect, much that Mr. Chipeur said with which we disagree. The view certainly is that the court challenges program needs to be reinstated. We support expanding the mandate to address challenges to both provincial and territorial laws.

Justice committee  That's the tricky bit that we're still working out. We appreciate that there might be a waste of resources if we do that for every private member's bill that gets introduced, so I think it would have to pass a certain phase. I have to admit that in terms of looking at the flow chart of where that occurs, that's something we're still working out.

Justice committee  Yes.

Justice committee  Yes, certainly. I apologize. I think when I wrote to the committee expressing an interest to appear, section 4.1 was one of the issues we really wanted to address, but we certainly have views on the court challenges program. I agree with much my friends from the Canadian Bar Association have said in terms of expanding the mandate, particularly concerns around intersecting rights and expanding beyond the strict confines of section 15.

Justice committee  I think that the appearances of witnesses, including legal experts, to comment on constitutional concerns is certainly helpful to members of Parliament. I don't think it's a substitute for the legal opinion, but I appreciate the concerns around solicitor-client privilege. The proposals that we're thinking of would not necessarily do anything to affect that privilege.