First of all, I deeply regret the fact that the Truchon case was never appealed in the court of appeal or in the Supreme Court of Canada. Failing that, the government should have had the courage to refer it to the Supreme Court of Canada, and I believe something more progressive would have emerged. I believe they would have denied this new extension.
If you look at it very simply under section 15 of the charter, this law does make a difference that's based upon disability, and it does cause suffering for persons with disabilities, whereas others who experience problems are not offered MAID. Second, it is a discriminatory distinction because it reinforces a grotesque stereotype that the lives of disabled people are not worth living, yet everyone else who experiences some form of obstacle to participation in society, which is not attributable to mental illness, is offered suicide prevention rather than suicide facilitation.
I think the answer would be obvious under our charter. This is a violation of section 15, the equality guarantee. I also think it's a violation of section 7, the principles of fundamental justice and the integrative principle of equality.