OTTAWA – The NDP’s justice critic pleaded with the Liberal government Friday to ensure that desperately ill Canadians don’t have to go back to the Supreme Court to fight controversial new legislation on doctor-assisted death.

Murray Rankin, a public law expert from Victoria, said he was deeply disappointed to find a majority of recommendations made by members of a joint Commons-Senate committee were “missing from or contradicted” by the provisions in the bill tabled last week.

Rankin, a member of the all-party panel, said the committee had a duty to make recommendations considering all situations that could arise in coming years, such as the issue of advanced consent for patients who face the prospect of losing their faculties.

“We can do better than flatly contradicting the evidence of experts and the advice of parliamentarians from all parties and both chambers,” Rankin told the House of Commons as debate on the bill got underway.

Canadians are relying on the government to craft an appropriate legislative response to the top court’s landmark ruling, and to get it right, he said.

“The reality is, this moment is not going to come again,” Rankin said. “This means abiding by the letter and spirit of the Supreme Court ruling and strengthening this bill against obvious challenges to its charter compliance.”

Rankin has a personal connection to the lawyer who represented the B.C. Civil Liberties Association in the case that led to the top court’s ruling on assisted death. He and Joseph Arvay previously worked together at a law firm in B.C.

The exchanges that unfolded Friday in the Commons mark the first instalment of what is sure to be a long and emotional debate on the government’s legislative response to the Supreme Court’s ruling from February 2015.

That decision struck down the ban on physician-assisted dying, but was suspended until June 6 to give Parliament a chance to craft a law.

The clock is ticking to pass the proposed legislation and there are already indications there could also be roadblocks once the bill hits the Senate, where some members have already hinted they fear the bill could violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould insisted Friday the government’s bill is consistent with both the Supreme Court’s decision as well as the Constitution.

“There will always be a diversity of opinion about what is required to respond to a particular judgment, but it falls to Parliament not only to respect the court’s decision but also listen to the diverse voices and decide what the public interest demands,” Wilson-Raybould said.

Parliament faces a difficult task in addressing this issue, she added.

“It must weigh and balance the perspectives of those who might be at risk in a permissive regime against those who seek assistance in dying.”

OnThursday, the family of Kay Carter — whose bid to obtain an assisted death was at the heart of the Supreme Court decision — said that under the proposed legislation, their mother would not have qualified for medical help to end her life.

“We fought for a half a decade and won our case at the highest court in the land and this bill would erase the victory that we achieved 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 individuals like those who were before the courts in Carter could obtain access to medical assistance in dying.

Conservative MP Scott Reid also raised concerns about the bill during Friday’s debate, noting he has hesitations about the terminology that permits access to competent adults “whose deaths are reasonably foreseeable.”

“Would she (the minister) object to an amendment to this legislation in the committee process that would give a definition to the term ‘reasonably foreseeable’ so this is not left up to other individuals who may apply different standards?” Reid asked.

Wilson-Raybould said there would be opportunities to closely examine the bill, adding the language used in the legislation “purposefully provided” flexibility to medical practitioners to use their own expertise.

—Follow @kkirkup on Twitter