Roundup: A test of bicameral wills?

Posted on by

Whether through stubbornness or pique, the House of Commons voted to adopt nearly all of the amendments the Senate proposed to Bill C-14, with the exception of the biggest and most important one – the one which would eliminate the requirement of a “reasonably foreseeable” death before someone could be granted medical assistance in dying. And then, the Commons more or less announced that tomorrow will be their last sitting day before they rise for the summer, essentially daring the Senate to return a bill to a chamber that has gone home (well, they are supposed to come back on the 29th for Obama’s address), and leaving the spectre of there being no law in place, which has all manner of medical community stakeholders concerned (never mind that the framework of the Supreme Court of Canada’s Carter decision is in place and would ensure that nobody would be charged for providing the service). It’s a little more ballsy than I would have given the Liberals credit for a few weeks ago, particularly before I saw the background paper that Jody Wilson-Raybould released with her…questionable justification for drafting the law the way it was. Now comes the difficult part – will the Senate stick to their guns and insist that the amendments to eliminate “reasonably foreseeable” be maintained if the bill is to remain constitutional, or will they back down because they’ve made their point and the Commons is the elected chamber?

This is the part where I chime in with a few reminders that this is the reason why our Senate exists the way it does – it enjoys institutional independence and cannot be threatened by the Commons so that they can push back on bills they find unconstitutional, particularly a controversial one like this, where MPs are proving themselves to be timid in the face of a Supreme Court of Canada decision that lays out what they deem to be an appropriate constitutional reading of the issue – something the government is basically flouting in an attempt to push back on this bit of social evolution for as long as possible. And as I’ve stated before, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that the Commons is waiting for the Senate to “force” them to advance things. Will it turn into a ping-pong between the chambers? Not for much longer, I would say, but it is going to depend on who blinks. If the Senate does dig in its heels on this and insist that doing otherwise would be to let an unconstitutional bill pass, then there is every reason to suspect the government take the “forced into this” option and let the Senate be the punching bag when religious and disability groups complain. There are people suggesting that the Supreme Court should break the impasse, which I would loudly denounce because it’s the very last thing we need. It’s not their job, and it would signal a complete abdication of the rights of Parliament and Responsible Government that our predecessors fought long and hard for. (Also, stop demanding these bills be referred to the Court – legislating is not a game of “Mother May I?”). This whole exercise is why the Senate exists. Let’s let them do their jobs.

Good reads:

  • Stephanie Carvin gives a brilliant takedown of the “genocide” debate in the Commons, while Nate Erskine-Smith explains why he voted against his party.
  • The government tabled their bill to create a parliamentary oversight body for national security. Craig Forcese weighs in here.
  • CPP reform is on the table with the federal-provincial finance ministers meetings, but not every province is onside.
  • The NEB is planning “enhanced” consultations over the Energy East pipeline.
  • The issue of assisted dying requests by inmates promises to be a tricky one in the future.
  • The government’s attempt to recoup surplus funds for tainted blood victims is raising more questions and accusations of broken promises.
  • Data tabled in Parliament shows that most of our CF-18 fighters’ airframes are reaching the end of their lifecycle, which contributes to the “capability gap.”
  • NATO is asking Canada to contribute more to an Eastern European force to deter Russian advances.
  • The Canadian Forces are distributing wallet cards to soldiers basically reminding them not to commit sexual assault.
  • The employment minister made a joke about celebrating when the Temporary Foreign Workers Programme could be shut down, and people lost their minds.
  • While the debate on English lyrics for O Canada is nearly at an end, there is plenty to make people uncomfortable with in the French lyrics.
  • Some Canadian artists weigh in on the anthem debate here.
  • PMO made the perfectly reasonable step of scrubbing Harper content from their website (archiving it along the way), and people are freaking out.
  • Maclean’s offers up some illustrated examples of some different electoral reform models.
  • Jen Gerson looks at the palace intrigues of Alberta’s conservative parties, while Jason Kenney won’t rule out a move to Alberta politics to sort it out.
  • Jonathan Kay writes an interesting piece about how reconciliation with Indigenous Canadians is being hampered by distorted history and activists using them as props.

Odds and ends:

The government says it’s working as fast as it can to transfer new land to Attawapiskat.

Tensions between Hill Security and the RCMP are manifesting with unhappiness over new uniforms.