Justice committee  Yes, that lost the case. That's the basis of what you've been given, so that you're then turning and asking, “Is that reasonable grounds for us to feel comfortable?” Because you know it's limiting rights. The question is, have you been given reasonable grounds to say that you acc

Justice committee  Yes.

Justice committee  Yes. I was baffled by it when I saw the provision. Then when I heard the government say that this was an established concept in law, I thought, I've heard “reasonably foreseeable”, but not in terms of temporal proximity. Of course, it can't be about predictability, because if you

Justice committee  Yes.

Justice committee  Yes, that's absolutely right. I think they misread, in part, what the factual circumstances in Carter were, and also, given some of the things that have been said in the past week, maybe deliberately drew the circle inside the circle of Carter and thought they could. I fundamenta

Justice committee  Exactly.

Justice committee  I can give examples of each of the elements.

Justice committee  Okay. They state that in the Belgian law it was extended to “all minors”. That's not true. It was extended to mature minors; they must have the capacity of discernment, which is the equivalent concept to mature minors, which is what we have. I'm really concerned about the use of

Justice committee  Sure. I think there are two problems with the 15-day limit. The first is the 15 days during which somebody is compelled to experience enduring and intolerable suffering in order to prove that their wishes are non-ambivalent in circumstances where it's very clear that they're not

Justice committee  If I understand your question, I think maybe we could turn to the Carter decision and see it playing out there very clearly, which is that the court saw that there were limits on the rights, and then it looked to see whether that was in accordance with the principles of fundament

Justice committee  Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to testify before you tonight. In the time available to me I will not praise the bill, despite the fact there is indeed much to praise in it. I'll instead focus on suggestions for changes to the bill. The reasons for these suggest

Physician-Assisted Dying committee  The provinces and territories have said they want a harmonized approach. They, I think, went ahead with that panel because of what's going on federally. They knew there was going to be a gap in February, so they responsibly said, “We need to deal with this.” That panel said, “We

Physician-Assisted Dying committee  I think it is not Carter compliant. As a couple of examples, it doesn't include euthanasia, which is clearly in Carter, and it doesn't include terminal illness, which is not precluded by Carter. It's not charter compliant. Think about the disclosure of personal information about

Physician-Assisted Dying committee  I think we have to be very careful about evidence. It is important to note that much of what troubled you in that report was put in front of the court in Carter. It was tested. The experts from those countries were brought in and cross-examined, and Justice Smith did not find the

Physician-Assisted Dying committee  First off, if you're asking whether you could get away with having mental health as an exclusion criterion, I think the answer is no. I think you are absolutely setting yourself up for a charter challenge, and I think you're setting yourself up for a successful charter challenge,