Justin Trudeau's commitment to open and engaging leadership is about to collide with the Harper government's attempt to sweep Physician Assisted Dying under the rug. There is an urgent need for a course correction here and precious little time to make it. Last February, the Supreme Court struck down those sections of the Criminal Code that make it illegal for anyone, including a doctor, to assist in the death of another person who consents to die. The judges unanimously agreed that this violates our Charter right to life, liberty and security of the person. While there are important provincial issues here, the Criminal Code is a federal responsibility, so it is up to Ottawa to provide new legislation; and the Court has given the government a year to do so. For the Harper government, the decision was the political equivalent of a skunk at a garden party, especially on the eve of an election. Social conservatives oppose assisted dying and the last thing the government wanted was a national debate on the subject at this time. To avoid one, it struck an External Panel and then shunted it off to consult with stakeholders, in effect punting the issue to the other side of the election. There is more. Two of the three panelists are experts who had intervened during the legal proceedings to argue against assisted death. While it's too late for them to alter the Court's decision, they are in a strong position to influence government policy on where and when assisted dying will be permissible. And they are widely expected to take a narrow interpretation of the ruling. Not only would this be out of step with the Court's direction, it would be out of step with Canadians. In August 2014, an Ipsos Reid poll reported that 84% of us approved of physician-assisted dying for people who are terminally ill and experience unbearable suffering. Additionally, 78% of individuals polled by Forum Research were supportive of the Supreme Court's ruling on physician-assisted dying. Nevertheless, when the Ruling kicks in next February and the old law ceases to apply, having no law won't be an option. Almost no one believes that the right to die with dignity is without limits; and there are big differences over where these limits lie. If we are to avoid a patchwork of approaches across the country, provincial governments need guidance and it is the federal government's responsibility to provide it. In developing the legislation, citizens and governments need a chance to learn about the issues, express their views, and hear from one another. The discussions must be free to reach into some uncomfortable zones, as assisted dying covers more than rare cases of tragic and terrifying afflictions. As our population ages, more and more Canadians will suffer from relatively common but no less tragic and terrifying afflictions, from Alzheimer's to the creeping collapse of our bodily functions. Many of us are only now wakening up to the alarming prospect of being forced to live through this or to look on as it happens to someone we love. We owe it to ourselves to bring these issues out in the open so we can have a real discussion of them before it's too late. The taboo on death and dying must be lifted and this is a chance to get the conversation started. Which brings me to the real concern with Conservatives' approach: it is designed to prevent this. The Panel's "consultations" are closed-door meetings, by invitation only, and limited to stakeholders who have already intervened in the Court proceedings. As for ordinary Canadians, if they want to have a say, the government invites them to submit a brief online. This is not only insulting, it is a transparent attempt to shut down any real discussion so the government can put forward its own views with a minimum of dissent. Supporters of assisted dying are rightly incensed and the process needs to be fixed. Ideally, the Liberal government will dissolve the existing panel and launch a new and more open process. There is a good case to be made here for a special legislative committee, rather than an expert panel. While there are technical issues to be considered, first and foremost, this is about Canadians' changing values and MPs are well positioned to lead that discussion. Unfortunately, time is running out. It is hard to see how to square this with the existing timelines. The best hope may be for the government to request an extension from the Court. There are compelling reasons to grant it, including the interruption of the federal election, the change in government, the desire for a more open and engaging discussion with Canadians, and the need to consult with the provinces, who will have to regulate how the new standards are applied. Given the Court's own deference to Canadians' changing values, it is hard to see how it could disagree. Should it turn out that the timelines are locked in, at a minimum, the government should expand the consultations and appoint some additional members to the External Panel to ensure that a majority favours a more expansive interpretation of assisted dying. Trudeau's views on this issue were clear in the campaign and he can rightly claim a strong mandate to act on them. He should. Editor's Note: You can read the response to this article from the federal Panel on physician assisted dying by clicking here... Dr. Don Lenihan is Senior Associate, Policy and Engagement, at Canada 2020, Canada's leading, independent progressive think-tank. Don is an internationally recognized expert on democracy and Open Government. He is currently the Government of Ontario's principal advisor on its Open Dialogue Initiative. The views expressed here are those of the columnist alone. Don can be reached at:[email protected] or follow him on Twitter at: @DonLenihan