Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Support Quality Journalism.
The Globe and Mail
First Access to Latest
Investment News
Collection of curated
e-books and guides
Inform your decisions via
Globe Investor Tools
Just$1.99
per week
for first 24 weeks

Enjoy unlimited digital access
Cancel Anytime
Enjoy Unlimited Digital Access
Canada’s most-awarded
newsroom for a reason
Stay informed for a
lot less, cancel anytime
“Exemplary reporting on
COVID-19” – Herman L
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
Get full access to globeandmail.com
Just $1.99per week for the first 24weeks
Just $1.99per week for the first 24weeks
var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(select.open)}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](select.open),dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){window.requestAnimationFrame(function() {var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))});}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1); // via darwin-bg var slideIndex = 0; carousel(); function carousel() { var i; var x = document.getElementsByClassName("subs_valueprop"); for (i = 0; i < x.length; i++) { x[i].style.display = "none"; } slideIndex++; if (slideIndex> x.length) { slideIndex = 1; } x[slideIndex - 1].style.display = "block"; setTimeout(carousel, 2500); } //

The Senate of Canada building and Senate Chamber in Ottawa on Feb. 18, 2019.

Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press

Every time the Senate threatens to veto a bill passed by the House of Commons, its defenders rush to assure us this is an extraordinary case, the exception not the rule. And it’s true: Most of the time the Senate does not obstruct democracy.

Forgive me if I do not find this greatly reassuring. I’m of the school that says that in a democracy only the people we elect should decide how we are governed. It is as wrong on that basis for an unelected body such as the Senate to prevent the people’s elected representatives from enacting such laws as they see fit as it would be for it to enact laws without them, and it is no more to be excused on account of its comparative rareness than is a wrongful conviction, on the grounds that “most of the time the courts get it right.”

While outright defeat of government bills may be unusual, moreover, it is not obvious this is always because the Senate defers to the Commons. The increasing frequency with which the Senate has demanded, and obtained, amendments to legislation – it amended 33 out of 88 bills passed in the last Parliament – suggests that, in at least some cases, it is the Commons that is giving way.

Story continues below advertisement

We shall see whether the same applies with regards to Bill C-7, the government’s response to a Quebec Superior Court ruling that its first attempt at legalizing assisted suicide did not go far enough. The Senate has passed five amendments to the bill, and is making the usual noises in defence of its impertinence: question of principle, fundamental rights, sober second thought, etc.

The bill’s demerits are not in doubt. It was unnecessary, for starters: The Quebec court had no legal basis to object to the law’s requirement that death be “reasonably foreseeable” (the Supreme Court, in R. v. Carter, may have declined to insert such a condition, but it did not say that governments could not.) Its ruling could and should have been appealed.

What is more, nothing in the ruling obliged the government to eliminate the mandatory 10-day waiting period after a request for assisted suicide, or to reduce the required number of witnesses from two to one – to cite two of C-7’s more gratuitous provisions. It would be better if the bill were withdrawn, or amended, or even referred to the Supreme Court. The world would not end if the government failed to meet the Quebec court’s Feb. 26 deadline.

But it is not for the Senate to impose such changes. It would be wrong even if the amendments it were demanding were likely to improve matters, and not, as I fear, to make them much worse. It is true that, in its haste to eliminate the requirement that death be, if not at hand, then at least in the offing, the government would entrench in law an invidious distinction. Henceforth, those suffering intolerably from a physical disability would have carte blanche to have someone kill them; the merely mentally ill would not.

Advocates for the first group were quick to note the implication – better dead than disabled – even as advocates for the second complained of being discriminated against. Had senators confined themselves to pointing out what a Pandora’s box would thus be opened, they might have rendered the public a service. But to extend the “right” of assisted suicide to those suffering from anorexia nervosa or obsessive compulsive disorder – I only wish I were making up these examples – is hardly progress.

Reasonable people can differ on these questions, of course. But what we ought to be able to agree on is that it should not be up to the Senate to decide. Were the Senate merely a kind of highbrow focus group, an advisory body without formal power to defeat, amend or unreasonably delay a bill, the amendments it proposes could be taken as mere suggestions, which the Commons could take or leave. But so long as they come backed by the threat of legislative force, they offend against democratic rule.

It wouldn’t take much to transform the Senate into such a body. It could be done by a simple change to the Senate rules, to the effect that any bill the Senate fails to pass within six months of its introduction “shall be deemed to have passed.” Perhaps the urgency of such a measure does not yet seem apparent to you. Perhaps you like what the Senate is doing. People seem only too willing to judge senators’ increasing willingness to overrule the Commons by whether they sympathize with them on the merits.

Story continues below advertisement

But there will come a time when the Senate blocks a bill you agree with. And where will you be then?

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies