Until It Has Had Its Say

Chantal Hebert writes this morning that the battle over Bill C-14 signals a new source of opposition for any Canadian government -- the Senate:

The legislative discussion over bill C-14 is over but the debate over the role of a more independent Senate in the larger parliamentary scheme of things has only just begun. It is already eliciting some diametrically opposed views as to the way forward.

There are two clearly different views about how the Senate should function:

At one extreme, there are those who would invest a more independent upper house with the mission of perfecting the work of their elected colleagues. In their book, a decrease in partisan attachment increases the moral authority of the senate, to the point that it should use the powers vested in it by the Constitution to the fullest — even when it means going against the will of the House of Commons.

But power is intoxicating. Its fumes are addictive. Almost every governing party eventually succumbs to the delusion of believing itself infallible and invincible. The cure usually involves a voter-imposed spell in opposition rehab.

And there's the rub. The Senate is unelected. Recognizing that fact, a majority of senators sent the bill back to the House, with its most controversial clause, "reasonably foreseeable," in tact.

The second theory of how the Senate should operate is also intriguing:

At the other extreme, there are those who feel that a still unelected but more independent Senate is ultimately even less accountable than its previous partisan version. No particular party is responsible for its actions. They argue such a Senate should be content to play the role of if not silent at least always compliant partner to the elected majority in the Commons.

Except that under the current electoral system, a majority government does not de facto speak for a majority of voters, it just speaks for more of them than any other of its opposition rivals.

I suspect this version of how the Senate works will go the way of the Dodo -- thanks to the Mike Duffy trial. The days are gone when the PMO can call the tune and have senators do its bidding.

In fact, the Senate will no longer do any government's bidding -- until it has had its say. 

How We Take Our Leave

Tom Walkom has a must read column in today's Toronto Star. The contentious debate over Bill C-14, he writes, is about much more than the right to die. It's also about the right to live:

If government has any role in this life and death matter it is not to ensure that as many as possible exercise their right to die. Rather it is to create conditions that would allow as many as possible to keep on living.

The right to death is not the same as other rights. Unlike, say, the right to free speech, it is irrevocable.

Those exercising free speech rights can reverse themselves later. Those exercising death rights cannot. Death is a one-way ticket.

Canadian society recognizes this when it comes to suicide. Suicide is seen as a tragedy. We devote medical resources to psychiatrists and others in the hope that they can talk people out of suicide. We involuntarily commit to hospital those deemed at risk of harming themselves.

In Toronto, special fences exist along the Bloor-Danforth viaduct to deter would-be suicides from hurling themselves into the Don Valley.

In short, while suicide is legal in Canada, society does everything it can to convince those weary of life from taking this extreme measure.

Moreover, he points out, the debate occurs as Canada wrestles with how to deal with an aging population:

In Belgium, according to government statistics, 75 per cent of those who take advantage of voluntary euthanasia are between the ages of 60 and 89.

It is no coincidence that Canada’s debate over voluntary euthanasia comes as this country struggles over how to pay for the costs associated with an aging population. We may decry death, but it is the cheapest solution.

Palliative care is not cheap. But I watched my mother die in palliative care a little over a year ago; and I was impressed with how she was treated in her final days. Jim Morrison wrote -- quite rightly -- that nobody gets out of here alive. That fact is undeniable. The debate is really about how we take our leave.

Image: o.canada.com