I'll start with the second part of your question, which I think was about the jurisdiction responsible for that.
Which types of facilities may engage in which types of health care practices, and so on, is probably predominantly a provincial and territorial matter. The regulation of doctors and physicians, and what each is able to do—I know that some provinces have nurses who are able to do some functions that are otherwise limited to physicians—are parts of provincial and territorial regulation. On the other hand, from a criminal perspective, I would say that there are at least two things you have to keep in mind, though there are surely others as well. First, if you set up a regime such that some requirements in it will bar access to some people in remote locations, that fact may weigh in a court's consideration of the constitutionality of those limits, so any arbitrary barriers to access are something that you should consider.
Second, if it appears as though medical professionals other than physicians must be involved, or will be involved, for reasons of access or otherwise—in this regard, I'm thinking of pharmacists, who are the types of physicians who are dispensing the drugs—any medical practitioners who would be involved may need to be captured under an exemption for otherwise criminal conduct. Failure to include them in an exemption may cause them to be less willing than they otherwise would be, so there's a real, pure criminal law angle to ensure that any exemption would cover all of those who would be involved. There's also a policy question, which relates to the levels of expertise they have and whether they can undertake the functions. For instance, assessing an individual's mental competence is a big part of the delivery of physician-assisted dying. Who's able to do that function?
Third, there's the question of access. The committee will no doubt hear about more types of issues that will also bear on that question, but those are, at least, the three that come to mind right now.