I'll take the quick one first. They do not always agree with respect to physical conditions in terms of the diagnosis, prognosis and treatment, and they sometimes agree in the context of mental illness about diagnosis, prognosis and treatment. This does not create a distinction between physical and mental. It doesn't justify treating them differently. We have complex cases everywhere.
Regarding the truth of the matter of Carter, we've gone back and forth. You've heard the same thing more than once from both sides on the interpretation of Carter. The thing I would add to what was presented is that Justice adopted the interpretation that I have advanced. The government has already accepted that Carter stands for the principle that “grievous and irremediable medical condition” includes mental illness. It has accepted the Carter and the Truchon decisions, as the arguments were good. They're not binding, granted, but it said they were good. It agrees with them, so it has adopted that position. I take that as a reasonable starting point for the government not then turning around and excluding any further.
The only extra justification you can have with respect to Carter is in terms of a temporary exclusion, and what I'm pointing out is that that's no longer valid.