Talk:Senate of Canada

Right now the opening section of the article does not make a concise statement about the purpose of the senate. In fact, it reads like a deterrent. Is there a stylistic justification for this in Wikipedia's policies, or is it just a shortcoming of the editors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:72C5:9B00:F585:54DF:2183:B0C8 (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I agree. The article does not describe what senators do. Many Canadian readers might be wondering what did their senators do to earn their base salary of circa $135,000 a year, especially in view of highly publicized reports of spending irregularities by Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin, Patrick Brazeau, and Mac Harb. --Cornellier (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

"Quebec, in particular, does not want its share of the Chamber's seats diluted."

I removed this sentence, since it is blatant speculation. Different provincial governments have held different positions in this regard, while the Bloc Quebecois has openly demanded the outright abolition of the Senate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.163.137.138 (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have done a switch of sentences in the section Senators that talks about representation. The previous phrase started by assessing BC, Alta. and Ont are under-represented. I don't know why the phrase should start by this sentence. The Senate is not constituted for rep-by-pop. It was sounded like criticism of the representation itself. For this article, the argument that BC, Alta. and Ont are under-represented has to be placed in party positions section below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrimart (talk • contribs) 18:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

apperently the senate see's the remaining PC senators as a full-fleged party. they get "official party status" quite similar to Mr. St.Germain when he was the only CA Senator.

according to the Senate, the PC Party is still around. to avoid confusion I therefore named them the "Progressive Conservative Caucus"

Pellaken 05:00, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The seating chart needs to be updated as Liberal Herbert Sparrow retired January 4, 2005. The tables and appointment chart have already been updated. AndyL 00:17, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've done it.

For future reference the official seating plan is at http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/senate/seatingplan/SenateSeatingPlan.pdf AndyL 00:51, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PC PARTY STATUS

I called the senate, which had no clue. then I called the offices of the PC senators, and they told me that they are waiting for a ruling from the speaker and government house leader as to if they qualify as an official party or not. so this is as of yet undetermined.

NDP SENATOR

according to the official page - http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/senmemb/senate/ps-e.htm - the senator IS an NDP senator.

As I explained over on Talk:Carolyn_Parrish sometime ago, a member has the privilege to identify with whatever party label s/he likes. Ms. Dyck was appointed as a New Democrat and will remain as such until she says otherwise. She is, however, not a member of the NDP caucus. With respect to the PCs, they are now an official party under the Rules of the Senate, they will be apportioned part of the budget and will get to chair a committee, though both of these things may not happen until the next session. - Jord 23:58, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are actually two exceptions to the equality of the Senate and House of Commons in Canada. One is the power to originate "money bills" as noted. The other deals with changes to the Canadian Constitution.

Nominally, such changes need to be approved by both the House of Commons and the Senate. However, if the Senate does not approve such a change the House of Commons can, after 6 months, approve the change a second time and thus override the Senate.

Known as the "Upper House", the Senate is far less powerful than...

So which is it, "the Upper House" or "the Senate"? Should that sentence perhaps start "Also known as..."? Or is it US POV, "those funny Canadians call their Senate the Upper House"? magetoo 12:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

It is the Senate. It is sometimes called the Upper House. Likewise, the House of Commons is sometimes called the Lower House. --Azkar 13:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

That is not exactly true, the British North America Act says, in section 17, "There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons." There is no reference to the House of Commons as the "Lower House", though it is sometimes called that. - Jord 20:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

The opening of the BNA Act specified that Canada would have "a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom." Readers would have understood, given this context, that the House of Commons was the "lower house," a term often used in Britain. The reason the Senate had to be specified as the "upper house" was that Britain did not have a Senate, but a House of Lords. In other words, the Commons is constitutionally the lower house in Canada, even if these exact words do not appear in the legislation. HistoryBA

Oh yes, well obviously the Canadian House of Commons is a lower house. I was merely indicating that the Senate can be called the Upper House (i.e. a proper noun) while the House of Commons is simply a lower house but cannot accurately be called the Lower House. - Jord 21:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

The style in that day was to capitalize all nouns in a state document, whether proper nouns or not. HistoryBA 23:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yes, despite the fact that my username does not suggest so, I also have a BA in History and I understand the variance between capitalization between the the and now, and regardless of the capitalization in the quote which I cut & pasted, the term "Upper House" was meant as a proper noun. - Jord 04:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any evidence? The use of "an" before "Upper House" suggests that it is a generic term, not a proper noun. HistoryBA 21:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Bicameralism uses the phrase uncapitalized. Upper house does, too (except for in the article title). -Joshuapaquin 21:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

To clarify the situation with the Progressive Conservative Senators, they are NOT a "Recognized Party" in the Senate under the Rules of the Senate. When Senator St. Germain left the PC's and sat as the Canadian Alliance's first Senator, the Rules were changed to address third parties. A Recognized Party in the Senate was then defined as "a political party that (A) initially has five or more members in the Senate and is at the same time a registered party under the Canada Elections Act, and (B) continues without interruption to have five or more members in the Senate, whether or not it ceases to be a registered party under the Canada Elections Act." When the Alliance-PC merger occured, three Senators left the caucus, and asked to be identified as Progressive Conservatives. While they are identified as PC, they are treated as independents. Despite the Prime Minister's recent appointment of two additional PC Senators, they continue to function as independents, as the PC's are no longer a registered party under the Canada Elections Act.

I just noticed that there are two mentions of this power, each citing the same example of it's use. The one under "Senators" is needed and well written, but the one in "Legislative functions" seems redundant and irrelevant. Does anybody object to a complete deletion of the second mention? --rob 8 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)

Deletion done. The remaining wording about eight senators seems complete, and remained unchanged. No information was lost (just redundant words). --rob 17:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Why do you have to wade through almost the entire article to get to the bit about legislative functions? Tony 04:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

There's a helpful little box at the top of the page marked "contents". 86.136.0.145 18:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Several years ago there was a senator who hadn't come to the senate in years because he was living in Mexico. Does anyone remember who this was ? Dowew 03:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

See here - Jord 16:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

"Senate seats are divided among the provinces, so that Ontario, Quebec, the Maritime provinces, and the Western provinces are equally represented." - What a load of crap. By population, it is not fair.

--Liam27 07:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

The reason for this is that by population, the Maritime provinces are severely under-representated. The effect of this disparity is that it is next to impossible to have government support when it clashes with the interests of a more populated province. Such cases were the closing of CN Rail depots that were re-located to central Canada and cost thousands of maritimers their jobs, in a place where unemployment was already at 11%. The effect was to totally cripple the economy of those places, just to placate the populations of Quebec and Ontario. Also, when the senate was established, the maritime provinces were the ones to foot the bill for confederation, as Upper and Lower Canada were fledgeling provinces and not able to pay their way. Essencially, the Maritime provinces paid for a country that has turned their back on them in order to centralize the power, and therefor the population, of the central provinces. So, this helps balance the power of the federal government.

The Maritimes are not under-represented. They are actually over-represented. The maritimes are about 6% of Canada's population yet they have 24% of Senate seats. That's 4 times as much as they should have. So it's true that the Senate is not fair by population but that's because the Maritimes get too many seats. Also at the time of confederation there was no such thing as "Upper and Lower Canada", they had been merged into the province of Canada several decades before. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.226.18.229 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 22 Jan. 22 2006 (UTC).

Now that I think about it, we should take out that line because it is blantently untrue

Region | % of Population | % of Senate seats

Maritimes | 5.6% | 22.9% [(938134+757100+137900)/32438404]

Ontario |38.4% | 22.9% [12449502/32438404]

Quebec |23.3% | 22.9% [7568640/32438404]

Western |29.3% | 22.9% [(1,165,944+4,168,123+3,183,312+978,934)/32438404]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.226.18.229 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 22 Jan. 23 2006 (UTC).

One of the purposes of the Senate is to provide regional representation. So, no, by population the regions aren't equally represented. That's not the point, though, of the distribution of Senate seats. --142.242.2.248 14:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

The problem is, they aren't equally distributed by region either. The atlantic provinces actually have 30 if you include Newfoundland. Secondly, grouping the 4 most western provinces into one region is just silly. BC has almost nothing in common (economically, politically, geographically, enviromentally, cuturally, etc) with Saskatchewan for example. Kilrogg 03:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Rep-by-pop is indeed what the House of Commons does. The Senate is a body of regional representation to offset the power of population by reflecting the regions. View the US Senate, which gives two to each state - Rhode Island and California are equal. However, this would not work as well in Canada because we have 10 provinces, they have 50 states; most states have "peers" that can join with them, whereas in Canada, very few provinces have "peers". It might work better if we divided large provinces like Ontario into senatorial regions each of which has a population closer to (but not as low as) the median population of all of Canada's provinces, then assign a number of senators to each of these senatorial regions and the less populous provinces. More populous provinces would still have more senators, but not as overwhelming as now. Provinces of population lower than the median would be overrepresented, while provinces above the median would be underrepresented, in terms of population. GBC 20:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

The real reason the seats are the way they are is because it was decided long ago, when the west was small and atlantic Canada still fairly large. Of course it is best to have an equalizing factor, but with 30 seats in Atlantic Canada it's hardly equal. Saskatchewan and Manitoba can get left behind too (actually all provinces complain about the others getting everything, and most of it is probably perception. Atlantic Canada gets a lot of support from the federal government). I think a senate with equal regions of Atlantic Canada (including NL), Quebec, Ontario, and the Prairie provinces, with B.C. as "half" a region, is what will probably end up happening. The West has complaints, too, about under-representation. If all of Western Canada is only equal to Quebec, this is hardly equality. You can't consider population for two provinces and not for the others. Besides, the senate will never be elected or have any real power if the balance is not shifted to reflect at least some of the population trends of the past century. And as long as the status quo remains, the equalizing factor is mythical anyway. Atlantic Canada should sacrifice a little for the sake of having the Senate elected and thus meaningful - Atlantic Canada would have more power this way than high representation in a lame-duck senate. 24.82.141.209 (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

All arguments for what would be the "most fair" way to divide distribution of Senate seats given current demographics are academic anyway since any meaningful reform would require a change to the constitution, which we already know is virtually impossible to achieve. Since our "first-past-the-post" electoral system already over-represents the majority in the lower house (whether it be a Liberal majority, a Conservative majority, or a population majority - i.e. Quebec and Ontario), I think it kind of a nice balance that the Senate now over-represents the "little guy" (i.e. the Maritimes, typically smaller both by population and by economic clout). This perception of mine is perhaps only comforting in a symbolic way since we know that a majority government can "stack" the Senate when it needs to push something controversial through (i.e. as Mulroney did to get the GST bill passed into law). The REAL democratic deficit in Canada is not to be found in the Senate but rather in the way we concentrate so much power in the PMO. I like the idea of eventually finding a way of having an elected Senate but, frankly, the various ideas I've heard coming from my fellow westerners, most being put forth as ways to achieve a "Triple E Senate" are not practical but rather would shift the balance of power to be even less fair than it already is. If Canadians want meaningful political reform the place to start is not with how we select senators but rather in how we decide which group of elected members of the House of Commons will form future governments. (BTW, great article, I will read in more detail and see if I can add some suggestions for improvement). Garth of the Forest (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Someone has edited the seat composition table to make the total "105/105" — I would think that the logic in this change is that there are one hundred seats, including the vacant seats. However, I would think that it would be more appropriate (as I would think is more in keeping with the original intent of the table) for the numerator to be equal to 105, less the vacant seats. Would it be okay if I changed it back to "105/105"? FiveParadox 15:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand. You're going to change it from "105/105" to "105/105"? HistoryBA 18:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

My apologies! Meant "100/105".  :-S FiveParadox 00:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've read a few transcripts of the Senate precedings, before, and notice they frequently refer to the House of Commons as "the other place". I'm just curious if there's a history behind the custom, or what. I don't recall ever seeing an MP refer to the Senate in that manner .. --142.242.2.248 14:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually MPs regularly refer to the Senate as "the other place" as well, here is a search which will produce you the results. I am not sure where the exact origins come from, but one would assume that as there are two chambers it makes sense; I could assume that it might be in the same manner that you don't refer to members by name, maybe you don't refer to the other chamber by name? That is just conjecture and I suppose this isn't really the place for it anyway ;) - Jord 15:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Basically, parliamentarians aren't supposed to discuss affairs of the other chamber. So "the other place" is their workaround. Maureen McTeer once wrote that she thought that MPs were talking about heaven until her husband corrected her. -Joshuapaquin 20:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is a very common occurrence in Westminster parliaments. Members of the Australian Senate and House of Reps regularly refer to their counterparts in the other chambers as being "in another place", or "in the other place". I presume it goes back to a British tradition. JackofOz 02:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

hey, just browsing for a picture for a school project and i just happened to notice there was was no section titled criticism. is this covered? again, i didn't read the article. just looking for pictures... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.109.118 (talk • contribs)

Read the article. HistoryBA 20:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

This article would benefit from a criticism section, hopefully written by someone who knows a lost about the subject. [[Stargate70] 8 June 2006

Here's the first link I've found about the senator's death: [1] Mindmatrix 14:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

More: [2] [3] Mindmatrix 14:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'd just like to say that I think it would be nice to put in a visual representation of the seating in the Senate as there is on the House of Commons article. It doesn't have to be an actual picture, I mean in most of the Alberta Legislative Assembly pages these depictions are simple coded text to make coloured squares. I was just wondering if anyone else thought this was a good idea before I do it (because I can do that if others like this idea). (Grizzwald 14:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC))Reply

Ok, it's been two weeks since I suggested this, so I'm going to go ahead and assume no one has a problem with this. I'm going to place the layout around the number of Senators table. (Grizzwald 22:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC))Reply

I question to wisdom of having the reform section right after the history section (which seems, offhand, far too short), before discussing in detail the working of the Senate in the later sections. Surely the article should be first about what the Senate is rather than what some people want it to be. I am not saying, of course, that reform should not be mentioned (it has been a constant in Canadian political debate since Confederation, though I personally don't see what the problem is); I'm just saying that its placement in the article makes it seem as if reform of the Senate is more important than its actual, current functioning---which is preposterous. I would humbly suggest that the section be moved near the end, probably as far down as after "Relationship with the Government". 74.96.93.49 18:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I concur, and after further study (I need to read the article more thoroughly first), if warranted, let's be bold, and do it. Garth of the Forest (talk) 06:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah. An example of the important practice of read first, comment later. I see this has already been done. Good move. Garth of the Forest (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

In this section, it seems that the Meech Lake accord and Charlottetown accord were mainly senate reforms while they actually were constitutionnal reforms where the main objective was to get Quebec to ratify the constitution. The difference is important because the fact that these accord were defeated doesn't mean that the senate reforms they include were wildly impopular. It was a more complex issue than this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.149.180 (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, we have a conflict on the number of senators. I know that the government website says that there are 65 Liberal Senators and 4 Independant, but on our List of Canadian Senators page, we have only 64 Liberal and 5 Independat. Raymond Lavigne's page states that he was ejected from the Liberal Caucus for missappropriations of Senate funds, which would thus make him an Independent Senator. So which data do we want to go on, the government page or our own page? (Grizzwald 07:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC))Reply

Now I understand why the numbers were changed. There are a few things to consider. While media reports all said things like "Lavigne kciked out of caucus," and he is no longer listed on the Liberal website as one of their Senators, Graham's actual statement was that "It is inappropriate for Senator Lavigne to sit with the Liberal caucus until any investigations have been completed." This implies something more temporary. Furthermore, both the official standings on the parliamentary website, as well as the official Senate seating plan list him as a Liberal. Even if he has been ejected from caucus, he still identifies himself as a Liberal - a prerogative allowed to Senators irrespective of which caucus they sit in. Examples are the NDP and PC Senators. I think the solution would be to footnote the Liberal numbers indicating that Lavigne is no longer sitting in the caucus, but still identifies himself as a Liberal. Thoughts?PoliSciMaster 05:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think that's a good idea, and will go ahead and do it now. (Grizzwald 21:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC))Reply

"Only Quebec is represented by a number of senators proportional to its share of the population." Who came up with that? If anyone can come up with a rational meaning for this, please enlighten me. Otherwise I'm taking it out. Foxmulder 06:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Whether or not it should be included in this article, this sentence seems to have a straightforward, rational meaning to me: The proportion of the total number of Senators that are Quebec senators is the same as the proportion of the total population of Canada that Quebec has. More concretely: Quebec Senators make up just under 25% of the senate, and Quebec's population is just under 25% of the population of Canada. --thirty-seven 19:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ohhh right, I see. Perhaps I'm an idiot. But that still seems a little unclear; when I looked at it, I thought "Well, there is a proportion of Senators per person, but there exists such a proportion for every other province too." I guess what threw me was the "number of Senators"; it's not really the number that the sentence is talking about, but the percentage out of the whole Senate. I will rephrase that so idiots like me can understand it ;) Foxmulder 05:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for making the effort to make this less ambiguous in the article. --thirty-seven 19:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

In order to make the "Population per Senator" table more transparent on this issue, I added a final row to the table for the total number of Senators (105) and the average nationwide population per Senator (301,075.2 based on the Canada 2006 Census total population of 31,612,897). This should make Quebec's proportional share more explicitly understandable as the next closest are Manitoba with 191,400.2 and Ontario with 506,678.4. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

So, some people and even two parties (NDP and Bloc Quebecois) want the Senate to be abolished. But what would the chamber and associated offices be used for after abolition?

Check out how much space the federal government leases from the private sector. Surely we could store some dusty old papers or museum quality items there instead ... oh wait ... we already do...>GRIN<Garth of the Forest (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Very funny... I assume the Chamber would be turned into some kind of museum or into a committee and protocolar room just like the Salon rouge in the Parliament of Québec. The buildings that belong to the Senate would be used for other governemental purpose I guess they would probably be used by the Lower House or the Library.--RXcanadensis (talk) 04:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

What reason is there to list Bert Brown as a "Senator-in-waiting" rather than "Senator-elect"? Was he not elected? Giamberardino 02:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

There was an election, but it has no legal backing to it. The Crown can just ignore the results if they want. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The practice to "elect" senators in my home province of Alberta is just a partisan bargaining chip used to appeal to the masses of "anti-Ottawa" lemmings out here that would vote Conservative even if their riding association nominated a fencepost to send to Ottawa. In reality, until there is a constitutional amendment, senators in Canada are and will continue to be appointed by Her Majesty the Queen (or, in her absence from the country, Her Majesty's representative the Governor General, on the advice of Her prime minister). The only way we will see a truly elected senate and some true form of democracy is when we finally shed the last trappings of colonialism and become a republic or some similar modern structure. In my opinion, it is long over due for Canadians to give the Queen and her inbred German future spawn the heave ho. However I doubt this will happen in my lifetime or my children's lifetime. Garth of the Forest (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Image:Can-pol w.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

The seat chart shows 10 vacancies, yet the smaller chart says 12. What gives? Also, the Liberal seats don't add up. GoodDay 18:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The seating plan is from February, while the chart is up to date. The correct number of vacancies is 12.PoliSciMaster 20:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can anybody add to this article, PM Harper's threat of dissolving Parliament (thus precipitating a Federal Election) if the Senate fails to pass his 'Crime Bill'? I wasn't aware that the PM could do so. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The prime minister can advise the governor general to dissolve Parliament for any reason (or even for no given reason). Generally, the governor general is expected to oblige. --thirty-seven (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Very interesting. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

As Thirty-seven has advised, in the Westminster style of parliament, the government can dissolve itself at any time ("resign"), however it risks being punished in the general election if it does so for frivolous reasons, hence all the political posturing. The government of the day will typically only do so if it is defeated on a confidence motion or budget bill, or, in the case of a majority government, if it is nearing the end of its current mandate. Canada has had very few minority governments in the past 100 years or so, we in the prairies in particular have grown accustomed to sending our fenceposts - er, I mean - representatives - to Ottawa every 4 or 5 years or so, and when something as boring as a general election is brought to the forefront in the news more frequently than that, western Canadians tend to get grumpy and punish those they feel were responsible for reminding us of our democratic responsibilities. Most of us are too busy spending money we don't have to be bothered with something so mundane as exercising our democratic responsibilities. (removing tongue-from-cheek...) Garth of the Forest (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

It might seem an odd question but why is it called a senate and not a house of lords? is it just because they didn't want the members to become lords?(Morcus (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC))Reply

Canada does not have peers, so there were no Lords to put in it.PoliSciMaster (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The American Upper House is and was at the time of Confederation called the "Senate". As there were no other names for an upper chamber than House of Lords and Senate, they used Senate because there is no form of nobility in Canada except for the Royal family. Plus the name "Senate" has roots in Ancient Rome. They could have make up a word though.--RXcanadensis (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

There were, in fact, more than two names they could have chosen. The Province of Canada's upper house was called the Legislative Council, for example, and there were a few other names along that line. They probably just chose the name because it has cool historical roots. It might also be because the Senate was meant to give regional representation, like the US Senate. If someone was willing to read through the transcript of the Confederation debates we could probably find the real answer. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

What, if anything, can it do between the dissolution and the election (or, perhaps, the swearing-in) of the House of Commons? I assume that all senators are still senators - but what is the senate right now (10-Sep-08)? IIRC, in Japan, if there is an emergency during an election period, the upper house can legislate, although such legislation requires post-election ratification. In the USA, the House of Representatives is never really dissolved - instead, the congress simply turns over on its appointed day. So, in our case, if, say, Lithuania or Lesotho or the Vatican declared war on Canada, what, if anything, could the Senate do about it? And, if it did do something, what could the new Commons do after the election?Jacques A55 (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

When Parliament is dissolved, the Senate ceases as a deliberative assembly, but as you correctly point out, Senators remain Senators. Two of its committees, namely the Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee, and the Committee on Conflict of Interest are granted an inter-sessional authority that allows them to deal with business in between sessions and parliaments. What does not end is the executive. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet remain in office until their successors are sworn in. Were there to be an emergency such as war, it would be handled by the executive. No legislative authority is required to go to war.PoliSciMaster (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, as you said the Prime Minister and his Cabinet remain in office. Declaring war is a privilege exclusive to the Crown. Also, in case of extraordinary emergency the Governor General is still there and could constitutionally deal with the situation.--RXcanadensis (talk) 05:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Unlike the House of Commons, the Senate has no effect in the decision to end the term of the prime minister or of the government. Only the Commons may force the prime minister to tender his resignation, or to recommend the dissolution of Parliament and issue of election writs, by passing a motion of no-confidence or by withdrawing supply. Thus, the Senate's oversight of the government is limited.

On several pages, most notably Talk:1975 Australian constitutional crisis (and related articles), I've seen it asserted that the Canadian Senate does actually have the power to block supply (being based on the pre 1911 House of Lords) and in theory use it to bring down the government, a la the Australian Dismissal, though given its appointed nature the political reality is likely that it wouldn't happen and if it did the Senate would get its head handed to it and the PM would never come in for criticism the way Whitlam did. (The Australian Senate is elected, although on a "each state has the same number" basis, and one of the big issues of the 1975 crisis was appointed casual vacancy replacements altering the balance from that elected.) Has there ever been any clarity on the Supply question in Canada or does it remain a never-used power? Timrollpickering (talk) 11:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

== 17 or 20 vacancies =+

According to the Toronto Star, PM Harper will be filling the 18 vacancies in the Senate. Why does this article show 20 vacancies? GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I found the problem. The Senate graph is showing 107 seats (instead of 105). GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have done a switch of sentences in the section Senators that talks about representation. The previous phrase started by assessing BC, Alta. and Ont are under-represented. I don't know why the phrase should start by this sentence. The Senate is not constituted for rep-by-pop. It was sounded like criticism of the representation itself. For this article, the argument that BC, Alta. and Ont are under-represented has to be placed in party positions section below.

Senator Lavigne goes on trial tomorrow. Section 31(4) of the Constitution Act, 1867 says, "The Place of a Senator shall become vacant...[i]f he is attainted of Treason or convicted of Felony or of any infamous Crime." Taken alone, that would suggest that Lavigne's seat would become vacant immediately upon his conviction if were indeed convicted. However, Senate Rule 141 says a senator convicted of "a criminal offence in proceedings by indictment" is suspended until either the conviction is overturned on appeal or the Senate declares the whether the seat shall become vacant.

The Rule appears to contradict the Constitution Act. I could make an argument that the Constitution Act is vague enough to allow for the Rule, but I don't buy it. Does anyone know whether these provisions have been used before? -Rrius (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Section 31(4) of the Constitution Act, 1867, has to be read in conjunction with s.18, which confirms the privileges of the two houses. Traditionally, those privileges have included the right to discipline its members. Now, let's come back to s.31(4). What is a "felony" or "infamous crime"? These are antiquated terms that are essentially undefined in Canadian law. So really what the rule is doing is putting an obligation on the Senate to make a determination as to whether a particular conviction on indictment constitutes a "felony" or "infamous crime."PoliSciMaster (talk) 05:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Let's take as proved, for the moment, that the Senate has some ability to decide when a senator's conviction is for a felony or infamous crime. That still does not answer where this delaying provision comes from, which—along with how the Senate has dealt with convictions before—is what I'm most interested because of Sen. Lavigne.. Section 31 says the "Place of a Senator shall become vacant" upon the happening of one of the listed events. If the choice is the Senate's, where does the right to delay that choice until expiration of appeals come from? It cannot be seriously argued that appeals were unknown in the mid-19th century.

Coming back to its being the Senate's choice, s.18 must be read together with s.31(4). If the intent was to allow the Senate to expel its members in the event of conviction, bankruptcy, etc., s.31 would have been unnecessary. What's more, the section could have been written to say "the Senate shall determine" or "the Senate shall declare" or in some other way put the situation in the Senate's jurisdiction. Rather, it says the seat "shall be come vacant". I have a great deal of difficulty believing that there is enough play in that language to allow the Senate to unilaterally keep the power to appoint a new senator out of the Crown's hands more or less indefinitely.

Also, "felony or other infamous crime" may not currently be a defined term in Canadian law, but it was certainly understood in the Anglo-Canadian law of the 19th century. Indeed, the term is widely used in the constitutions of various US states as well as the statutes of several. Undoubtedly, the Senate Rule's use of "indictable offense" is an appropriate equivalent, but it doesn't seem reasonable that the drafters assumed the Senate would have the power to determine, especially on an ad hoc basis, what that means. Finally, even if the definition were left open, it is not at all clear that the Senate is the entity with the power to provide one. The likeliest candidate is the Crown. That is because, under the framework as actually written, the person who next after the conviction has a role is the process is the Crown, who is obliged, "when a Vacancy happens", to summon a replacement.

In any event, are you aware of any previous senators who have been convicted while in office? -Rrius (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, it is far more complicated than you present. You are reading 31(4) in a vaccuum, ignoring s.18, and indeed the preamble of the Constitution which establishes that our constitution is both written and unwritten. The ancient privileges of parliament are one of those unwritten elements of our constitution that is frequently misunderstood. I would write more, but I do not have the time, and I may start boring people.

And yes, "felony or infamous crime" were indeed known concepts in our system at one point, but only briefly and they were hardly well defined even then. Former Senator Hays wrote a paper in a recent issue of the Canadian Parliamentary Review where he wrote about updating antiquated provisions of the constitution in relation to the Senate, and he addressed those two terms. Of felonies he wrote "Generally speaking, in 1867 felonies were graver crimes perhaps punishable with death resulting in the forfeiture of the perpetrator’s lands and goods to the Crown." As to infamous crimes he wrote, "The concept of an “infamous crime” found in subsection 31(4) is even harder to translate into modern circumstances, but generally speaking it is likely to be associated with a disability such as an inability to hold office. Crimes involving public fraud or the corruption of public justice or public administration tend to be classed as infamous crimes." It seems clear that neither term can be directly translated to equal "indictable" offence.

Finally, you asked for a specific example of a senator who has been convicted while in office, and we only need go back 10 years to find Eric Berntson, who was convicted of fraud in 1999. He resigned his seat a full two years later when the Supreme Court denied his appeal. Going further back we have Albert Planta, who also resigned his seat and appears to have waited until he began serving his sentence.PoliSciMaster (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Of course I disagree with your entire first paragraph: I am not reading 31 in a vacuum; rather, I don't assume that 18 magically inserts "when and if the Senate says so" into it. As to the scope of crimes included, "felonies" extended to rather more than murder, treason, and rape, which is what the explanation you provide would suggest. I suppose we should end this here because we are straying from the particle of this discussion that was related to improving the article. That is, given those precedents, should the article be amended from paraphrasing the Constitution Act to include what actually happens? -Rrius (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Two editors (who may actually be one IP editor who logged in) have added a table stating who appointed how many of the current senators. It is my opinion that this is too specific for this article, which is about the Senate of Canada overall, including its history, procedure, and constitutional role. The table is more relevant to articles and lists about the composition of the Senate and to the articles about specific parliaments (e.g., List of senators in the 40th Parliament of Canada). The information is already included in the specific list I linked to and to List of current Canadian senators, List of current Canadian senators by age, each of the lists of senators by province (e.g., List of British Columbia senators), each of the alphabetical listings of senators (e.g., List of Members of the Canadian Senate (G)), and (of course) List of Canadian Senate appointments by Prime Minister. This information is already available elsewhere on Wikipedia, and there is no good reason for its repetition here. -Rrius (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

These same editors think party ID is to their list, but what they ignore is that the party IDs they are providing do reflect the party IDs at the time of appointment. If there is any value to listing on this page how many of the current senators were appointed by each prime minister, that value does not extend to the party identification of those senators. It is simply not important to someone seeking basic information about the Senate of Canada. What's more, even if the party breakdown were important, surely the party identification of the senator at the time of appointment, not the current one, is the relevant one. Of course, the whole table should be deleted anyway. -Rrius (talk) 03:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Two editors: yes that was me, I forgot to log on when I started working. The table is relevant, perhaps it could be moved to a different page. Although all the information included in the table is available on other wiki pages, the information is not organized in this way: a statistical table showing both the Appointer and Current Party of Appointee. The party affiliation of senators is current, taken directly from the senate portion of the website of the Parliament of Canada. This information is very significant. It adds to the depth of analysis of the chamber, even if that analysis is casual. Readers can and will infer their own conclusions from the data. As for the heading of the table, I concede that using a colon is not standard procedure. However, I do think that “Appointments” is ambiguous; it serves its function but it could stand to be changed. My formatting skills are novice. Your edit was severe in that it removed the majority of the data: party affiliation. A more diplomatic edit would have been to have simply reworked the coding to improve the visual composition of the table. I wanted to make all the columns the same width, but I don’t know how. My priority is content. Alex.garofolo (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)/Reply

If you actually read what I wrote, I said it is not relevant to this article. Given its replication around the lists, I don't see a compelling reason for a new list, but it would make far more sense to make a new one modeled on v or even add it to that one than to keep it here. It is too much detail for an article like this. As for the heading, I recognize that mine wasn't perfect, but part of that is because the table doesn't belong here. In any event, it was better that what was started with. As for the severity of the edits, if you actually look through my edits step-by-step, you'll see that I made a clean version of the table (one superior to the one there now) before deleting the party information. All you had to do was revert to that point, rather than than reverting all of my edits. So I did make the more diplomatic edit you requested before paring it down to what I thought was the most relevant information to this article. If you want help making this chart into a stand-alone article, we can move it to your user space and work on formatting and the like together. Just let me know. -Rrius (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

This table contains information that is standard on other general wiki-pages for legislative bodies. The general/overview pages of many such pages include a table with results of the most recent election. As an appointed body, the Canadian Senate cannot have such a table, thus the data that lists the appointees by their appointers is equivalent. The page List of Canadian Senate appointments by Prime Minister shows total amount of senators appointed by each Prime Minister based on party at time of appointment. It lists an NDP senator for instance; that Senator sits as a Liberal because the NDP does not recognize the validity of appointed Senators. It does not show that 7 of the current 100 Senators were appointed by Trudeau, it shows that Trudeau appointed 81 Senators. Lastly, the parts of the table that deal with vacant seats must be revised so that the numbers add up. The column of Senators (in bold) should add up to 105, and the bottom row should add up to 105. Thus, we should either: create a Vacant row at the bottom; or, remove the Vacancy info altogether. Alex.garofolo (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Who appointed whom is not the equivalent of prior election results. In fact, the composition table is the closest to what you are talking about. As to List of Canadian Senate appointments by Prime Minister, I again have to caution you to read what I actually wrote. I said you could either develop a new article based on it or add your table to that page. I said I would help you develop it, but it does not belong here. -Rrius (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

You are being subjective: you typed that “is my opinion that this is too specific for this article.” While holding and expressing your opinion is, of course, valid and constitutionally protected, I can back up my own opinion with actual points that constitute a valid argument. An Appointments table and recent election table are not exactly the same thing, yes; the Canadian Senate is not an elected body. But what these two types of tables have in common is that they show how the Senators got to the Senate: by either a plurality of votes cast, or by appointment on the advice of whichever Prime Minster. This table shows the latter, of course, but serves to relate the Canadian Senate to other legislative bodies, specifically the elected ones. If you are of the opinion that the appointments table is too specific for this page, perhaps the electoral results tables are too specific for the overview pages of their respective houses. The main page for the Senate of the USA has an election results table. Based on your opinion, I would infer that “The table is more relevant to articles and lists about the composition of the Senate and to the articles about specific [legislative bodies].” So this table should remain. Also, regarding your change to Non-Aligned. ("non-A" is not clear unless you already know Cools is not aligned with any party) By that extension, Liberal is unclear unless you can name each sitting member of the Liberal Caucus. Any reader who looks at the information directly above this table and read reference number 4. The three “grey” seats are listed Independent and Non-Aligned throughout the rest of the page; both terms are used by Elections Canada. Of course as an appointed body, the Senate does not pass thru Elections Canada, but it is best to use established wording, rather than just making up “other.” No table like this exists elsewhere on wikipedia. The information is all contained in wikipedia, but nowhere is it collected, organized and presented in such a way. Alex.garofolo (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

You are mixing points. A table saying who appointed whom is not the equivalent of a recent election table. Full stop. The nearest equivalent is a current composition table, which is already included. To prove that, let's look at the nearest equivalent of your table for the House of Commons. Instead of being a recent election table, it would list general elections along the y-axis and parties along the x-axis. That is simple, undeniable fact. The clearest equivalent to a recent election list is what they have at the 41st Canadian federal election, which shows the party breakdown in the Senate on the last election day. Since the chamber isn't elected, it isn't important to show any such thing. The Senate is a continuous body, so the only important information to convey about its membership is the current composition.

Your point about "non-a" is just ridiculous. "Non-a" is not a standard term. Most people, including 90-some percent of Canadians would have no idea what "Non-a" refers to. My point about Cools is that "non-a" only has meaning if you already know before you look at the table that Cools is listed by the Senate as "non-aligned" The fact that the term exists elsewhere is not compelling because tables need to be understandable without reading the prose.

I'm not sure why you continue to argue that no table like this exists on Wikipedia. Similar ones do exist, and to the extent one is necessary, I have pledged to help you either add it as a stand-alone article or as an addition to a more clearly related article.

Finally, I challenge you to explain why it is necessary for something as detailed as how many Tories were appointed by Trudeau belongs on the generic Senate page rather than on a subpage. That is the crux of why I think the party ID information does not belong here, and you have failed repeatedly to make any attempt to explain that beyond the false argument that it is kind of like a recent election list. -Rrius (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

“This table lists how many senators were appointed by each prime minister and the current affiliation of those senators.” This is not an accurate title for this table because, for instance, Pierre Trudeau appointed 81 Senators. This table shows that of the current Senators, 7 were appointed by Trudeau. The two preceding sentences state different information. Current must appear twice in this sentence, otherwise its implications are misleading. It is semantics, but it is worthwhile on an encyclopedia page. I hope that you will accept these points amd allow for the table to stand as is. Alex.garofolo (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

The addition of the word "current" was not necessary to note on the talk page; however, I will say the need to repeat the words "current" and "senator" in such a short sentence is not a good sign. I'd also note that the wording was yours, I just deleted the first sentence, which was odd in light of the fact that the table above it is the actual "table showing current composition of the Senate by party affiliation". The rest of the information was simply superfluous. -Rrius (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

On second thought, I don't give a flying fuck anymore because no one seems to care about this formerly featured article anymore, so go ahead and add whatever irrelevant notes and other tidbits you want with whatever level of care in writing you choose to employ. I'm not saying this to antagonize you; I just don't care anymore and want you to know that you have free-reign to do whatever you want without worrying about my reverting you. -Rrius (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is good that you are giving up, Rius, because for every question you ask me, my answer is included in my preceding statements. You are right about one thing: that Non-A is too ambiguous. It should read No Affiliation. Alex.garofolo (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am finally coming back to this page, and that is just false: in fact, I am tempted to say your answer to a challenge was never in a preceding statement. If you genuinely believe that, you either didn't understand or your "answers" were just stupid or non-responsive. -Rrius (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

By the way, you say that my view is merely subjective, by so is yours. You think the table is analogous to a recent election chart. That is opinion, and entirely dependent on your view point. I challenge you to take a step back and explain why it is important to know how many of total number of, say, Martin appointees are currently Liberals. Moreover, I challenge you to explain why that is relevant to the general article about the Senate. You keep drawing the analogy to other legislative bodies, but that is not an answer. That assumes both that election summary tables are relevant and that whatever makes them relevant to those articles applies here. I reject that. So far you have provided no basis other than a muddled notion about showing how members got to the body. It is not at all clear why party identification is relevant to that. A two-column table showing the PM and the total number of current senators appoint by him would do the same job. Your table tries to cobble together various bits of information without clearly identifying a benefit from doing so. Despite several attempts to get at an explanation from you, again, you have also failed to identify why, even if there is some value to the information being cobbled together, how it relates to this article. Instead, you have explained, in essence, that you want it to be like an elected body. It isn't though. The most similar body to it is the House of Lords, which does not have a similar table. You are trying to mix a cherry and an orange to make an apple, and with similar results: a mess. -Rrius (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Senator Anne Cools is not a member of any party or caucus, nor is she classed as an independent. The official Senate website has a period beside her name where party affiliation would otherwise be. This wikipage has at least 4 terms to refer to her, not including the period. That is low quality. One term should be chosen and used exclusively. Elections Canada (which doesn't oversee this appointed Senate) uses the term No Affiliation to refer to candidates/members who are in the position of Anne Cools, that is they are not a member of a party and they are not classed as an Independent. I am not sure which terms is used within the Senate. I mention the term No Affiliation becuz, altho it has no legal basis and (to my knowledge) no customary basis either in the Senate, it is in use in some capacity in Ottawa. The terms Unaligned, Non-Aligned and Other are not used. As an encyclopedic page, this should have only one term used to refer to the affiliation (or lack thereof) of Senator Cools.Alex.garofolo (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is not important to find one word and stick with it. The only thing we really have to do is be careful that we don't use the term "independent" since she inexplicably shuns that term. In addition to using blank spaces, the Senate also uses "no political affiliation". The two tables we have both use notes to explain her, so it just doesn't seem necessary. If we insist on a specific term, we'll need some basis for choosing one and rejecting the others, and there simply is no such basis. It is annoying that Cools rejects labels, but that's what he have to deal with. In any event, if you really think we need a consistent term for the two tables, how about "None"? I object to using Elections Canada as a guide because the Senate is not elected and because senators are allowed to choose their own party label, which is why the PC senators can still use that term even though there aren't enough of them to form a party group and Lavigne can still call himself a Liberal despite being expelled from the caucus. -Rrius (talk) 05:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

"It is not important to find one word and stick with it." You reject consistency in an encyclopaedic article? Your suggestion “None” is a good proposal but leaves us hanging: None of what? We can say Party Affiliation: None, but that cotext does not always occur on this page. To select a specific term, we do need some basis for choosing one at the expense of others. Elections Canada is not an ideal basis becuz, as we hav noted, the Senate is not elected. However, the Senators, once appointed, choose the party with which they best identify and those parties are registered with Elections Canada. The parties within the Senate do fit into some legal aspects of the electoral system, but not the central component of the electoral system: elections. // Do you have proof that Senator Cools actually rejects labels? Perhaps a label could be 'Anne Cools.' That has a basis: her name. I like the sound of Non-Aligned but i can’t back it up with any points. Using the Elections Canada ‘No Affiliation’ term would be consistent with existing terminology that pertains to the legislative system in Canada. I was just looking at the official website of the senate for some clarity. They have Senator Cools listed in Standings in the Senate (no tables) as ------ and in Current Senators and their biographies (with tables) there is simply nothing in her table. This is inconsistent, but this is an issue of aesthetics and formatting. On a page with tables, you can leave a box blank, on a page without tables, a blank space could be confusing. It is similar to the suggested use of “None” in that it’s clarity is based on the environment in which the label is physically written. An encyclopaedic page should be consistent becuz otherwise it is misleading and looks sloppy. There is enough criticism levied against Wikipedia becuz its content and editing are undertaking by anyone, regardless of qualifications. The least we could do is make it look like we are trying.Alex.garofolo (talk) 05:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I certainly reject consistency for consistency's sake. There is no official name for what she is, so we shouldn't pretend there is. You keep pushing "No Affiliation" (which the capitals make seem official), but that is something that pertains to House elections, not to affiliation within the Senate. I mentioned that the Senate also describes her with the phrase "no political affiliation". I cannot see how inconsistency between the precise language used in tables could be construed as misleading. What exactly is the mistaken belief one could be led to? The reason your appointers table should have a different term is because aesthetically it looks better with a shorter heading. Having a 14-character heading for a column with 1 character of data looks terrible. That is only exacerbated by the relative brevity of the other headers in the table. Many of the standings tables call her "unaligned", and I would have no objection to making the main standings table say that, but I do object to using any of the longer terms for your table. "Other" or "None" are best. If people can't figure out that that refers to party when the introduction to the table says it is by party and when the other columns say "Con.", "Lib.", etc., then they are too stupid to bother with. -Rrius (talk) 05:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Abbreviated or short names are best for tables, that is for sure. 'no affiliation' doesnt have to be capitalized, unless it begins a sentence. Senators require recognition of the lower house parties: for instance there was a senator who wanted to sit as NDP, but the NDP would not recognize the affiliation (or alignment) of an unelected senator with the party. 'Other' usually applies to "also ran" candidates in elections. 'Non Aligned' is not a widely used term, but is significant in relation to the Non Aligned Movement. "I certainly reject consistency for consistency's sake." Really? Whether or not people are misled, the page's content on this topic has a sloppiness to it. We are not trying to pick a label for Senator Cools herself, only a term for an encyclopedia page to refer to her political leanings as a Senator. If you "certainly reject consistency for consistency's sake" then perhaps an encyclopedia-related hobby is not ideally suited for you.Alex.garofolo (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Where on earth do you get the idea that unthinking consistency somehow equals "encyclopedic"? I am not urging inconsistency for inconsistency's sake, but where other concerns exist, I am not going to ignore them in favour of consistency. I have already said that using the same term in the infobox and the broader standings table makes sense, but the space considerations with your table make a short term more desirable than a consistent one. Now, please refrain from impugning my fitness for the project. Arguments like that are unhelpful, and—at the very—least border on personal attack. -Rrius (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was just looking at this official senate webpage: <http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/senmemb/senate/ps-e.htm> it shows the party standings in the chamber. There is a vacancy in NB. Upon further investigation i found that this year, Harper nominated only 4 senators, not 5. If this is the case, then much of the information on this wikipage is off by 1 senator.Alex.garofolo (talk) 05:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, he nominated 5, but the 5th won't officially receive a summons until the 28th, but still before the State Opening. I wasn't going to be bothered about correcting the various standings around WP after someone had already included all 5, but if you want to change it, let me know and I'll change the map. -Rrius (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

The 28th is just a week away, i don't see any point to changing the page to 104 for 7 days only. The only info i found was on the Senate page itself and it was just stats. I didn't find anything this in the news. Good work on finding some info. Alex.garofolo (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Prior to 1968, Senate investigated requests for divorce. This happened because there was not a divorce law, so only legislative divorce existed. I think it would be great to mention it in the History section, but I do not know enough things so as to do it. I ask anyone who knows about it to write such lines. --85.57.68.9 (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

New senators were appointed today. I updated the party counts, but I can't for the life of me figure out how to edit the image to match so I informed Rrius via his talk page.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/01/06/pol-new-senators.html Grandmartin11 (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Done, but only six of the seven were actually appointed today. The PMO press release makes it clear Dagenais's appointment will be later. -Rrius (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

This article suggest at least one other appintment (Vern White) isn't effective immediately either. http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120106/OTT-vern-white-senate-appointment-120106/20120106/?hub=OttawaHome — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjww88 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I can find nothing in this article in its current form that clearly articulates what exactly the Senate's function is. Why does it exist? What does it do? Shouldn't this be spelled out front an center? This article appears loaded with intimation and implication from paragraph-1, and doesn't answer any of the obvious questions, say, a child would ask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.128.178 (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

The function of the Senate is covered in the section "Legislative Function". Mediatech492 (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed a recent addition to the intro paragraph about the cost of the Senate. I feel like this is a slightly opinionated piece, and may not belong in the intro, so I'm tempted to delete it or move it. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radix838 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

It appears the seat table in the infobox has been changed to refer to the Liberals as independents. As I understand it they are still Liberals, they just aren't in the Liberal caucus. At the very least, could a footnote be added to the table noting that most (32?) of the independent senators are in fact members of the Liberal party? TastyCakes (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

The official Senate website lists the Senators as Liberals though with a note that they are independent of the National Liberal caucus. 130.63.184.19 (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Parliament website listed them as independents yesterday, but reverted to calling them Liberals today. Maybe we should use a label like "Liberal (unaffiliated)". —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think we should follow the official Parliament source and call them Liberals. According to this source, "the rules of the Senate allow senators to designate themselves as they please" so what the Liberal Party says doesn't really have any bearing on their affiliation. However, I don't object to some sort of qualification. What about "Liberal (Senate caucus)"? That's what James Cowan has suggested: [4]. TDL (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Until the official Senate standings at http://www.parl.gc.ca/SenatorsMembers/Senate/PartyStandings/ps-E.htm say otherwise there are 32 Liberal Senators. Downwoody (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

They can self-designate as Liberals, but the fact that they are not in the official Liberal Party caucus is very encyclopedicly notable. Calling them simply "Liberal" without prominent note explaining the situation would be misleading. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

We should probably centralize this discussion. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada#Liberal senators' designation. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

There was some kind of decision about party colours reached re the pre-1903 designations in the BC Legislature; there was various Independent Conservatives and Liberal Independents and such; usually indicating, I think, that the person in question was a member of one of those parties but not there in a caucus capacity (there were no party caucuses in the BC Leg before 1903). Sometimes I think those designations and similar were because the person identified as a Con/Lib but was emphasizing their independence, either from the national party (as there were no provincial parties) or from the Government or Opposition caucuses). In the current situation, it's not like those Grit Senators are no longer Liberals, it's only that there is no caucus in the Senate.... they are not bona fide Independents with a capital-I.Skookum1 (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

How was Lillian Dyck Referred to by this article when she was an unaffiliated NDP Senator? That would seem the reasonable precedence 24.87.81.186 (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

How come the Conservatives have 57 seats? This looks very random to me. What is the reason behind the number of senatorial seats of a political party? Komitsuki (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

There is no reason nor rhyme to what the Senate is or what the numbers are; it's a house of patronage and reflects whims of the government of the day and those that came before it; there is supposed to be some kind of seat/province allocation but it's very loose. No electoral equation prevails....and Reason is not the way politics works. Especially not in the Canadian Senate.Skookum1 (talk)

It's pretty simple: When Senators retire, die, or are removed from office because they no longer meet the eligibility requirements, the Prime Minister of the day has the prerogative to advise the Governor General to appoint whomever he or she wishes as replacements. The Governor General typically agrees to any recommendations the Prime Minister makes. (But in theory the GG could choose different appointees, or could choose to delay appointing any replacements.) If the Prime Minister is Conservative, then he or she is most likely (but not necessarily required) to recommend Conservatives.24.222.2.222 (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I believe the part about Alberta Senators is incorrect. Five Senators-in-waiting have been appointed. Unless I'm wrong?

MarkFizz (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Added some statistics on rejected bills since 2010. Also modified the introductory text about the "rarely rejects" bills, for 2 reasons:

1. Rarely is a subjective term. 2 bills per year could be deemed a lot. 2. Statistically, the number of rejected bills is increasing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.172.239 (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Today the members of the Senate advisory board (to recommend new Senators) were named, and I was looking for a page that listed them all, and maybe included a brief bio. Can we add one? http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-senate-advisory-board-1.3410090 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.211.131 (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well we need to discuss the appointments but there are too many to list them all or to add bios for all of them. This group is just part of a process so not sure how important names are. The media are mainly discussing what provinces they are from.

"The independent advisory board on Senate appointments will be chaired by Huguette Labelle, a former deputy minister in various federal departments and former chancellor of the University of Ottawa. She'll be joined by two other permanent members: McGill University dean of law Daniel Jutras and former University of Alberta president Indira Samarasekera.The government has also named two ad hoc members from each of the three provinces -- Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba -- whose vacant Senate seats are to be filled first." http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/two-manitoba-mps-appointed-to-senate-advisory-committee-1.2743690

I added a section about this. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why was the article edited to reflect the appointment of the seven names announced by the PM today? Not a single one has been appointed yet. The announcement from the PM was that he intends to recommend their names to the GG for appointment. That certainly merits mention, but lists, numbers and individual pages, etc. should not reflect appointment until the appointments have actually been made. PoliSciMaster (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

They are not elected they are appointed by the prime minister They can remain in office til they are 75 years old The PM tries to appoint people who are in favor of his/her party Only a few of the senate seats can remain vacant Senators represent the interests and rights of canada’s regions They also represent the interests and rights of canada’s minorities Senator are appointed by region There are three regions: maritimes, ontario, quebec but there were more added later They can propose laws but usually only bills The senate gives “sober second thought” The senate cannot propose laws that create or use taxes They have the power to reject bills The bill cannot become law until the house of commons and the senate pass it Many people say that the senate is ineffective Senate makes sure that all voices are heard on the issues Has 105 members They investigate national issues The senate has not dropped a bill since 1939 Doesn't make amendments

The Senate is modelled after the British House of Lords and consists of 105 members appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Seats are assigned on a regional basis: four regions—defined as Ontario, Quebec, the Maritime provinces, and the Western provinces—each receive 24 seats, with the remaining portions of the country—Newfoundland and Labrador and the three northern territories—assigned the remaining 9 seats apart from these regional divisions.

Senators may serve until they reach the age of 75.

The term of appointment properly belongs immediately after the sentence discussing appointment, otherwise the political magnitude of the appointment is left hanging, especially for non-Canadians, who might have no prior opinion, and completely different political models.

The third sentence quoted here isn't even a full statement of term, as it essentially states the converse, that "no Senator may serve after the age of 75", while specifying nothing about conditions arising before then, though it does seem to imply that a Senator can voluntarily choose to step down at any time (through another piggyback shade of "may" smuggled in through this ambiguous door).

Is there a dis-appointment process of any kind, or is the position effectively a life sinecure? Not stated.

Note also that the entrancing second sentence is where attention sneaks off to smoke a joint under a dark entrance ramp. We're already halfway down the homespun "9:30 in Newfoundland" rabbit hole, while the basic concept has yet to be fully fleshed out. — MaxEnt 19:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Per WP:BETTER#SIZE, at 84,147 bytes this article is too long, period. Further, it doesn't contain enough information about what the senate actually does today, and how it came into being. It does contain a lot of unreferenced information in the "Chamber and symbols" and the "Senators" section, as well as a lengthy section on Procedure, which is entirely unreferenced. The history section, which mostly contains a well-referenced discussion of failed senate reform, contains too much detail for a general article and should either be deleted or moved to a separate History of the Senate of Canada article. While ostensibly well referenced the article contains a lot of links that redirect to home pages. Thoughts? --Cornellier (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Since there hasn't been any comment, I'm working on consolidating some info in this article. E.g. the "vacancies" section could be merged into the appointment section. Also info from the Reform section could be put there, e.g. Trudeau's changes to the appointment process which do not constitute reform per se. Other info can be moved to History. --Cornellier (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

In May, 2019, The Globe and Mail revealed that Trudeau used a partisan database called "Liberalist" in order to vet all of his senate appointments, which contradicts Trudeau's claim that his appointments were non-partisan.referece: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-pmo-confirms-use-partisan-database-liberalist-to-vet-prospective/

Removed ref tag from URL above so it doesn't appear at the bottom of the talk page. Anyway, I can't view the reference since I don't have subscription. A non-subscription reference is always preferred. --Cornellier (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

If my addition is correct isn't it 60 (not 59) independent senators with the appointment of Tony Loffreda? Cheers--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Not sure what's meant by affiliation here. The article says there are nine "Liberal" senators. "Liberal" links via a bit of a WP:EASTER to Senate Liberal Caucus which states that "The caucus is not formally affiliated to or recognized by the Liberal Party". So are we saying they're both affiliated and not affiliated? --Cornellier (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the affiliation I am referring to is how they register with the Senate. Of course, the Senate Liberals are a unique case because they remain Liberal Party members, but are not part of the Liberal Party Parliamentary caucus in the House of Commons (unlike the Conservatives). It is not really WP:EASTER because there is a footnote next to it which explains. That is all besides the point though. My edit did not affect the Liberal numbers. It was to add a Independent Senators Group member, Tony Loffreda. And make that table consistent with the one in the article here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Tony Loffreda is non-affiliated and not in the ISG. Source https://sencanada.ca/en/senators-list/ . There are two kinds of independent Senators in the Senate, members of the ISG, and non-affiliated. Until the official senate page shows that Tony Loffreda joined the ISG (if he wishes to do so), he is a non-affiliated senator and not an ISG senator. I have corrected the standings. DeCoolRuler (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi everyone,

I've restored the Template:Canadian party colour transcluded template in the "Current composition" and Infobox of this article. At Template talk:Canadian party colour, we're currently discussing updating the colour for Progressive Senate Group.

Similarly, at commons:File talk:Senate of Canada - Seating Plan (42nd Parliament).svg, I've initiated an RfC discussion to look into updating the Senate seating chart.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 21:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm asking this here because the above-captioned image file, kindly updated and/or originally created by administrator Arctic.gnome, is hosted on the Commons whereby the talkpages seem to be seldom watched.

Great work on updating this seating plan, Arctic.gnome. : )

Some questions (below transcluded copy of seating plan):

1. Are the 105 individual boxes (seats) inclusive of the Speaker's chair? If so, I think we should update the Speaker's chair to light grey for non-affiliated and reduce one of the four grey chairs to, presumably, white/vacant.
2. Where are the 5 vacant seats? This does not need to be an exact seating plan of where each Senator will sit, as we don't know that yet and the Senate provides such a seating plan; however, I think we should update 5 of the (presumably) ISG seats to reflect their vacant status. Note, too, that even when nominated by the Prime Minister, there is usually a time lag of 1-2 months from the appointment effective date. So, it's likely these seats will be vacant through most of the winter months.
3. Semi-related question for GoodDay, do you know, off-hand, if the individual Senator article pages' infoboxes specify their appointment or nomination date? I know the office parameters say "assumed office," but just wondering if anyone's ever verified that we've used the correct date and not the date on which the PM first put out a press release of the nomination.

Friendly pings: Kawnhr and MikkelJSmith2, who may or may not wish to be apprised of this discussion.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 19:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the seating matches the numbers. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

GoodDay, Okay, I just counted them and all, and it almost matches except for two seats; however, the colours for Independent Senators Group are off by five. The five in the top left corner should be updated to white; the Speaker should be updated to light grey; one of the light grey seats should be updated to purple for the ISG; and the two seats directly below the Speaker's chair should be deleted. Doug Mehus T·C 21:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yup, the File image does need corrections. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think we need @Bearcat:'s participation, here. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

To be perfectly honest, I'm not entirely sure that the seating chart has any value at all, if we're not committing to keeping it updated or actually marking it for what specific seat any individual senator sits in. If we're just using it as a very general visual representation of caucus standings, could we not just find some other way to do that? Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Bearcat, True. To Arctic.gnome's credit, he does seem to updating it semi-regularly; however, with Senators retiring, usually upon their 75th birthday, every 3-4 months for the foreseeable future, we'll need to either update it more regularly or just provide a generic approximation (i.e., not delineated by seat).

Side comment: With more than 75 Senators now being "independent" and non-whipped Senators, we may not even need the colour coding except for prettiness. Doug Mehus T·C 23:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dmehus, vacant seats are accidentally shown as ISG; I'll try to fix that. But I'm not sure whether to change the speaker's seat. Notice on the published seating charts for the last parliament by the House and Senate, the Senate shows the Speaker as having their own seat in the benches, while the House does not. Bearcat, I agree that the seating plans are mostly just a visual aid of party sizes, but they are used for Wikipedia articles about many countries' legislatures, so we should consider why they are so popular before we think of getting rid of them. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Arctic.gnome, Ah, good eye about the Speaker's seat then. Yeah, that's probably because the Speaker can participate in debates in the Senate (I think). So, we can have 106 seats in the Senate seating plan, I guess. ;) Doug Mehus T·C 23:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Once again, my answer would be that we don't really need to do things the way other countries do them for the sake of consistency. If there's a reason why the way other countries do things is uniquely not suited to Canadian reality, then there's no overarching principle of "everything has to always be done the same way" that would require us to overlook its lack of value in Canadian-specific circumstances. In the case of the House of Commons, depicting party standings that way makes some sense — but in the case of the Senate, which now consists primarily of independent caucuses with no party affiliation and no party colours and no defined ideology except who wants to work with who, it's a lot less clear that there's any actual value in doing it this way. We've had to delete a lot of really stupid stuff from Wikipedia that was started on the grounds of "if the United States has this article, then the exact same thing automatically has to exist for Canada too even if the entire concept of it is completely meaningless in the context of Canadian politics". (Majority-minority ridings in the Canadian House of Commons, list of Canadian prime ministers with facial hair, etc.) Bearcat (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Bearcat, List of Canadian Prime Ministers with facial hair? That was actually a list!? Doug Mehus T·C 23:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yep. Didn't survive AFD, obviously, but it really happened for real. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Prime Ministers of Canada with facial hair, if you want to check it out. Bearcat (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Bearcat wrote: To be perfectly honest, I'm not entirely sure that the seating chart has any value at all, if we're not committing to keeping it updated or actually marking it for what specific seat any individual senator sits in. FWIW there is a Canadian Senate seating plan page, but it is wholly outdated. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Kawnhr, Nice seating plan table, but you're right, it's wholly out of date. I've nominated it for AfD. Doug Mehus T·C 19:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Kawnhr & MikkelJSmith2, Canadian Senate seating plan closed as delete, so that's one less thing we need to update. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 22:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dmehus, I thought the discussion ended a while back though? Btw, I've updated the seating plan, but was waiting for feedback from Arctic.gnome before posting it. This is what it looks like on my PC : https://gyazo.com/c64e90ac6a79624fe988d90993b81ae2 MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm creating this discussion following MikkelJSmith2's reversion of the series of good-faith and constructive edits by Cornellier. Most of the edits, I would say, were good copyediting, but some detail that Cornellier removed, I think, should've merited a discussion. So, in general, I do think we should welcome most of Cornellier's edits, but some of the larger scale content removals do merit a discussion.

So, let's discuss...

Thanks,
--Doug Mehus T·C 18:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Comment Per this, I have undone MikkelJSmith2's good-faith reversion because (a) Cornellier did start a discussion back in October 2018, to which no one replied and to which could be taken as implied consensus and (b) because most of Cornellier's edits are likely to be accepted and, thus, it's easier to revert a select few edits than to redo all of the other good copyediting they did. I do think Cornellier could've been more specific on what needed editing; thus, one can not take that earlier discussion as carte blanche to take the proverbial "weed wacker" to the article.

  Question: So, let's discuss, which of Cornellier's edits should we undo (if any)?

Note: Please feel free to ping recent editors to this talkpage discussion using {{ping}}.

-- Doug Mehus T·C 18:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dmehus, yeah, sorry about that, I'm fine with most edits, I just wanted us to have a recent discussion, since the original was from 2018. That's why I reverted. I should have been more clear about that. Thanks for what you did afterwards. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

MikkelJSmith2,   Thank you, and normally, I'd agree with reverting the edits, but in this case, it really is easier to add back in the content we felt shouldn't have been removed. I'll try and take a look this weekend. Doug Mehus T·C 19:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your thoughts. I will hold back on any more revisions for now pending any further discussion. Please let me know the specifics. --Cornellier (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

This article mentions that legislation passed in the Commons hasn't been vetoed since 1939, it then goes on to say that the Senate has rejected numerous bills. What's the difference between a veto and a rejection? Sounds a bit confusing and could maybe use clarification. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I agree, this is very confusing. Goes to the core about how powerful the Senate actually is. --El Chivo 3 (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey can someone add Canadian senate coat of arms the parliament of Canada article has their coat of arms and the House of Commons article has their coat of arms senate of Canada senate is the only one that doesn’t. 142.113.194.22 (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply