Thursday, October 31, 2013

Through a landmark $10-million investment announced today, The Slaight Family Foundation has established The Slaight Centre for Image-Guided Brain Therapy and Repair at Sunnybrook. T

Through a landmark $10-million investment announced today, The Slaight Family Foundation has established The Slaight Centre for Image-Guided Brain Therapy and Repair at Sunnybrook. This centre will be the site of the world's first clinical trials using focused ultrasound to deliver therapy through the blood-brain barrier for dementia, stroke and brain tumours.
At the core of the centre is a PET-MRI scanner, a fully integrated molecular imaging system that Sunnybrook Research Institute (SRI) scientists will combine with transcranial focused ultrasound-making it the only such system in the world. This will enable scientists to move promising research from the lab to patients, using focused ultrasound to deliver therapies directly to the brain, not only to treat disease, but also to repair damage and restore function.
"The Slaight Centre for Image-Guided Brain Therapy and Repair will pioneer noninvasive treatments for diseases of the brain and mind. These will be novel solutions for some of the biggest threats to the health of Canadians," says Dr. Barry McLellan, Sunnybrook's president and CEO.
"We hope the Slaight Centre's research will lead to the day when the steady advancement of dementia is halted, when stroke is stopped in its tracks and when damaged brain tissue is regenerated, restoring the brain to a more fully functioning state," Dr. McLellan adds.
Dr. Jon S. Dellandrea, president and CEO of Sunnybrook Foundation, says The Slaight Family Foundation's investment will accelerate the pace of discovery at Sunnybrook.
"Without this private support, we would not be able to translate our discoveries to patients nearly as quickly," Dr. Dellandrea says. "The long-running generosity of The Slaight Family Foundation is an inspiring example of how donor support is allowing us to change outcomes and heal the future, for patients here and around the world."
The leading-edge PET-MRI scanner combines positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. The system achieves the gold standard of molecular imaging, by fully integrating simultaneous PET and MRI to enable the most complete 3-D picture of the brain possible.
Transcranial focused ultrasound was pioneered by SRI scientists. Integrating it into the PET-MRI scanner will allow scientists to take their preclinical results showing that drugs, gene therapy and stem cell therapy can be delivered directly to the brain in Alzheimer's disease to the next level: patients. These clinical trials promise to usher in a new era of therapy for brain disease.  
"Sunnybrook has the unique medical expertise and technological know-how to bring these treatments to people, but this cannot be done without the acquisition of a state-of-the-art PET-MRI scanner. Our family foundation is thrilled to be making this a reality," said Gary Slaight.
The Slaight Family Foundation's investment in Sunnybrook is part of a comprehensive $50-million gift to five health sciences centres in Toronto that will make a life-saving difference for people locally and around the world.
Click here for the Slaight Family news release.  

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

DEATH WITH DIGNITY: Civil liberties watchdog seeks fast-tracked hearing of assisted dying case



VANCOUVER, B.C. (October 29, 2013) – The BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) is taking its fight for physician-assisted dying for the gravely ill to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The BCCLA has filed for leave to appeal a recent BC ruling that denied seriously ill Canadians the right to choose an assisted death. In a rare move, the BCCLA has also asked the Court to fast-track its decision to hear the case and to speed up the timeline for hearing the appeal if the Court grants leave. Last year the BC Supreme Court ruled that the ban on assisted dying violates the rights of the gravely ill, but the decision was overturned at the BC Court of Appeal.
Elayne Shapray, a woman who suffers from multiple sclerosis (MS) who is seeking the right to die with dignity, has stepped forward in the BCCLA’s challenge to the laws that criminalize assisted dying.

Ms. Shapray filed an affidavit in support of the BCCLA’s application to the Supreme Court of Canada stating she is tormented by the knowledge she may become trapped in an unbearable dying process and forfeit the ability to take her own life.

Ms. Shapray states, “I would, for obvious reasons, prefer a peaceful death surrounded by my loved ones and many friends. As matters now stand, I will have to act alone, while I still can. My choices for bringing about my death unassisted are severely limited – self starvation, over medication or some violent self inflicted injury. I know that the actual manner in which I take my life will be wrenching for the people that care for me.”

Grace Pastine, litigation director for the BCCLA, states, “We are asking the Supreme Court of Canada to fast-track its decision to hear the case and to speed up the timeline for hearing the appeal if the Court grants leave. This is a matter of extreme urgency in which the fate of gravely ill Canadians hangs in the balance. The government has made clear that it will not bring the issue of physician-assisted dying before Parliament. The Supreme Court of Canada is the only place seriously ill Canadians can look to protect their constitutional rights.”

Read more about the case

Monday, October 28, 2013

The Canadian Senate expenses scandal 2013



The Canadian Senate expenses scandal is a political scandal concerning the expense claims of certain Canadian senators. Mike Duffy, Mac Harb, Pamela Wallin, and Patrick Brazeau claimed travel and housing expenses from the Senate for which they were not eligible (Mac Harb was also part of the scandal, but retired to avoid both the loss of his pension and charges.). As a result, the Auditor General of Canada began investigating the expense claims of the entire Senate. Duffy, Wallin, and Harb eventually repaid the ineligible amount.

Contents

[hide]
1 Overview
2 Mac Harb
3 Wright and Duffy affair
4 Pamela Wallin
5 References
Overview[edit]


Between November 21 and December 6, 2012, the Senate began investigating Duffy, Harb, and Brazeau's housing expense claims on the basis that they were ineligible to make them.[1] On February 8, 2013, the Senate hired an auditing firm to investigate the claims.


Two months later, Duffy repaid the more than $90,000 in expenses he claimed.[2] On May 9, 2013, the Senate released a report into the expenses along with the audit, and concluded that the rules were unclear.[1] Harb and Brazeau were nonetheless ordered to repay the expenses; neither has yet to do so. As of July 25, 2013, Harb still maintained his innocence;[3] on July 3, 2013, the Senate announced it would reduce Brazeau's wages to repay the expenses.[4]


Prior to the release of the Senate's report it emerged that it had been whitewashed by the Conservative-dominated committee to reflect less poorly on Mike Duffy, who was at that time a Conservative.[5] After two weeks of controversy, and amid concerns that Duffy was claiming travel expenses from both the Senate and the Conservative Party, the Senate reopened Duffy's audit.[6][7]


On March 22, 2013, Brazeau was expelled from the Conservative caucus over sexual assault allegations.[8]


In the months following the revelations, many of Canada's political parties reiterated their parties' opinions that the Senate should be reformed or abolished. Prime Minister Stephen Harper sought clarification from the Supreme Court of Canada on the federal government's power to reform or abolish the Senate, but a decision is not expected until 2014 or 2015.[9] Significant reform or abolition requiring a constitutional amendment would require the support of at least seven of ten provinces; however, the provinces' respective premiers do not consider either a high priority.[10]


A June 2013 poll revealed that in the wake of the controversy, 49% of Canadians wanted to reform the Senate, 41% wanted to see it abolished, 6% wanted to keep it as it was, and 4% were unsure.[11]


On May 12, 2013, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police announced they were reviewing the expense claims.[1]


On August 14, 2013, it was announced that the Auditor General of Canada would be reviewing the expense claims of all Senators.[12]
Mac Harb[edit]


On August 26, 2013, Mac Harb announced his retirement, and that he had paid back the outstanding $180,166.17 to the Senate. He also dropped all legal action against the Senate. Harb retired with a full parliamentary pension of $122,989 per year.[13]
Wright and Duffy affair[edit]


In February 2013, the Prime Minister's legal advisor, Benjamin Perrin, secretly drafted a letter of understanding between Nigel Wright, the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, and Duffy.[14] The letter stated Wright's intention to transfer $90 172 to cover Duffy's invalid expense claims. On May 15, 2013, the Prime Minister's Office confirmed that Wright sent Duffy a personal cheque in that amount; the federal Ethics Commissioner announced that he would review the case.[15] The next day, Duffy resigned from the Conservative caucus;[1] he now sits as an independent senator. Although Harper maintained his support for Wright, Wright's resignation was announced on May 19, 2013.[1]. On October 28, 2013, Stephen Harper stated in an interview that Wright had been "dismissed", contradicting the previous account of Wright's termination.[16]


On May 22, 2013, Harper denied knowledge of the cheque,[1]; on June 5, he stated that no one in his office other than Wright knew of the transaction[17] Harper's legal adviser also denied knowledge of the cheque.


On June 6, 2013, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) filed documents with the courts, contradicting these statements by revealing that three senior members of the Prime Minister's Office and another Conservative senator, Irving Gerstein, knew about the transfer.[18] The documents further revealed that the Conservative Party of Canada initially intended to pay $30 000 for Duffy to repay his expenses before they learned the full amount, that Duffy was being investigated over three separate allegations of fraud, and that the investigation began of the RCMP's own volition in March, 2013.[18]


On October 21, 2013, Duffy's lawyer claimed that the Prime Minister's Office "pushed" Duffy into accepting the cheque, contrary to the Prime Minister's statements that no one in his office other than Wright knew of the deal.[19] The next day, Duffy told the Senate that Harper personally told Duffy to repay the money, quoting him as saying, "It’s not about what you did. It’s about the perception of what you did that’s been created in the media. The rules are inexplicable to our base".[20] [21]
Pamela Wallin[edit]


In February 2013, an external audit of Pamela Wallin's travel expenses began. From December 1, 2010, through November 30, 2012, Senate records show that Wallin claimed $29,423 in "regular travel" expenses for direct flights from Ottawa to her home province of Saskatchewan or back. Her "other travel" expenses (to other Canadian destinations, including Toronto) were $321,027 over that same 24 month period.[22] Senator Wallin noted in a Globe and Mail op-ed, a great deal of the "other travel" was actually to and from her home province of Saskatchewan, but didn't count as "regular travel" because the flights did not start or end in Ottawa [23] Although Wallin listed Saskatchewan as her primary residence records show she possessed a valid Ontario Health Card indicating her primary residence was in Toronto where she has a condo.[24] Wallin was one of several senators who faced questions about whether they lived in the province for which they were appointed.


The Senate is concerned that Wallin's travel expenses are unrelated to Senate business and has appointed the external auditor Deloitte to examine refunds she has claimed. Preliminary findings indicated “a pattern of claiming Senate expenses on personal or other business unrelated to the Senate, including boards she sits on.”[25] Wallin earned approximately $1 million in stock options and fees while on corporate boards since her appointment as senator.[26]


In May 2013 Wallin resigned from the Senate Conservative caucus pending the results of the external audit of her expense.[27]


A Postmedia News analysis indicated Wallin was ranked second highest in overall spending at $369,593 behind recently retired Conservative Senator Gerry St. Germain who spent $378,292 during the same period.[28]


On August 13, 2013, an audit by Deloitte into her expense claims found that Wallin inappropriately claimed overnight stopovers in Toronto on her trips between Ottawa and Saskatchewan and criticized other travel by Wallin for business unrelated to the Senate. The audit also questioned several of Wallin's "networking events" but found that further review by the Senate was necessary to see if these events qualified as Senate business. The audit ordered Wallin to repay $121,348 in inproper expense claims and was referred to the RCMP.[29][30] The same day the audit was released Wallin held a news conference and called the audit "fundamentally flawed and unfair".[31] On 13 September 2013, it was announced that Wallin had reimbursed the Senate.[32]
References[edit]

^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Global News, and The Canadian Press. "Timeline: Key Dates in the Evolution of the Senate Expense-claim Controversy." Global News, 18 June 2013. Web. 27 July 2013.
Jump up^ Cheadle, Bruce. "Duffy says he’s repaid housing expenses" Global News, 19 Apr. 2013. Web. 27 July 2013.
Jump up^ Fife, Robert, and Phillip Ling. "RCMP Allege Senator Mac Harb Claimed Expenses on ′uninhabitable′ Home." CTVNews. CTV News, 25 July 2013. Web. 27 July 2013.
Jump up^ Smith, Joanna. "Senate Expenses Scandal: Patrick Brazeau's Wages to Be Clawed Back." Thestar.com. The Star, 03 July 2013. Web. 27 July 2013.
Jump up^ Ditchburn, Jennifer. "Tory-dominated Senate Committee Deleted Tough Parts of Mike Duffy Expense Report: document." The National Post. The National Post, 23 May 2013. Web. 27 July 2013.
Jump up^ Press, Jordan. "Senate Committee Accused of Whitewashing Initial Report Decides to Reopen Mike Duffy’s Expense audit." The National Post. National Post, 22 May 2013. Web. 27 July 2013.
Jump up^ Radia, Andy. "Mike Duffy May Now Be Investigated for Double-dipping amid Growing Anti-Senate Sentiment." Yahoo! News Canada. Yahoo, 17 May 2013. Web. 27 July 2013.
Jump up^ Woods, Michael. "‘Weathering the Storm,’ Sen. Patrick Brazeau to ‘vigorously’ contest sexual Assault charges." National Post. The National Post, 22 Mar. 2013. Web. 27 July 2013.
Jump up^ Payton, Laura. "Tories to Refer Senate Reform Questions to Supreme Court."CBCnews. CBC/Radio Canada, 01 Feb. 2013. Web. 27 July 2013.
Jump up^ Benzie, Robert. "Senate Scandals Should Not Influence Reform, Premiers Say."Thestar.com. The Star, 26 July 2013. Web. 27 July 2013.
Jump up^ CBC News. "Majority Wants Senate Changed or Abolished, Poll Suggests."CBCnews. CBC/Radio Canada, 20 June 2013. Web. 27 July 2013.
Jump up^ "Auditor general to review all senators' expenses". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 15 August 2013. Retrieved 16 August 2013.
Jump up^ "Senator Mac Harb pays back $231,000 in expenses, retires". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 26 August 2013. Retrieved 26 August 2013.
Jump up^ Janus, Andrea. "PM's Former Legal Adviser Arranged Deal for Wright to Give Duffy $90K." CTVNews. CTV News, 20 May 2013. Web. 27 July 2013.
Jump up^ Stone, Laura. "Ethics Commissioner Reviewing Mike Duffy Affair." Global News. Global News, 15 May 2013. Web. 27 July 2013.
Jump up^ Cheadle, Bruce. [1] National Post. "Nigel Wright was ‘dismissed,’ Stephen Harper says — at odds with May statement that former chief of staff resigned"
Jump up^ [ http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=1&DocId=6208877#Int-8057943 Hansard, 5 June 2013.] House of Commons.
^ Jump up to:a b MacKinnon, Leslie. "8 Things Revealed by RCMP's Court Filings on Mike Duffy."CBCnews. CBC/Radio Canada, 06 July 2013. Web. 27 July 2013.
Jump up^ MacKreal, Kim. "Duffy’s lawyer says Harper's office pushed Senator into scandal"The Globe and Mail, 21 October 2013. Web. 21 October 2013.
Jump up^ CBC News. [2] "Mike Duffy claims Harper told him to repay expense money". CBC News, 22 October 2013. Web. 22 October 2013.
Jump up^ The Canadian Press. [3] CityNews Toronto. 22 October 2013. Web. 22 October 2013.
Jump up^ "Financial Reports". Website of the Senate of Canada. Retrieved March 7, 2013.
Jump up^ "Wadena is my home, the Senate is my job; Globe and Mail". Retrieved March 7, 2013.
Jump up^ Campion-Smith, Bruce (2013 [last update]). "Pamela Wallin, Conservative senator, holds Ontario health card | Toronto Star". thestar.com. Retrieved February 27, 2013.
Jump up^ Smith, Joanna (2013 [last update]). "Senate asked Deloitte to broaden investigation into Sen. Pamela Wallin’s travel expenses | Toronto Star". thestar.com. Retrieved June 1, 2013.
Jump up^ Smith, Joanna (2013 [last update]). "Pamela Wallin earned approximately $1 million as corporate director since Senate appointment | Toronto Star". thestar.com. Retrieved June 6, 2013.
Jump up^ CBC News (2013 [last update]). "Senator Pamela Wallin leaves Conservative caucus - Politics - CBC News". cbc.ca. Retrieved May 17, 2013.
Jump up^ Press, Jordan (2013 [last update]). "Pamela Wallin, Mike Duffy among the top 10 spenders in the Senate | Canadian Politics | Canada | News | National Post".nationalpost.com. Retrieved March 8, 2013. "378,292"
Jump up^ "Pamela Wallin may be asked to pay more by Senate committee". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 15 August 2013. Retrieved 15 August 2013.
Jump up^ "Pamela Wallin's 'troubling' expense audit headed to RCMP". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 13 August 2013. Retrieved 15 August 2013.
Jump up^ "Pamela Wallin audit details set for public release". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 12 August 2013. Retrieved 15 August 2013.
Jump up^ "Sen. Pamela Wallin reimburses Senate for questionable travel claims". Maclean's. 13 September 2013. Retrieved 13 September2013.

Sunday, October 27, 2013

The Senate of Canada (French: Sénat du Canada) 2013.



The Senate of Canada (French: Sénat du Canada) is a component of the Parliament of Canada, along with the House of Commons, and the monarch (represented by the governor general). The Senate is modelled after the British House of Lordsand consists of 105 members appointed by the governor general on the advice of the prime minister.[1] Seats are assigned on a regional basis, with each of the four major regions receiving 24 seats, and the remainder of the available seats being assigned to smaller regions. The four major regions are Ontario, Quebec, the Maritime provinces, and the Western provinces. The seats for Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut are assigned apart from these regional divisions. Senators may serve until they reach the age of 75.


The Senate is the upper house of parliament and the House of Commons is the lower house. This does not, however, imply that the Senate is more powerful than the House of Commons, merely that its members and officers outrank the members and officers of the House of Commons in the order of precedence for the purposes of protocol. Indeed, as a matter of practice and custom, the Commons is by far the dominant chamber. Although the approval of both houses is necessary for legislation, the Senate rarely rejects bills passed by the directly elected Commons. Moreover, the government is responsible solely to the House of Commons; the Prime Minister of Canada and the rest of Cabinet stay in office only while they retain the confidence of the Commons; the Senate does not exercise any such control. Although legislation can normally be introduced in either house, the majority of government bills originate in the House of Commons. Under the constitution, money bills must always originate in the House of Commons.

Contents


1 Chamber and symbols
2 Senators
2.1 Qualifications
2.2 Current composition
3 Officers
4 Procedure
5 Committees
6 Rules of the Senate
6.1 2013 Suspension Motions
7 Legislative functions
8 Relationship with the executive
9 History
10 Senate reform
10.1 Party positions
11 Offices
12 See also
13 Notes
14 References
14.1 Bibliography
Chamber and symbols


The Senate and the House of Commons sit in separate chambers in the Centre Block on Parliament Hill, located in Ottawa,Ontario.


The chamber in which the Senate sits is sometimes called the red chamber, due to the red cloth that adorns the chamber as well as the throne. The red Senate Chamber is lavishly decorated, in contrast with the more modest green Commons Chamber. This decorative scheme is inherited from the British Houses of Parliament, where the Lords chamber is a lavish room with red benches, whereas the Commons chamber is more sparsely decorated and is furnished in green.


There are chairs and desks on both sides of the chamber, divided by a centre aisle. The speaker's chair is at one end of the chamber; in front of it is the clerk's table. Various clerks sit at the table, ready to advise the speaker and the senators on procedure when necessary. Members of the government sit on the benches on the speaker's right, while members of the opposition occupy the benches on the speaker's left.


The Canadian Heraldic Authority on April 15, 2008, granted the Senate, as an institution, a heraldic achievement composed of the chamber's mace (representing the Queen's authority in the upper chamber) behind the escutcheon of the Royal Arms of Canada (representing the Queen herself, in whose name the Senate deliberates).[2]
Senators







The Senate Chamber of Parliament Hill inOttawa.




Canada





This article is part of the series:

Politics and government of
Canada




The Crown[show]



Executive (Queen-in-Council)[show]



Legislative (Queen-in-Parliament)[show]



Elections[show]



Judicial[show]



Provinces and territories[show]



General[show]


Other countries
Atlas


Canadian politics portal


v
t
e



The governor general holds the power to make normal senatorial appointments, although, in modern practice, he or she makes appointments only on the advice of the prime minister. Senators originally held their seats for life; however, under the British North America Act, 1965 (now known as the Constitution Act, 1965), members, save for those appointed prior to the change, may not sit in the Senate after reaching the age of 75. Prime ministers normally choose members of their own parties to be senators, though they sometimes nominate independents or members of opposing parties. In practice, a large number of the members of the Senate are ex-Cabinet ministers, ex-provincial premiers, and other eminent people.


Under the constitution, each province or territory is entitled to a specific number of Senate seats. The constitution divides Canada into four areas, each with an equal number of senators: 24 for Ontario, 24 for Quebec, 24 for the Maritime provinces(10 each for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and four for Prince Edward Island), and 24 for the western provinces (six each for Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Alberta). Newfoundland and Labrador, which became a province in 1949, is not assigned to any division, and is represented by six senators, while the three territories (the Northwest Territories, the Yukon, and Nunavut) are allocated one senator each. Quebec senators are the only ones to be assigned to specific districts within their province. Historically, this was adopted to ensure that both French- and English-speakers from Quebec were represented appropriately in the Senate.


Like most other upper-houses worldwide, the Canadian formula does not use representation by population as a primary criterion for member selection, since this is already done for the lower house. Rather, the intent when the formula was struck was to achieve a balance of regional interests and to provide a house of "sober second thought" to check the power of the lower house when necessary. Therefore, the largest province (Ontario) and two Western provinces that were not populous at their accession to the federation and that are within a region are currently under-represented, while the Maritimes are the opposite. For example, British Columbia, with a current population of about four million, has been historically entitled to six senators, while Nova Scotia, with a current population of fewer than one million, has been entitled to 10. Only Quebec currently has a share of senators approximately proportional to its share of the total population.



Province or Territory

Number of Senators

Population per Senator (April 2013)


British Columbia

6

775,001


Alberta

6

660,890


Ontario

24

565,988


Quebec

24

337,462


Manitoba

6

212,890


Saskatchewan

6

182,313


Nova Scotia

10

94,502


Newfoundland and Labrador

6

85,595


New Brunswick

10

75,404


Northwest Territories

1

43,349


Prince Edward Island

4

36,441


Yukon

1

36,418


Nunavut

1

34,023


Total/Average

105

334,681



A senator's seat automatically becomes vacant if he or she fails to attend the Senate for two consecutive parliamentary sessions. Furthermore, senators lose their seats if they are found guilty of treason, an indictable offence, or any "infamous crime"; are declared bankrupt or insolvent; or cease to be qualified.


There exists a constitutional provision, Section 26 of the Constitution Act, 1867, under which the Queen may approve the appointment of four or eight extra senators, equally divided amongst the four regions. The approval is given by the monarch on prime ministerial advice and the governor general is instructed to issue the necessary letters patent. This provision has been successfully used only once—in 1990, when Prime Minister Brian Mulroney sought to ensure the passage of a bill creating the Goods and Services Tax (GST). The appointment of eight additional senators allowed a slight Tory majority. The only other attempt to use Section 26, by Prime Minister Alexander Mackenzie in 1874, was denied by Queen Victoria, on the advice of the British Cabinet.[3] This clause does not result in a permanent increase in the number of Senate seats, however. Instead, an attrition process is applied by which senators leaving office through normal means are not replaced until after their province has returned to its normal number of seats.


Since 1989, the voters of Alberta have elected "senators-in-waiting", or nominees for the province's Senate seats. These elections, however, are not held pursuant to any federal constitutional or legal provision; thus, the prime minister is not bound to recommend the nominees for appointment. Only three senators-in-waiting have actually been appointed to the Senate: The first was Stan Waters, who was appointed in 1990 on the recommendation of Brian Mulroney (Waters died in 1991); the second was Bert Brown, elected a senator-in-waiting in 1998 and 2004, and appointed to the Senate in 2007 on the recommendation of Prime Minister Stephen Harper; the third was Betty Unger, elected in 2004 and appointed in 2012.[4] In May 2008, the government of Saskatchewan announced plans to hold similar elections.[5]


The base annual salary of each senator, as of 2010, is $132,300 CAD; members may receive additional salaries in right of other offices they hold (for instance, the Speakership). Senators rank immediately above Members of Parliament in the order of precedence.
Qualifications[edit]


The Constitution Act outlines the qualifications of senators. Individuals must be both citizens of Canada and at least thirty years of age to be eligible for appointment to the Senate. Senators must also maintain residency in the provinces or territories for which they are appointed.[1] In the past, this criterion has often been interpreted quite liberally, with virtually any holding that met the property qualification, including primary residences, second residences, summer homes, investment properties or even lots of undeveloped land, having been deemed to meet the residency requirement;[6] as long as the senator listed a qualifying property as a residence, no further efforts have typically been undertaken to verify whether they actually resided there in any meaningful way.[6] Recently, residency has come under increased scrutiny, particularly in 2013 as several senators have faced allegations of irregularities in their housing expense claims.[7]


The Constitution Act, 1867, also sets property qualifications for senators. A senator must possess land worth at least $4,000 in the province for which he or she is appointed. Moreover, a senator must own real and personal property worth at least $4,000 above his or her debts and liabilities.[1] This amount in 1867 would be estimated at between $175,000 and $200,000 in current dollars.[citation needed] These property qualifications were originally introduced to ensure that the Senate represented Canada's economic and social élite.


Now, however, the sum in question is far less valuable due to the effects of inflation. Nevertheless, the property qualification has never been abolished or amended, and initially caused problems with the 1997 Senate appointment of Sister Peggy Butts, a Catholic nun who had taken a vow of poverty.[8] (The situation was resolved when her order formally transferred a small parcel of land to her name.)[8]


The original Constitution of Canada did not explicitly bar women from sitting as senators. However, until the end of the 1920s, only men had been appointed to the body. In 1927, five Canadian women ("The Famous Five") requested the Supreme Court of Canada to determine whether females were eligible to become senators. Specifically, they asked whether women were considered "persons" under the British North America Act, 1867, which provided: "The Governor General shall ... summon qualified Persons to the Senate; and ... every Person so summoned shall become and be a Member of the Senate and a Senator." In Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General) (commonly known as the "Persons Case"), the Supreme Court unanimously held that women could not become senators. The court based its decision on the grounds that the framers of the Constitution did not foresee female senators, as women did not participate in politics at the time; moreover, they pointed to the constitution's use of the pronoun "he" when referring to senators. On appeal, however, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (effectively Canada's highest court at the time) ruled that women were indeed "persons" in the meaning of the Constitution. Four months later, the government of Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King recommended for appointment Canada's first female senator, Cairine Wilson of Ontario.
Current composition

See also: List of current Canadian senators and Party standings in the Canadian Senate



Affiliation

Senators




Conservative Party

60




Liberal Party

33




Independent1

6


Vacant

6


Total

105



Notes:

1 Includes 1 Independent Progressive Conservative (Elaine McCoy).
Officers


The presiding officer of the Senate, known as the speaker, is appointed by the governor general on the advice of the prime minister. The speaker is assisted by a speaker pro tempore (or speaker for the time-being), who is elected by the Senate at the beginning of each parliamentary session. If the speaker is unable to attend, the speaker pro tempore presides instead. Furthermore, the Parliament of Canada Act, authorizes the speaker to appoint another senator to take his or her place temporarily.


The speaker presides over sittings of the Senate and controls debates by calling on members to speak. If a senator believes that a rule (or standing order) has been breached, he or she may raise a "point of order," on which the speaker makes a ruling. However, the speaker's decisions are subject to appeal to the whole Senate. When presiding, the speaker remains impartial, though he or she still maintains membership in a political party. Unlike the speaker of the House of Commons, the speaker of the Senate does not hold a casting vote, but instead retains their right to vote in the same manner as any other senator (see Procedure below). The current speaker of the Senate is Noël A. Kinsella.


The member of the government responsible for steering legislation through the Senate is Leader of the Government in the Senate. The leader is a senator selected by the prime minister, and serves in Cabinet. The leader manages the schedule of the Senate, and attempts to secure the opposition's support for the government's legislative agenda. Theopposition equivalent is the leader of the opposition in the Senate, who is selected by his or her counterpart in the House, the leader of the opposition. However, if the Official Opposition in the House is a different party than the Official Opposition in the Senate (as is currently the case), then the Senate party chooses its own leader.


Officers of the Senate who are not members include the clerk, the deputy clerk, the law clerk, and several other clerks. These officers advise the speaker and members on the rules and procedure of the Senate. Another officer is the usher of the black rod, whose duties include the maintenance of order and security within the Senate chamber. The usher of the black rod bears a ceremonial black ebony staff, from which the title "black rod" arises. This position is roughly analogous to that of sergeant-at-arms in the House of Commons, but the usher's duties are more ceremonial in nature. The responsibility for security and the infrastructure lie with the Director General of Parliamentary Precinct Services.
Procedure






This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2013)








The throne and chair in the background are used by the Queen and her consort, or the governor general and his or her spouse, respectively, during the opening of Parliament. The speaker of the Senate employs the chair in front.







George VI, King of Canada, and his consort,Elizabeth, occupy the thrones in the Senate, while the king grants Royal Assent to laws, May 19, 1939


The Senate Chamber is the site of the opening of parliament, a formal ceremony held at the beginning of each new parliamentary session. During the event, the sovereign or the governor general, seated on the throne in the Senate chamber and in the presence of both houses of parliament, delivers the Speech from the Throne (or more colloquially, the Throne Speech), outlining the government's agenda for the upcoming parliamentary session.


Under the rules of the Senate, the Senate sits Mondays to Fridays. Sittings of the Senate are open to the public and are transcribed verbatim in the Debates of the Senate, although at times matters of particular interest have been broadcast. The Constitution Act, 1867, establishes a quorum of 15 members (including the member presiding) for the Senate. Any senator may request the speaker to ascertain the presence of a quorum; if it does not appear that one is present, the speaker orders bells to be rung, so that other senators on the parliamentary precincts may come to the chamber. If a quorum still does not appear, the speaker must adjourn the Senate until the next sitting day.


During debates, the first senator to rise is entitled to make the next speech. The speaker may settle disputes over which senator rose first, but his or her decision may be altered by the Senate. Motions must be moved by one senator and seconded by another before debate may begin; some motions, however, are non-debatable.


Speeches may be made in either of Canada's official languages (English or French). Members must address their speeches to the other senators as a whole, using the phrase "honourable senators" (honorables sénateurs), without directly addressing an individual senator. This is similar to the process in the House of Lords, where all speeches and comments are addressed to "my lords", as well as the Canadian House of Commons, where all comments are addressed to the speaker of the house. The speaker enforces the rules of the Senate during debate. Disregarding the speaker's instructions is considered a severe breach of the rules of the Senate.


No senator may speak more than once on the same question; however, a senator who has moved a substantive motion, proposed an inquiry, or sponsored a bill holds a right of reply that enables them to speak again at the close of debate. In the case of a bill, this right of reply can only be exercised at the second reading debate. The Rules of the Senate prescribe time limits for speeches. The limits depend on the nature of the motion, but are generally about fifteen minutes. However, the leaders of the government and opposition in the Senate are not subject to such time constraints. Debate may be further restricted by the passage of "time allocation" motions. Alternatively, the Senate may end debate more quickly by passing a motion "for the previous question." If such a motion carries, debate ends immediately, and the Senate proceeds to vote. Debate may also end if no senator wishes to make any further remarks.


When the debate concludes, the motion in question is put to a vote. The Senate first votes by voice vote; the presiding officer puts the question, and members respond either "yea" (in favour of the motion) or "nay" (against the motion). The presiding officer then announces the result of the voice vote, but two or more senators may challenge his or her assessment, thereby forcing a recorded vote (known as a division). First, members in favour of the motion rise, so that the clerks may record their names and votes. The same procedure is then repeated for members who oppose the motion, and thereafter repeated again for those who wish to abstain. In all cases, the speaker holds a vote (which is not usually exercised) and votes first when a recorded division is called; a tied vote results in the motion's failure. If the number of members voting, including the presiding officer, does not at least total 15, then a quorum is not present, and the vote is invalid.
Committees


The Parliament of Canada uses committees for a variety of purposes. Committees consider bills in detail, and can make amendments. Other committees scrutinize various government agencies and ministries.


The largest of the Senate committees is the Committee of the Whole, which, as the name suggests, consists of all senators. The Committee of the Whole meets in the Chamber of the Senate, but proceeds under slightly modified rules of debate. (For example, there is no limit on the number of speeches a member may make on a particular motion.) The presiding officer is known as the chairman. The Senate may resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole for a number of purposes, including to consider legislation, or to hear testimony from individuals. Nominees to be officers of Parliament often appear before Committee of the Whole to answer questions with respect to their qualifications prior to their appointment.


The Senate also has several standing committees, each of which has responsibility for a particular area of government (for example, finance or transport). These committees consider legislation and conduct special studies on issues referred to them by the Senate, and may hold hearings, collect evidence, and report their findings to the Senate. Standing committees consist of between nine and fifteen members each, and elect their own chairmen.



Senate standing committees[9]

Aboriginal Peoples
Agriculture and Forestry
Banking, Trade, and Commerce
Conflict of Interest for Senators
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Fisheries and Oceans
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Human Rights
Internal Economy, Budgets, and Administration
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
National Finance
National Security and Defence
Official Languages
Rules, Procedure and the Rights of Parliament
Selection Committee
Social Affairs, Science and Technology[10]
Subcommittee on Population Health[11]
Subcommittee on Cities[12]
Transport and Communication



Special committees are appointed by the Senate on an ad hoc basis to consider a particular issue. The number of members for a special committee varies, but the partisan composition would roughly reflect the strength of the parties in the whole Senate. These committees have been struck to study bills (e.g., the Special Senate Committee on Bill C-36 (the Anti-terrorism Act), 2001), or particular issues of concern (e.g., the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs).


Other committees include joint committees, which include both members of the House of Commons and senators. There are presently two joint committees, the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations, which considers delegated legislation, and the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament which advises the two Speakers on the management of the Library. Parliament may also establish Special Joint committees on an ad hoc basis to consider issues of particular interest or importance.







The Senate of Canada







The Senate of Canada
Rules of the Senate


Rules of the Senate govern the way in which the Senate and Senator conducts their business in the Chamber and beyond.<
2013 Suspension Motions

See Canadian Senate expenses scandal


In late 2013 the Senate is debating the possible suspension of three senators (Patrick Brazeau, Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin) for improper expense claims and charges outside of Senate (for Senator Brazeau). Under the rules these Senators could be prevented from entering the Chamber and prevented from claiming any expenses and pay. If they become convicted, the suspensions will be permanent and their seats will be deemed vacant.[13]
Legislative functions[edit]


Although legislation may be introduced in either House, most bills originate in the House of Commons. Because the Senate's schedule for debate is more flexible than that of the House of Commons, the government will sometimes introduce particularly complex legislation in the Senate first. For the stages through which the legislation passes in Parliament, see Act of Parliament.


In conformity with the British model, the upper house is not permitted to originate bills imposing taxes or appropriating public funds. Unlike in Britain but similar to the United States, this restriction on the power of the Senate is not merely a matter of convention, but is explicitly stated in the Constitution Act, 1867. In addition, the House of Commons may, in effect, override the Senate's refusal to approve an amendment to the Canadian Constitution; however they must wait at least 180 days before exercising this override. Other than these two exceptions, the power of the two Houses of Parliament is theoretically equal; the approval of each is necessary for a bill's passage. In practice, however, the House of Commons is the dominant chamber of Parliament, with the Senate very rarely exercising its powers in a manner that opposes the will of the democratically elected chamber.


The Senate tends to be less partisan and confrontational than the House, and is more likely to come to a consensus on issues. It also often has more opportunity to study proposed bills in detail either as a whole or in committees. This careful review process is why the Senate is still today called the chamber of "sober second thought", though the term has a slightly different meaning than it did when used by John A. Macdonald. The format of the Senate allows it to make many small improvements to legislation before its final reading. Although the Senate rarely vetoes bills from the House of Commons, minor changes proposed by the Senate, to a bill, are usually accepted.


The Senate at times is more active at reviewing, amending, and even rejecting legislation. The late 1980s and early 1990s was one of those periods. During this period the Senate opposed legislation on issues such as the 1988 free trade bill with the U.S. (forcing the Canadian federal election of 1988), and the Goods and Services Tax (GST).[14][15] In the 1990s, the Senate rejected four pieces of legislation: a bill passed by the Commons restricting abortion (C-43), a proposal to streamline federal agencies (C-93), a bill to redevelop the Lester B. Pearson airport (C-28), and a bill on profiting from authorship as it relates to crime (C-220). The Senate also performs investigative functions. In the 1960s, the Senate authored the first Canadian reports on media concentration with the Special Senate Subcommittee on Mass Media or the Davey Commission,[16] since "appointed senators would be better insulated from editorial pressure brought by publishers"; this triggered the formation of press councils.[17] More recent investigations include the Kirby Commissions on health care (as opposed to the Romanow Commission) and mental health care by Senator Michael Kirby, and the Final Report on the Canadian News Media in 2006.[18]


In December 2010 the Senate rejected Bill C-311 involving greenhouse gas regulation that would have committed Canada to a 25% reduction in emissions by 2020 and an 80% reduction by 2050.[19] The bill was passed by all the parties except the Conservatives in the House of Commons and was rejected by the majority Conservatives in the Senate on a vote of 43 to 32.[20] The only session where actual debate on the bill took place was notable for unprofessional language and partisan political rhetoric.[21]


Historically, before the passage of the Divorce Act in 1968, there was no divorce legislation in either Quebec or Newfoundland. The only way for couples to get divorced in these provinces was to apply to the federal Parliament for a private bill of divorce. These bills were primarily handled by the Senate where a special committee would undertake an investigation of a request for a divorce. If the committee found that the request had merit, the marriage would be dissolved by an Act of Parliament. A similar situation existed inOntario before 1930. This function of the Senate has not been exercised since 1968.
Relationship with the executive


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.


Most Cabinet ministers are from the House of Commons, rather than the Senate. In particular, every prime minister has been a member of the House of Commons since 1896, with the exception of John Turner, who became prime minister when his party elected him leader, but whose government was defeated in the subsequent election. (Turner was outside Parliament altogether at the time, and was never a Senator.) Typically, the Cabinet includes only one senator: the leader of the government in the Senate. Occasionally, when the governing party does not include any members from a particular region, Senators are appointed to ministerial positions in order to maintain regional balance in the Cabinet. The most recent example of this was on February 6, 2006, when Stephen Harper appointed Michael Fortier to serve as both a senator representing the Montreal region, where theminority government had no elected representation, and the Cabinet position of minister of public works and government services. Michael Fortier resigned his Senate seat to run (unsuccessfully) for a House of Commons seat in the 2008 general election.
History


The Senate came into existence in 1867, when the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed the British North America Act 1867, uniting the Province of Canada (which was separated into Quebec and Ontario) with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick into a single federation, a Dominion called Canada. The Canadian parliament was based on theWestminster model (that is, the model of the Parliament of the United Kingdom). Canada's first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, described it as a body of "sober second thought" that would curb the "democratic excesses" of the elected House of Commons and provide regional representation.[22] It was not meant to be more than a revising body or a brake on the House of Commons. Therefore, it was deliberately made an appointed house, since an elected Senate might prove too popular and too powerful, and be able to block the will of the House of Commons.


The original Senate chamber was lost to the fire that consumed the parliament buildings in 1916. Subsequently, the Senate sat in the mineral room of what is today the Canadian Museum of Nature until 1922, when it relocated back to Parliament Hill.


While most senators hold their seat until the mandatory age, Andy Thompson stepped down 20 months ahead of his scheduled retirement after critics drew attention to his poor attendance while continuing to draw his salary. It was also the first time that the Senate had voted to suspend one of its members,[23] which prompted his resignation shortly afterwards.
Change in number of senators over time


Modifying act

Date enacted

Normal total

§26 total

Ont.

Que.

N.S.

N.B.

Man.

B.C.

P.E.I.

Sask.

Alta.

N.L.

N.W.T.

Y.T.

Nu.


Constitution Act, 1867

July 1, 1867

72

78

24

24

12

12


Manitoba Act, 1870

July 15, 1870

74

80

24

24

12

12

2


British Columbia Terms of Union

July 20, 1871

77

83

24

24

12

12

2

3


Prince Edward Island Terms of Union as per §147 of the Constitution Act, 1867

July 1, 1873

77

83

24

24

10

10

2

3

4


Alberta Act and Saskatchewan Act

September 1, 1905

85

91

24

24

10

10

2

3

4

4

4


Constitution Act, 1915

May 19, 1915

96

104

24

24

10

10

6

6

4

6

6


Newfoundland Act as per ¶1(1)(vii) of the Constitution Act, 1915

March 31, 1949

102

110

24

24

10

10

6

6

4

6

6

6


Constitution Act (No. 2), 1975

June 19, 1975

104

112

24

24

10

10

6

6

4

6

6

6

1

1


Constitution Act, 1999 (Nunavut)

April 1, 1999

105

113

24

24

10

10

6

6

4

6

6

6

1

1

1


Modifying act

Date

Normal total

§26 total

Ont.

Que.

N.S.

N.B.

Man.

B.C.

P.E.I.

Sask.

Alta.

N.L.

N.W.T.

Y.T.

Nu.

Senate reform


Reform of the upper house has been an issue for much of Canadian history—and, in fact, predates Confederation, being present in the Province of Canada—with most plans for reform chiefly involving amending the selection process; the Legislative Council of the Province of Canada was an appointed chamber from its formation in 1840 until it became an elected house in 1865 and remained as such until it was dissolved in 1867. The federal Parliament of Canada first considered reform measures in 1874 and the Senate debated reforming itself in 1909.[24]


There were minor changes in 1965, when the mandatory retirement age for new senators was set at 75 years and, in 1982, when the Senate was given a qualified veto over certain constitutional amendments.[25] The last member of the Senate who served past the age of 75 was John Michael Macdonald, who had been appointed on the advice of John Diefenbaker in 1960 and served until his death, at the age of 91, in 1997.[26] Orville Howard Phillips was the last senator appointed for life to leave the body: he was appointed on the advice of Diefenbaker in 1963 and served in the Senate until 1999, when he voluntarily resigned a month before turning 75.[27]


In the 1960s and 1970s, discussion of reforming the appointment mechanism resurfaced alongside the Quiet Revolution and the rise of Western alienation, usually with the chief goal of making the Senate better represent the provinces in parliament. It was often suggested that provincial governments should appoint senators, as was done in the United States before the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Others suggested that senators should be actual members of provincial legislatures, similar to theBundesrat of Germany. The discussions also suggested redistributing Senate seats to the growing western provinces, but formal suggestions for equality of seats between provinces did not occur until 1981. Likewise, schemes to create an elected Senate did not gain widespread support until after 1980, when parliament enacted the National Energy Program in the wake of the energy crises of the 1970s. Many Western Canadians then called for a "Triple-E Senate", standing for "elected, equal, and effective". They believed that allowing equal representation of the provinces, regardless of population, would protect the interests of the smaller provinces and outlying regions.


There have been at least 28 major proposals for constitutional Senate reform since the early 1970s and all have failed.[25] The Meech Lake Accord—a series of constitutional amendments proposed by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney—would have required the federal government to choose a senator from a list of persons nominated by the provincial government; the accord, however, failed to obtain the requisite unanimous consent of the provincial legislatures. A successor proposal, the Charlottetown Accord, involved a provision under which the Senate would include an equal number of senators from each province, each elected either by the majority in the relevant provincial legislature or by the majority of voters in the province. This accord was defeated in the referendum held in 1992.


The Cabinet while headed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper moved to institute reforms to the process by which senators are selected and the amount of time they can hold a seat in parliament:[28] On May 30, 2006, Bill S-4 was introduced in the Senate, proposing an amendment to the Constitution Act, 1867, so as to limit the term of a newly appointed senator to eight years, though sitting senators would serve out their term to age 75. Further, on December 13, 2006,[29] Bill C-43, for "the consultation of the electors... in relation to the appointment of senators",[29] was tabled in the House of Commons. It was intended to, pending a constitutional amendment, institute in each province direct elections, held concurrently with either provincial or federal general elections, for senatorial candidates who would then be recommended by the prime minister for appointment by the governor general.[30] Both bills died at the end of the first session of the 39th parliament, but were reintroduced in the second session as C-19 (with modifications) and Bill C-20,[31][32]respectively. C-19 was again reintroduced in 2009 as Bill S-7, with one change: senators appointed between October 14, 2008, and the date the bill was granted Royal Assent would remain senators for eight years after the law came into force.[33]


On June 22, 2006, Progressive Conservative Senator Lowell Murray and Liberal Senator Jack Austin introduced an amendment to the constitution to alter the makeup of the Senate[34] by enlarging the chamber to 117 members and giving a greater number to the western provinces of British Columbia (12), Alberta (10), Saskatchewan (7), and Manitoba (7). The amendment would also have increased both the number of divisions to five—by separating British Columbia into its own division—and the number of additional senators the monarch could appoint to five or ten. The amendment was debated on June 27 and 28, 2006, and then sent to a special committee on Senate reform. That committee considered the amendment and, on October 26, 2006, endorsed it.


Conservative Senator David Tkachuk, seconded by Liberal Senator Larry Campbell, proposed on December 11, 2006, an addition to the proposed constitutional changes that would provide for 24 senators for British Columbia. The proposal died on the Order Paper when the writ dropped for the 2008 federal election.
Party positions


The New Democratic Party (NDP) has consistently called for the Senate's abolition.[35] In 2013, the NDP appeared ambiguous over whether it would appoint senators if elected to government,[36] although it emphasized its pro-abolition platform. The Bloc Québécois has alternated between advocating the elimination of the Senate and accepting the status quo, while the Green Party of Canada passed a resolution during its 2010 convention supporting a Senate elected using proportional representation.[37]


The Conservative Party was committed to the idea of elected senatorial candidates being appointed by the governor general on the advice of the prime minister. Accordingly, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2007 recommended the appointment of Bert Brown, who was elected in Alberta's senator in waiting election,[38] but otherwise followed the standing rules in the absence of other elected nominees.[39][40][41] Harper later stated that the Senate "must either change or—like the old upper houses of our provinces—vanish".[42]


The provincial incarnations of the NDP follow the same stance as their federal counterpart[43] and the Saskatchewan Party caucus has also voted to support Senate abolition.[44] A private members bill introduced to by Liberal Member of the Legislative Assembly John Les to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia on June 2, 2011, with the support of the Premier, sought to have elections conducted for BC Senate nominees.[45] The bill was never enacted as law.
Offices

Outside of Parliament Hill, most senators have offices at Victoria Building across Wellington Street.
See also






Canadian politics portal




Canada portal





Book: Canada

Lists of Canadian senators
List of current Canadian senators
Speaker of the Canadian Senate
Leader of the Government in the Senate (Canada)
Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Canada)
Canadian Senate seating plan
Canadian Senate divisions
Procedural officers and senior officials of the parliament of Canada
Monarchy of Canada
List of Canadian Senate appointments by Prime Minister
Canadian Senate Page Program
Triple-E Senate
Canadian Senate expenses scandal
Joint address
Notes

^ Jump up to:a b c Franco, 2006, pg. 3–42.
Jump up^ Canadian Heraldic Authority. "Public Register of Arms, Flags and Badges of Canada > Senate of Canada". Queen's Printer for Canada. Retrieved August 8, 2010.
Jump up^ W.H. McConnell, Commentary on the British North America Act (Toronto: McMillan & Co., 1977), p. 72-73.
Jump up^ "Harper appoints 7 new senators". CBC News. January 6, 2012.
Jump up^ Bill Curry and Brian Laghi (May 19, 2008). "Saskatchewan plans to elect senators".Globe and Mail (Canada).
^ Jump up to:a b "Senator says she won't talk more about Sask. residency". CBC News. February 17, 2009.
Jump up^ "Senators ordered to provide concrete proof of primary residence". Ottawa Citizen. January 31, 2013.
^ Jump up to:a b staff reporter (April 1998). "Canada’s Upper House: Do We Need the Senate? – Constitutional Origins". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Archived from the original on October 16, 2007. Retrieved February 12, 2008. "But having taken a vow of poverty 40 years ago, she lacked the necessary $4000 in “real and personal property” that is stipulated in Section 23 of the Constitution Act of 1867. Upon this realization, the scramble was on to ensure her appointment, and a small parcel of land was transferred by her Montreal-based order into her name."
Jump up^ "Senate – Committee List". Parl.gc.ca. Retrieved July 1, 2010.
Jump up^ "Senate – Committee Home Page". Parl.gc.ca. Retrieved July 1, 2010.
Jump up^ "Senate – Committee Home Page". Parl.gc.ca. Retrieved July 1, 2010.
Jump up^ "Senate – Committee Home Page". Parl.gc.ca. Retrieved July 1, 2010.
Jump up^ http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Senate/Rules/senate-rules_15-e.htm#C15R51
Jump up^ Gibson, Gordon (2004-09). "Challenges in Senate Reform: Conflicts of Interest, Unintended Consequences, New Possibilities". Public Policy Sources. Fraser Institute. Retrieved August 4, 2007.
Jump up^ "THE CANADIAN SENATE IN FOCUS 1867–2001". The Senate of Canada. 2001-05. Retrieved August 4, 2007.
Jump up^ "Concentration of Newspaper Ownership". Canadian Heritage. Retrieved November 17, 2007.
Jump up^ Edge, Marc (November 13, 2007). "Aspers and Harper, A Toried Love". The Tyee. Retrieved November 17, 2007.
Jump up^ "Concentration of Newspaper Ownership". Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. 2006-06. Retrieved November 17, 2007.
Jump up^ "Senate vote to kill Climate Act disrespects Canadians and democracy". davidsuzuki.org. October 19, 2010. Retrieved May 9, 2011.
Jump up^ "Debates of the Senate, November 16, 2010".
Jump up^ "Debates of the Senate, June 1, 2010".
Jump up^ "The Canadian Senate In Focus". Parl.gc.ca. Retrieved July 1, 2010.
Jump up^ "Senate votes to suspend Andrew Thompson". CBC. November 13, 1998. Retrieved April 28, 2008.
Jump up^ Jack Stillborn (November 1992). Senate Reform Proposals in Comparative Perspective (PDF). Library of Parliament.
^ Jump up to:a b Joyal, Serge (July 2003). Protecting Canadian Democracy: The Senate You Never Knew. McGill-Queen's University Press. ISBN 978-0-7735-2619-8.
Jump up^ "www2.parl.gc.ca". .parl.gc.ca. Retrieved January 10, 2011.
Jump up^ "www2.parl.gc.ca". .parl.gc.ca. Retrieved January 10, 2011.
Jump up^ CTV.ca News Staff (May 30, 2006). "Tories to propose fixed terms for new senators". CTV.ca. Retrieved December 3, 2006.
^ Jump up to:a b "Canadians will choose senators under new bill". CBC news. December 13, 2006. Retrieved November 8, 2007.
Jump up^ "Bill C-43: An Act to provide for consultations with electors on their preferences for appointments to the Senate".
Jump up^ "Bill C-19: An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Senate tenure)".
Jump up^ "Bill C-20: Senate Appointment Consultations Act".
Jump up^ "Text of Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867".
Jump up^ Government of Canada (June 22, 2006). "Amendment to the Constitution of Canada—Western Provincial Representation". Debates of the Senate: 1st Session, 39th Parliament. Library of Parliament. Retrieved December 3, 2006.
Jump up^ "CBC News – Canada – Dallaire, Eggleton among nine new senators". Canada: CBC. March 24, 2005. Retrieved July 1, 2010.
Jump up^ "- Tom Mulcair ambiguous if he will appoint NDP senators if party wins next election". Canada: National Post. October 14, 2013.
Jump up^ This motion, in calling for the elections of Senators, is more specific than the current policy of holding a referendum on which direction senate reform should take.
Jump up^ CBC News (April 18, 2007). "Harper appoints Albertan senator-in-waiting". Canada: CBC. Retrieved April 19, 2007.
Jump up^ Campion-Smith, Bruce (December 11, 2008). "Harper set to name 18 to Senate".The Star (Toronto). Retrieved May 23, 2010.
Jump up^ CTV News (September 12, 2008). "Harper to fill 18 Senate seats with Tory loyalists". Ctv.ca.
Jump up^ MacCharles, Tonda; Campion-Smith, Bruce (December 22, 2008). "Duffy, Wallin named to Senate". The Star (Toronto). Retrieved May 23, 2010.
Jump up^ CBC News (September 11, 2007). "Senate should vanish if it's not reformed: Harper". Canada: CBC. Retrieved September 30, 2007.
Jump up^ Canadian Press (May 24, 2013). "Saskatchewan premier Wall no longer believes Senate can be reformed". Canada: Star Phoenix. Retrieved July 9, 2013.
Jump up^ CBC News (July 8, 2013). "Sask. Party members vote to abolish senate". Canada: CBC.ca. Retrieved July 9, 2013.
Jump up^ "Province moves toward senatorial elections". Timescolonist.com. June 3, 2011. Retrieved September 11, 2011.
References
Department of Justice. (2004). Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982.
Forsey, Eugene. (2003). "How Canadians Govern Themselves."
The Parliament of Canada. Official Website.
A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Canadian Senate
Bibliography
Franco, Guida (2006). Canadian Almanac & Directory 2006. Toronto: Micromedia ProQuest, 3–42. ISBN 1-895021-90-1.