After hours of debate, the Senate passed the first amendment to the assisted dying legislation to remove the definition “reasonably foreseeable death” and replace it with the language from the Supreme Court’s decision in Carter, and immediately the pundit class erupted in cries of horror and outrage that how dare an unelected body dare to touch the precious words of the elected House of Commons, and that this newly emboldened Senate was dangerously overstepping its bounds going forward.

Oh. Please.

It’s like any hint of context went out the window when it comes to this particular bill, and the fact that you have a Supreme Court of Canada decision that it’s supposed to be in answer to (not that parliament needed to draft a law, mind you). There are serious concerns about the constitutionality of this bill. MPs in the Commons believed it, you have a lower court judge in Alberta that believed so when crafting a judgment around an assisted death request and how the state of this legislation wouldn’t conform to the Supreme Court decision, and now Senators are doing their constitutional duty of weighing the constitutionality of a piece of legislation, and quite rightly, they find it wanting. This is why the Senate exists, and what the “sober” part of “sober second thought” means – that freed from the constraints of having to worry about what voters will think, they can take a more clear-headed look at these controversial bills. And if you get hung up on the “unelected” part, apparently the policy and legislative roles taken not only by the Supreme Court or the various administrative tribunals that exist in this country also should keep you awake at night. (Also, their democratic legitimacy comes from being appointed by a government who has the confidence of the chamber, but you know, it’s not like Responsible Government is anything other than a minor detail).

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/740737440231641088

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/740743223396683776

So what happens next? Once the remainder of the amendments are decided upon one way or the other, the report gets sent back to the Commons, which they will then debate and amend at their pleasure – you know, like democratically elected legislators are supposed to do. The Justice Minister doesn’t sound keen on these amendments “without more safeguards,” but I also take this with a grain of salt because I do believe the government is setting up this narrative of reluctance so that they can show that they have been “forced” to accept what the Supreme Court has laid out by a Senate that could veto the bill if they find it unconstitutional. Because remember, MPs who have electoral considerations don’t like to be seen to take bold steps with difficult decisions when it’s easier to hide behind another body who can take the blame for them. And it’s not like MPs aren’t used to giving abdicating all manner of their roles to other unelected bodies (the courts, Officers of Parliament, and the Senate), this just being one more in a long line of examples. It’s one more reason why I find this concern trolling by the pundit class all the more difficult to swallow. If MPs were actually serious about their jobs, then it wouldn’t be incumbent upon the Senate to be the grown-ups of parliament, and yet here we are.

Good reads:

• Justin Trudeau tells Paul Wells he remains unconvinced about the “black and whiteness” of a referendum on electoral reform.
• The Liberals backing down on the electoral reform committee was about salvaging their reputation; the Conservative suspect its to shield themselves from criticism.
• Senators decided to hold up clause-by-clause consideration of C-7 in order to hear from more witnesses.
• The government is looking to bring in some new deputy ministers from outside of the civil service, but need to use caution because of the culture gap.
• Trudeau told a Toronto conference that China needs to change the way it deals with journalists.
• The Liberals are trying to ensure that Mauril Bélanger can be in the House for third reading of his bill on Friday, but they may need to find a workaround.
• The Conservatives are spending their opposition day to insist that the government declare ISIS a “genocide” without the International Criminal Court, because grandstanding helps.
• Leonid Sirota weighs in on my constitutional conventions discussions with some good points about constitutional law.
• James Bowden takes us through the various electoral systems and how they would require constitutional amendments, and you really should read it.
• Susan Delacourt gives a rationalization of the work component of the journalist/politician party circuit.

Odds and ends:

Here’s a comparison of the Super Hornet with the F-35 fighter.

Parliamentarians took a “class photo” yesterday to mark the 150^th anniversary of Parliament Hill.

https://twitter.com/stephaniecarvin/status/740638488358440960

pic.twitter.com/Y2aXY9qomn

— David Reevely (@davidreevely) June 8, 2016