I've already explained it. As Professor Downie says, in the time limits of this discussion, it's hard to give details about constitutional arguments.
We have The Manitoba Law Journal, in which we discuss in detail the various cases—I can share them with the committee—and look at the arguments for why we think the Carter decision actually did not include mental illness and why it's fair for Parliament to state that irremediability, based on the evidence psychiatrists will provide, does not match mental illness. In a way, Parliament has simply looked at the concept of an irremediable medical condition.
I want to emphasize again that I find it strange how people forget that the Carter decision emphasized the need for stringent safeguards and balance, and explicitly recognized the role of criminal law in protecting life. I want to emphasize that.
There is certainly a difference of interpretation of the Carter decision in that context.