You’ll recall that, a few posts back in this series, we noted that the role of a Senator was intended to be quite different than the role of a Minister of Parliament (MP). That is still the case today.
The key starting point – MPs handle, in part, the “government” part of the country:  remember  MPs have constituents to represent, and Cabinet Ministers are the heads of federal departments and MPs in opposition work as shadow “critics” to the these departments. But the two houses do share a similar role – although they carry out their parts very differently (and in a way that relates back to the goals involved in the establishment of the Senate in the first place). That role: making laws (“legislation”).
How is federal legislation made?
Canadian federal legislation must pass through both houses before an idea for a law actually becomes a “law”. When it is first introduced, it is called a “bill”. If you are old enough, you may recall that video in the Schoolhouse Rock series during Saturday morning cartoons – “I’m only a bill”  (American, but similar concept).
There are two types of bills:

• public bills, which deal with public policy (like the budget bill); and
• private members’ bills, which convey special rights or powers on a particular individual or a specific group. A recent example is discussed here.

Most bills considered by Parliament are public bills. While bills can be introduced either in the Senate (in which case their bill number starts with letter S) or in the House of Commons (in which case their bill number starts with the letter C), the majority of public bills in Parliament come from the House of Commons. In addition, the Senate cannot introduce money bills, meaning bills that collect or spend public funds.
All bills must be considered and passed by both the Senate and the House of Commons before receiving Royal Assent from the Governor General (the final step in a bill’s passage into law).
There are five steps involved in each house. They are as follows:

1. First reading 
   The house receives the bill, and it is circulated. This is an introductory proceeding and takes place without debate or vote.
2. Second reading
   MPs / Senators debate the principles of the bill. To help with this process, the bill may be referred to a committee for closer examination before voting.
3. Committee stage
   A committee study the bill clause by clause. It may also do research and hear evidence. During, or a result of this process, members of the committee may propose changes to the bill (known as amendments).After it has completed the clause-by-clause analysis, the committee adopts a report on the bill. The report will recommend either: that the bill be accepted as is, that it be accepted with amendments, or that it be rejected. Committees often also append observations to their report. These comments may highlight issues raised by the committee’s study of the bill.
4. Report stage
   If the committee’s report recommends adopting the bill as is (i.e., with no amendments), there is no report stage and the bill goes directly to third reading. If, however, the report suggests amendments to the bill, members must debate the report and either accept, amend, or reject the amendments, in whole or in part.
5. Third reading
   This is the final stage of debate. Members may propose further amendments at this stage before voting to pass or reject the bill.

Once a bill has been approved in both houses, it is ready for Royal Assent.
If both houses go through a similar process, how are their roles different?
Despite the similarities in the bill-reviewing process in the 2 houses, as the Senate cannot introduce money bills, and since most bills contain at least some financial provisions, most the proposed legislation studied by Senate originates in the House of Commons.  As a result, most of the bills introduced in the Senate are private members bills.
That said, legislation actually being proposed by the government of the day can also originate in the Senate. There a few reasons for that. For example:

• It is cost-effective.  Petitioners for private bills must pay all legal, printing and translation costs, and the minimum fee in the House of Commons is over twice that of the fee in the Senate.
• Starting in the Senate can speed up the process, as the House of Commons might be quite mired in other things at that point in time.

• The Senate excels at one of the most time-consuming parts of making laws – committee work. No law is made in a vacuum: it is the result of many things, including public will, changes in society and scientific progress. And it takes a lot of time and effort to study and document all of those factors. MPs have constituents to directly represent (which is why they all have local offices and spend so much time in their communities) and a public service to be responsible for [neither of which Senators do]: there simply would not be enough time to do research and inquiries that are completed in the Senate.  In addition, Senators, since they cannot be voted out in the next election, tend to have longer terms of office (an average of 11 years, as opposed to the MP average of 6), thus helping with consistency in the time it takes to study issues.

As stated by retired Queen’s University professor Ned Franks:
That’s what the Senate does best, is study.[…] Committees there tend to be less partisan than the House of Commons. The members tend to have more experience and they have more time. They’re immune largely from pressures of party politics. So they often do really good jobs of looking at programs and issues.[1]
Similarly, Jack Stilborn, a researcher at the Library of Parliament noted in 2008:
Policy studies are conducted by standing committees in both houses, but those of the Senate sometimes involve more extensive deliberations, enable members to acquire more specialized knowledge, and address broader issues. This effectiveness has been attributed to greater continuity in the membership of Senate committees, the relative freedom of Senate committee work from partisan political pressures, and the absence of time-consuming electoral duties, which enables some Senators to invest more time in this work.[2]
These differences are not surprising when one recalls the original role envisioned for Senators including the fact they are to be appointed: “for the purpose of obtaining […] advice and assistance in all weighty and arduous affairs which may be the State and Defence of Canada concern”.
Does the Senate have many committees?
Yes, and several different kinds. These committees range from 5 to 15 Senators and require a quorum of four members. Quorum is the minimum number of senators needed to constitute a meeting. The rules for the various kinds of committees are in the Rules of the Senate.
A  first kind of committee is Standing Committee. Standing Committees exist for the duration of a session of Parliament, continuing throughout periods of prorogation and dissolution of Parliament (as permitted by the Parliament of Canada Act). In addition to the Committee of Selection, there are currently sixteen standing Senate committees. They are:

• 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, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
• Social Affairs, Science and Technology
• Transport and Communications

A second kind of committee is the Special Committee. These committees are established to study either a specific piece of legislation or to undertake a study on a particular issue. The motion establishes a special committee usually sets out the parameters of the committee’s study, from which it cannot deviate without permission from the chamber. It will commonly name the members of the committee and the date by which the committee must report, and it will sometimes include other provisions such as the power to travel and to contract professional services.   A well-known recent example of such a committee is the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan.
A third kind of committee is the Joint Committee. These are made up of both Senators and MPs. They have a proportionate number of members from each house, reflecting their relative sizes.  Such committees may be established through the procedural rules of each house (a standing joint committee) or by a motion adopted by each house (a special joint committee). There are two standing joint committees: Scrutiny of Regulations and Library of Parliament. Sometimes, there can be a joint special committee. For example: in 1997 Senator Landon Pearson formed a Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access. The Committee spent 12 months studying issues surrounding divorce, child custody, child support and parental access to children. Its members heard from Canadians in every region and completed­ their report, For the Sake of the Children, in December 1998.
For more information on Senate committees, see the Senate committees webpage.
Does committee work only happen between 2^nd and 3^rd reading in the Senate?
No. Committee work can be completed in relation to bills before they even come to the Senate (through pre-study committee reports).    Committees also conduct longer-term studies on topics in their area of interest.  Recent examples of this kind of committee work include the special studies about:  hydro-carbon transportation, cyber-bullying, a national energy strategy, and mental health. However, the committee work regarding current bills always takes precedence over other kinds of committee work.
Do committees deal only with paperwork?
No. In order to help Senators understand the legislation and its potential impact, committees often call witnesses to public hearings. This helps to ensure that both experts are consulted and those who will be most impacted by any changes are heard.
If the Senate cannot introduce money bills, does that mean that it cannot suggest changes to money bills either?
No. As was stated in the Report of the Special Committee Appointed to Determine the Rights of the Senate in Matters of Financial Legislation:[3] “…the Senate of Canada has and always had since it was created, the power to amend Bills originating in the Commons appropriating any part of the revenue or imposing a tax by reducing the amount therein, but has not the right to increase the same without consent of the Crown.”
Can the Senate reject a bill that has already passed in the House of Commons?
Yes. Both houses can pass, amend, delay or defeat bills. Senators do not usually delay or defeat legislation already passed by MPs, but they can reject bills and they will.
For example: if the Senate decides the government of the day does not have a mandate to do what it proposes, or a bill is not good legislation because it is misguided, based on wrong information or not in the public interest, it will bring the legislative process to a halt. If this occurs, the government must generally begin the process all over again.
Does the Senate often reject government bills?
No. Since 1945, the Senate has only defeated 6 government bills. They include: Bill C-43 on abortion, Bill C-28 on the Lester B. Pearson International Airport in Toronto, and Bill C-220 on profiting from authorship with respect to a crime. The Senate has, however, a larger record of defeating private member’s bills.
For more information on the topic of today’s post, see:

• Coulombe, Françoise. The Value of the Bicameral Legislature: The Contribution of the Canadian Senate. Library of Parliament Research Paper, revised, February 1979.

‘Marilyn Doyle’; ‘Vincent Chu’

In our last post about the Senate, we looked at the general structure of the modern Senate, with an emphasis on how it conforms to some of the original goals set by the founders in 1867. Today, we look at the modern make up of the Senate:  who’s in it, how did they get there, and how can their term come to an end?
Today, in 2013, who can become a Senator?
As was the case in the past, today any Canadian citizen – by birth or naturalization – who is at least 30 years of age can become a Senator. That citizen must reside in the province from which they are appointed. As well, s/he must still have at least a $4000 net worth and own or have equity in $4000 of property in the province of appointment.  Today $4,000 may not seem like much money, but in 1867 it was a considerable sum. Best estimates are that its present-day dollar value would exceed $70,000, but Parliament has never adjusted this amount.[1]
Although these property requirements do not usually cause a problem, they can on occasion. Senator Mary Alice “Peggy” Butts, who served from September 23, 1997 to August 15, 1999, was a Roman Catholic nun when she was appointed. Having taken a vow of poverty upon becoming a nun, she was only able to officially be sworn in only after her order formally transferred a small parcel of land to her name. [2]
These qualifications for property and residence do not only matter when you become a Senator, but throughout one’s term. At the start of each legislative session, a Senator has to file a Declaration of Qualification with the Clerk of the Senate stating s/he continues to meet the qualifications.
Are there any other qualifications required?
The exact wording of section 24 of the Constitution Act, 1867 says that the Governor General shall “summon qualified Persons to the Senate”. Until 1929, only men were considered to be persons qualified to be Senators.
In 1927, five women in Alberta (Henrietta Muir Edwards, Nellie McClung, Louise McKinney, Emily Murphy and Irene Parlby) challenged that interpretation. They petitioned the federal government to ask the Supreme Court whether the Constitution gave the Governor-General the power to appoint women to the Senate. The Supreme Court was asked, and replied no. Fortunately for those women, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, and not the Supreme Court, was Canada’s highest court at that time. The Privy Council disagreed with the Supreme Court and ruled that women were indeed “Persons” that could qualify to be Senators. Shortly after, in 1930, the first female Senator, Cairine Wilson, was appointed by Prime Minister Mackenzie King.
At the moment, there are 38 women serving as Senators.
How does a “qualified” person get chosen?
Senators are still appointed by the Governor General, in the name of the King. The Governor General acts customarily on the advice of the Prime Minister, so, effectively, Senators are appointed by Prime Ministers.
There are no constitutional rules regarding past experience or party affiliation. Previous political experience is common but by no means a prerequisite to becoming a Senator, and many Senators continue to be selected based on achievements in their professional field.
As noted in our previous post, when the first Senate was selected in 1867, the Senators were selected from the provincial legislative assemblies and there was equal representation from government and opposition parties. Since then, Senators have been appointed from such fields as business, law, education, public service and journalism. Some worked previously as civil servants, some used to be cabinet ministers, some are former party leaders.  For a list of the various occupations that have been represented in the Senate, see here.
Prime Ministers usually have chosen Senators affiliated with their own political parties. Occasionally, individuals without a party affiliation are selected and may sit as Independents. More rarely, Prime Ministers have selected Senators from opposition parties.
In the last three decades, Brian Mulroney selected 2 out of 57 senators from outside his party – one Independent and one Reform.  Jean Chrétien made 75 appointments and selected 3 Independents. Paul Martin selected 17 Senators, 2 of which were Independent Conservatives and 3 from opposition parties. 59 Senators, more than half of current Senators, have been appointed since Stephen Harper became Prime Minister in 2006.  They have all been Conservative members.  A list of which current Senators were appointed by whom can be found here.
Arguably, an ideal Senate would have a more even distribution between the two dominant political parties (as one of the original goals was that it not be very partisan). However, some argue that it is a good thing to have the Senate majority be the opposite to the majority in the House of Commons (so as to increase accountability). These are questions better left to the political scientists.
Are Senators appointed “for life”?
No. Senators used to be appointed for life, but, since 1965, Senators have been required to retire at age 75. This provision can be found in section 29(2) of the Constitution Act 1867.
How many Senators have died while in office? 
Many, especially during the days when Senators were appointed for life. The last Senator to die in office was Doug Finley, a Conservative Senator from Ontario, who passed away on May 11, 2103.  For a complete list, see here.
Can Senators resign?
Yes, just like in any other job, a Senator may also resign (and some of that has occurred lately).  The reasons for resignation are as numerous as in any other profession. The provisions about resignation can be found in section 30 of the Constitution Act 1867.
A Senator can also choose not to resign outright, but instead resign from the party s/he was associated with and sit as an independent instead. Some that has been going recently as well.
For a complete list of senators and how they left the Senate, see here.
Can a Senator be disqualified from Senate?
Yes. The provisions around this are contained in section 31 of the Constitution Act 1867.  Specifically, “[t]he Place of a Senator shall become vacant” if s/he:

• ceases to own $4000 in property or becomes bankrupt;
• ceases to be qualified for residence;
• fails to attend two consecutive sessions; or
• takes an oath to a foreign power or becomes a citizen of another power. This might mean that someone who becomes a dual citizen would become disqualified from the Senate, but there does not seem to be anything in the Constitution Act, 1867 that prevents someone who already possesses dual citizenship from being appointed.

Finally, a Senator could be disqualified if he or she is “attainted of Treason or convicted of Felony or of any infamous Crime”.
To complete such a disqualification, Senators would hold a vote. In other words, it’s up to senators to police themselves.
What does it mean to be attainted of treason? Convicted of a felony? And what exactly is an infamous crime?
Felonies are what we now refer to as indictable offences, which are the most serious criminal offences, and treason is a specific indictable offence.
An “infamous crime” is not defined in the Criminal Code. But it would likely be a crime that would call into question their morality or trustworthiness in relation to holding public office, such as fraud, corruption, or dishonesty.  As noted by Robert Marleau, former clerk of the House of Commons and co-editor of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, published in 2000:  “[t]hat phrase ‘infamous crime’ was written in another time and another context. […] What I would say is both the criminal law summary indictment or criminal code has evolved since those phrases were used.”
Can Senators be sanctioned in any other ways (for example: before a conviction)?
Yes, the Senate can also suspend Senators, or authorize a leave of absence. The provisions regarding these options can be found Chapter 15 of the Senate Rules.
With respect to leaves of absence, these provisions state that, the Senate may order a leave of absence where, in its judgment, there is sufficient cause, and solely to protect the dignity and reputation of the Senate and public trust and confidence in Parliament. This can occur, for example, when a Senator might be under investigation for a crime.
During such a leave of absence,  a Senator still has the right to work as a Senator outside of the Senate chamber, but s/he cannot attend sittings. However, since Senators will be disqualified if they miss two consecutive sessions, Senate rules say that, if required to avoid disqualification, the Senate could allow the Senator in question to attend a sitting just once every session.
Most recently, this has occurred with Senator Patrick Brazeau, who was placed on a leave of absence while he stands accused of assault and sexual assault. Senator Brazeau was also removed from the Conservative caucus and is now an independent (and would be sitting as such if he were not on a forced leave).
Suspensions, on the other hand, generally occur when a Senator has been found guilty of a criminal offence in proceedings by indictment and is given a sentence other than a discharge. Such a suspension would continue in force until the earlier of:
(a)   the finding of guilt is overturned on appeal;
(b)  the sentence is replaced with a discharge on appeal; or
(c)   the Senate determines whether or not the seat shall become vacant by reason of that conviction.
This has never occurred.
How do the current Senate hearings regarding the suspension of 3 Senators fit into this?
This is a question which has yet to be determined. The motions in question appear to want to do more that any traditional “suspension” (in that the Senators in question would no longer be permitted to continue their work and would be stripped of salary and benefits), but the requirements for “disqualification” do not appear to have been met. From what has gone on in the red chamber thus far, it appears that there is discussion about questions such as:

• just what do the Senate rules allow in terms of what happens during a suspension;
• exactly what is the standard of evidence required in the chamber in order to apply these kinds of suspension;
• even if the evidentiary standard is different than that required in a court law, does the Chamber need to follow and apply Charter rights?

Stay tuned…should be interesting.
More to Come…
Well that was quite a bit of information! In our next post, we will look at what Senators do and how that work does or does not reflect of the goals of the founders of confederation.

In our last post about the Senate, we looked at a bit of the history of the Senate, with an emphasis on why it was formed the way that is was. Today, we look at how our modern Senate is formed.
How many Senators currently sit in the Senate?
There are currently 105 Senators.  As mentioned in our last post, in 1867, there were only 72 Senators (and three regional divisions). As provinces joined Confederation, additional seats were added.  Only once were seats taken away; when Alberta and Saskatchewan became provinces in 1905, the Territory lost all four of its Senate seats in the re-shuffle. Today, 4 regions Ontario, Quebec, the Atlantic Provinces, and the Western Provinces, each have 24, for a total of 96 seats. In addition, 6 Senators are appointed from Newfoundland, and one each from the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut.
That said, section 26 of the Constitution Act 1867 allows the government (with the approval of the King, naturally) to expand the Senate temporarily by adding either 4 or 8 more seats. A government can, for example, use this power to appoint additional senators to break a legislative deadlock. This power has been used only once, in 1990, by then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney to ensure passage of the goods and services tax.
In our modern Senate, is representation still according to provinces, regions, or both? Is it based on population at all?
Representation is based on region as well as by province. Provinces that are within a regional division are allocated a number of seats for the province. Take Alberta for example. Alberta is part of the regional division of Western Provinces, which has a total of 24 seats. But just because a region has a set number of seats does not mean that all the Senators could come from one province. Section 22 of the Constitution Act, 1867 further divides the regions seats by province. Within the Western region, Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba each have 6 seats.
Not every region divides their seats equally among its provinces. The Maritime Provinces get a total of 24 seats, but New Brunswick and Nova Scotia each have 10 Senators, and PEI has 4 (Newfoundland, which did not join the federation until 1949, has 6 seats).
In Quebec, there are additional requirements. If the Senator is from Quebec, s/he is appointed from a specific electoral division, and has an additional requirement to maintain his or her real property or primary residence in that division. The original purpose was to ensure representation of Quebec’s French-Catholics and Anglo-Protestants in the Senate. The divisions reflect the electoral divisions of the Legislative Council (Canada East) at the time of Confederation. But the province has expanded north since then, and the exclusion of individuals from Quebec residing outside those divisions may arise should there be any Senate reform discussions.
Does this still meet the goal of having some regional representation?
There are now 413 seats in Parliament, 308 of which are in the House of Commons and 105 in the Senate. Their distribution represents the democratic principle: the very populated area of central Canada has 55% of all parliamentary seats and elects about 60 per cent of the members of the House of Commons. However, the distribution also represents in the regional principle: the people who live in the less populated parts of the country have a majority of 54% of seats in the Senate.[1]
What is a “senatorial guarantee” and why does it matter?
Even though the House of Commons is guided by representation-by-population, representation in the Senate affects the final distribution of seats. In 1915, the Constitution Act was amended so that no province could have fewer seats in the House of Commons than it had in the Senate. This has been referred to as “senatorial guarantee”. The consequence of this is that PEI is guaranteed 4 seats in the House of Commons because they have 4 senators, when they would have otherwise had only 2 seats (i.e.: because of their population).[i] Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia also have additional representation in the House of Commons because of this clause.
Do I have a Senator that only represents my area like my Minister of Parliament?
Since each region has seats, Senators come from a particular province but not necessarily from different places within that province. Only in Quebec are appointments made based on more specific electoral divisions.  Given the concept of regional representation, Senators do bring regional concerns and viewpoints to their work, however, they are not accountable to a constituency in the same way that Members of Parliament are (as Senators cannot be voted out of office). So whereas MPs have offices in their constituencies, Senators rarely do. That is also in part why Senators’ budgets are smaller than those of MPs (approximately $260,000 vs $165,000).
Are Senators members of political parties?
Most Senators belong to political parties. Right now, there are 60 Senators belonging to the Conservative Party of Canada, 33 belonging to the Liberal Party, and 6 Independents. The remaining 6 seats are currently vacant.  Senators that are members of a political party will meet regularly with other Senators have their party in caucus meetings.
Not all Senators stay with the party that were members of when they became Senators. Some Senators have changed their party after becoming a Senator.[ii]
If Senators are not elected, why do federal elections in Alberta also includes the ability to vote for candidates for Senate seats?
Since the early 1980s, Alberta had campaigned for an elected upper house, which would mean the provinces would have the power to decide their own Senate representatives. Starting in 1989, Alberta has held three votes to nominate “senators-in-waiting”. Though the results are non-binding on the appointment process, 3 of those chosen as  “senators-in-waiting” have been later appointed to the Senate.
Why are there no Senators who identify as being a member of the New Democratic Party (NDP)??
Part of NDP policy is that the Senate should be abolished. As a result, there are no NDP senate candidates.
For more information on the current Senate, please visit the Senate portal.

In our last post about the Senate, we started looking at just what the Senate is. As is often the case, though, it is difficult to understand the present, or plan for the future, without delving into a bit of the past.  So that is today’s task!
Does the Senate only exist because we copied the UK?
No. Although our political system is modelled after that of the UK, our founders did not simply mimic the example; they put in a whole lot of careful thought.
In fact, at the confederation meetings in Quebec City in October of 1864, “practically a whole 6 days of the 14 spent in discussing the details of the [union] scheme were given over to the problems of constituting a second chamber.”[1] Furthermore, it turns out that the inclusion of the Senate – in the precise form that it was and still is today – was a critical factor in confederation occurring at all. George Brown, a journalist and one of our founders, stated that the Senate was: “the very essence of our compact. […] Our lower Canadians friends have agreed to give us representation by population in the Lower house, on the express condition that they would have equality in the Upper House. On no other condition could we have advanced a step.” [2]
But why did the founders of our confederation want a Senate?
The above quote from George Brown hints at one of the reasons for the decisions made regarding the make-up of the Senate, but, naturawlly, there were quite a few reasons. Let’s have a look at 3 of the big ones!

• Regional Representation:  In the late 1800s, Canada was made up of wide expanses of land, with very different interests and huge variations in populations (still is, just in a different way, but more on that in a later post). A strict representation by population would give certain parts of the country a whole lot more of a say in things that other parts of the county. Why would areas with less people and completely different interests sign up to be governed by a group of people who lived thousands of miles away and knew nothing about their land and their neighbours? Well that’s just it, they didn’t really want to … unless they had some guarantee that somewhere, somehow, their region and their people would be heard, would be learned about, and would have a strong voice.  Hence, a second chamber where there is representation by region – as opposed to the representation by population in the House of Commons.  As noted by Alexander Campbell during the Confederation debates: “the principle of election [of the senate] kept alive a germ of doubt as to the security of the Lower Provinces.”[3] Similarly, Sir John A MacDonald said, as he was pointing out all many of the region’s interests and differences:  “In order to protect local interests, and to prevent sectional jealousies, it was found requisite that the three great divisions into which British north America is separated should be represented in the Upper House on the principle of Equality.” [4]

• Checks and Balances:  A second house, regardless of its make-up, is meant to be a place of “sober second thought”:  a place somewhat protected from the partisanship that can sometimes plague the assembly (i.e.: House of Commons).  A place to ensure that the government of the day does indeed have the mandate to do what it proposes and to do extensive study to ensure that new laws are in the public interest of the time. [5]  In other words, the Senate was to be: “security for political dissent, and respect for minority political rights” and to curb “high-handedness in the Commons”.[6]  According to Sir John A MacDonald:  “It would be of no value whatever were it a mere chamber for registering the decrees of the Lower House. It must be an independent house, having a free action of its own, for it is only valuable as being a regulating body, calmly considering the legislation initiated by the popular branch, but it will never set itself in opposition against the deliberate and understood wishes of the people.”[7]

• Broader representation of citizens:  There was a fear that having an elected Senate (which was – and may be again – one of the options) would result in just a second version of the House of Commons, “made up for the most part of citizens who have already made their mark in life [which] might in the end have over-shadowed the assembly, just as the Senate of the United States has over-shadowed [their] House of Representatives.”[8] The founders wanted to ensure that other people (ok, they said men, but we say people), worthy for other reasons, knowledgeable in other areas, who might never choose to undergo the process of running for office, would also have the opportunity to use their expertise in the governance of this new country.  As noted by H.L. Langevin: “…because the very nature of the system prevents a large number of men of talent, of men qualified in every respect and worthy to sit in the Legislative Council, from presenting themselves for the suffrages of the elections, in consequence of the trouble, the fatigue and the enormous expense resulting from these electoral contests in enormous divisions. We know that the system has wearied Lower Canada.”[9]

How then did the founders attempt to ensure that these goals were reflected in the Senate make-up?
In keeping with these stated goals, the founders of confederation included some very specific provisions in the Constitution Act 1867 (formerly known as the British North America Act 1867).
Regional Representation:   When the Senate was established in 1867, the country was divided into 3 regions and each given a certain number of the 72 Senate seats:  Upper Canada (24), Lower Canada (24) and the Maritimes (Nova Scotia (10), New Brunswick (10) and Prince Edward Island (4)).  Any Canadian citizen – by birth or naturalization – who was at least 30 years of age could become a Senator. That citizen had to reside in the province from which he (it was only men at the time!) was appointed. As well, he had to have at least a $4000 net worth and own or have equity in $4000 of property in the province of appointment.[10]  It was believed that coming from and having property in the province of appointment would help to ensure that candidate’s vested interested in, and ingrained perspective of, that region.
Checks and Balances:  In order to help ensure that there was not duplication of roles, and that representation by the people was respected for what it was meant to me, the Constitution Act 1867 clearly defines the differences in the roles of Senators and Ministers of Parliament (MPs).  For example, the documents that appointed Senators stated that they were appointed: “for the purpose of obtaining […] advice and assistance in all weighty and arduous affairs which may be the State and Defence of Canada concern” – this is a different function from elected members who represent their constituents.  Another difference?  Although the Senate can amend “money bills”, it cannot introduce them. As is stated in section 53 on the Constitution Act 1867, “[b]ills for appropriating any part of the Public Revenue, or Imposing any Tax or Impost shall originate in the House of Commons.”
Broader representation of citizens:   Rather than be elected, Senators were to be appointed, by the Governor General, in the name of the King. The Governor General acted customarily on the advice of the Prime Minister, so, effectively, Senators were to be appointed by Prime Ministers. There were no constitutional rules regarding past experience or party affiliation; the idea was that Senators were to be selected based on achievements in their professional field. When the first Senate was selected in 1867, the senators were selected from the provincial legislative assemblies and there was equal representation from government and opposition parties.
As was the case with the last post, this just leads to many more questions, doesn’t it? Fear not gentle reader, lots more fascinating information is on its way. Stay tuned!

For more information on the history of the Senate (and I know that some of you may want this!), see:

• The Senate of Canada (Committees and Private Legislation Directorate), A Legislative and Historical Overview of the Senate of Canada, accessed on September 13, 2013.
• Janet Ajzenstat, “Bicameralism and Canada’s Founders: The Origins of the Canadian Senate”, Protecting Canadian Democracy, edited by Senator Serge Joyal, (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2003), pages 3-30.
• Senator Donald Oliver, The History of the Canadian Senate and Senate Reform, accessed on September 13, 2013. http://senatordonaldoliver.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=97.
• Senator Serge Joyal, “The Senate as the Embodiment of the Federal Principle.” Protecting Canadian Democracy, edited by Senator Serge Joyal, (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2003), pages 271-316.