Parliament can't 'cut and paste' assisted-death court decision: Wilson-Raybould

Canada's justice minister says responding to a landmarkSupreme Court decision is never as simple as "copy-and-pasting"the words from a judgment -- especially on an issue as complex asdoctor-assisted death.

JodyWilson-Raybouldspoke in the House of Commons on Friday asMPs began what is sure to be a long andemotional debate over thegovernment's assisted-death bill. CBCnews.ca is carrying the debate live.

• Aaron Wherry: Parliament prepares to finally legislate doctor-assisted death
• Amend bill to respect top court ruling, Carter family says
• Assisted dying bill restricted to adults facing 'foreseeable' death

"There will always be a diversity of opinion about what isrequired to respond to a particular judgment, but it falls toParliament not only to respect the court's decision but also listento the diverse voices and decide what the publicinterest demands,"Wilson-Raybould said.

"It is never as simple as ... copy and pasting the words from acourt judgment into new law ...Parliament faces a difficult task inaddressing this issue. It must weigh and balance the perspectives ofthose whomight be at risk in a permissive regime against those whoseek assistance in dying."

The legislation as it stands respects personal autonomy, protectsthe vulnerable and affirms the inherent value in everyhuman life,she added."The bill would create a consistent national floor in terms ofeligibility and proceduralsafeguards under the federal criminal lawpower which is there to ensure the safety of all Canadians.

The legislation, which has been panned by critics on both sidesof the assisted-suicide debate, is consistent with boththe SupremeCourt's decision as well as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sheadded.

'What was the point?'

The debate comes just one day after an emotional news conferencein Ottawa in which the children of Kay Carter, whose suffering wasat the heart of the top court's decision, said that under theproposed legislation, their mother wouldnot have qualified formedical help to end her life.

"We fought for a half a decade and won our case at the highestcourt in the land and this bill would erase the victorythat weachieved for people like my mom," Lee Carter said Thursday."We ask ourselves, 'What was the point?"'

Wilson-Raybould denied that claim, insisting the legislation known as Bill C-14 would in fact ensure that individualslikethose who were before the courts in Carter could obtain access tomedical assistance in dying.

Conservative MP Scott Reid also raised concerns about the billduring Friday's debate, noting he has hesitations abouttheterminology that permits access to competent adults "whose deathsare reasonably foreseeable."

"I ask this question to the minister, would she object to anamendment to this legislation in the committee process that wouldgive a definition to the term 'reasonably foreseeable' so this isnot left up to other individuals who may applydifferentstandards?" Reid asked.

Wilson-Raybould said there would be opportunities to closelyexamine the bill, adding the language used in the legislation"purposefully provided" flexibility to medical practitioners touse their own expertise.

In February 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the ban onphysician-assisted dying, but the judgment has been suspended untilJune 6 to give Parliament a chance to craft a new law.

There have been calls for the Liberal government to send itslegislative response back to the top court to see if it meets thecriteria laid out in its decision, but Wilson-Raybould said it is"premature" to consider any reference to the court inadvance of alaw being in place.