Yes, that is obviously correct. There are other statements as well that have to be taken into consideration in the Carter case.
When Belgian evidence was presented before the Supreme Court—which was exceptionally allowed because the government made an argument that developments in Belgium should be taken into consideration at the Supreme Court level—these were changes that had taken place since the British Columbia Supreme Court decision in Carter.
The court said of that evidence that the Belgian evidence was deemed not relevant because it related to euthanasia for mental illness for minors and for minor conditions. The court also said that the Belgian evidence indicated problems with the system that left too much discretion in its rules, while we have a system that actually allows for more discretion, so clearly I think there are other statements.
I would also emphasize that in the Carter decision itself there are very frequent references throughout the judgment—and I urge people to read the judgment—to end-of-life situations, to treatment withdrawal for people that will result in immediate death. The comparison that the Supreme Court made in Carter was really with end-of-life practices, and it left one year in the constitutional dialogue that we have in Canada, one year for Parliament to enact new legislation.