Justice committee  I may have misunderstood you.

Justice committee  My sense is that these are neither medical terms nor legal terms, albeit I'm not a lawyer. My counsel is with me and if you want to get our legal opinion on this, Mr. Crolla would be happy to speak to it. I see the confusion and the discomfort a lot of people have because it's neither medical nor legal.

Justice committee  Thank you. I will try to deal with the foreseeable future issue first. We will support whatever the legislation ultimately states. I want to reiterate that we see our position as to help the physicians have confidence that if they enter into this dialogue with the patient and operationalize it and have interpreted the legislation correctly, they will be free from prosecution when they act in good faith.

Justice committee  From our perspective, we have no problem with the concept of advanced legal review. That's not in the legislation, as we understand it. I think there are reasons that it's not in the legislation. We want our physicians to enter into a relationship with the patient and feel comfortable, just as you have suggested, in providing access to medical assistance in dying.

Justice committee  Could I answer that? I didn't say that.

Justice committee  I didn't say that a physician should be able to escape prosecution if he acted in bad faith. That's a criminal act. We think any physician who does not act in good faith should bear the consequences. We're saying that a physician who does act in good faith to do the right thing should be exempt from criminal prosecution.

Justice committee  Hello, everyone. I am Dr. Hartley Stern and I am the executive director and chief executive officer of the Canadian Medical Protective Association. Honourable members, thank you for giving me the opportunity to take part in this consultation process. In providing medical legal advice and evidence-based education, the Canadian Medical Protective Association, the CMPA, sits at the intersection of the Canadian health care and legal systems.

Physician-Assisted Dying committee  We believe that they are. Again, we have no objection to the judicial process, but those two caveats—that it is simple and clearly understood by patients, and does not limit, slow down, or retard the access of the patients—are the critical factors in your decision-making, in our view.

Physician-Assisted Dying committee  I think this is an absolute necessity. Our concerns are that some provinces may not entertain legislation. In the absence of legislation on this very important social policy, both physicians and patients will be left in limbo with a significant amount of uncertainty. That will be filled in a way that is insufficient and provide unequal access.

Physician-Assisted Dying committee  I absolutely believe that it is a federal legislative requirement, for the reasons I entertain. It is for consistency of access for those patients. If we go back to my original point, the physician who feels insecure because of uncertainty is not going to be able to enter into that relationship with that patient without fear that something bad is going to happen to them.

Physician-Assisted Dying committee  To be clear, we have no formal objection to a judicial review, with a couple of caveats. Our concerns are those of limiting access through a complex process that may make it more difficult for the patient to actually achieve access to physician-assisted dying. That is provided that, one, it is not overly bureaucratic and complex and does not make it difficult for the patient to access it, and, two, that there is clarity and understanding of what this process is so that patients can understand it fully.

Physician-Assisted Dying committee  There really are two levels of freedom of conscience here. The first is those physicians who are uncomfortable for reasons of conscience to participate in responding to the request of the patient but who feel comfortable with referring the patient to a different physician who would be willing to perform that assistance.

Physician-Assisted Dying committee  It's a very important question, but our perspective is really around the patient and the importance of consistency across the country so that a patient anywhere in the country has equal access, under the law, to physician-assisted dying. We absolutely believe that federal legislation is required, and we are disturbed by the notion of different interpretations or disparate interpretations of the eligibility criteria.

Physician-Assisted Dying committee  Rather than focus on the model, I think I would focus on the words. For me, and in my interpretation, the issue is around good faith. Physicians who act in good faith under the law should be immune from prosecution. Whether it's bad faith, indifference, or a casual approach, that would exclude them from this protection, but I believe the vast majority of physicians will participate in good faith.

Physician-Assisted Dying committee  I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that lawyers who know what good faith is could incorporate that into your legislation in a way that would be helpful to the situation.