Following a succession of anni horribili, senators have finally caught a break. C-14 on medically assisted dying was a golden opportunity to reaffirm their purpose. They responded admirably; and now they've done the right thing again by yielding to the Commons and letting the legislative process take its path.Not everyone agrees. Some senators are having a hard time with this. The legislative process, they say, was taking its path. The Constitution calls on senators to review legislation from the House and to vote against it when they believe it is wrong.They insist their disagreements with C-14 are deeply principled; and while the Commons has adopted some of the Senate's amendments, it has rejected the most important one, which would have removed the bill's requirement that death be "reasonably foreseeable."The phrase restricts assisted dying beyond what was signaled in the Carter decision; and more than a few senators wondered if they could in good conscience vote for a law they believe will devalue Canadians' Charter rights, especially on such a vital question.C-14 thus poses a serious issue of conscience, but there is an equally serious question about democracy here: When, if ever, should the unelected Senate use its power to frustrate the will of the elected House? Two points are critical.First, even though the Senate has now passed C-14, the battle won't end here. But at this stage, political confrontation is not likely to achieve much. We need a ruling on the bill's legality, and that job belongs to the Courts, not the Senate.Some senators reply that getting a SCC ruling could take years. In the interim, those who are deprived of their rights will be forced to endure terrible suffering. While I have great sympathy for this view, I think opponents of C-14 should nevertheless bend to democracy and give the government its due.However well-reasoned, the belief that C-14 is too restrictive remains just that—a belief. The Court could still decide that the bill is consistent with the Carter decision, as the government claims. No one can say for sure until the decision has been rendered. In the meantime, senators should recognize that a duly elected government has a right to be wrong—if I may put it this way.Second, after the last few years, the Senate's legitimacy and value are in grave doubt. A fateful coincidence of the prime minister's decision to free senators and the Supreme Court's decision on Carter have combined in an unexpected way to offer the Senate new hope.Senators' objections to C-14 have been timely and principled and lots of Canadians have been listening. As a result, senators once again are demonstrating that the institution has value. It's is an excellent start to revitalizing the Senate, but the recovery remains fragile. The worst thing senators could have done now is to overplay their hand.There were musings, for example, that when the Commons sent C-14 back, the Senate should refuse to debate it, leaving it on the Order Paper until Parliament prorogued, at which time the bill would die.From a Senate renewal perspective, this victory would have been pyrrhic. It would have sent a very troubling signal about how senators view their new role within Parliament, at the very moment when everyone is wondering what that role will be.Fortunately, senators are not following this course. The Constitution may endow them with significant powers, but Canadians are highly unlikely to sanction their use. If renewal is to succeed, the Senate's role must be constructive, not confrontational. The government must have confidence it can work with a renewed Upper House.This requires a high degree of self-imposed discipline by senators. They can't abuse their power. A decision to block legislation would be acceptable, if at all, only as a last resort and in extraordinary circumstances. The courts, not the Senate, are the last resort on Bill C-14The excellent news from the last few weeks is that Canadians seem to like the idea of a renewed Senate. If senators continue to show self-restraint, Canadians may embrace sober second thought as an integral part of the legislative process—perhaps very quickly. As they do, senators' legitimacy and influence in the legislative process will grow, but it must be earned.Provoking a show-down with the House of Commons and the Executive would almost certainly have been a setback, if not a disaster. Instead, senators have wisely chosen to use this opportunity to help establish the Senate's "brand" as the House of sober second thought.They should be congratulated for their excellent work on C-14; and for their sensible decision to down tools in a timely way that leaves the next phase up to the courts.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