I think the starting point is just to note the litigation that's already under way in Quebec in the D'Amico and Saba case, where a constitutional challenge has been brought, mainly on division of powers grounds but also on charter grounds, to the legislation that's recently come into force there. One of the arguments that's been put forward is that the legislation creates insufficient safeguards to protect the vulnerable. It's also been alleged that it is contrary to the section 7 life, liberty and security-of-the-person rights and section 15 equality rights for people who are at risk under what is alleged to be a permissive regime.
I don't think there's any easy answer to your question, though, about what we take from the Carter ruling itself, just because of the way in which cases like this are decided. What was before the court was a very specific constitutional question framed in light of the specific applicants and the specific plaintiffs that were before the court. The court had to decide whether the blanket prohibition was unconstitutional, but then the further constitutional implications of where the lines get drawn, whether Parliament chooses to go narrower or broader than what might appear to be the language in the Carter decision, are going to be a matter for another new piece of litigation. We can't really know, until we have Parliament's objective and the evidence before it, how that assessment is going to be made in the end.