Talk:Senate of Canada

message: Right now the opening section of the article does not make a concise statement about the purpose of the senate.  In fact, it reads like a deterrent.  Is there a stylistic justification for this in Wikipedia's policies, or is it just a shortcoming of the editors?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:72C5:9B00:F585:54DF:2183:B0C8 (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The article does not describe what senators do. Many Canadian readers might be wondering what did their senators do to earn their base salary of circa $135,000 a year, especially in view of highly publicized reports of spending irregularities by Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin, Patrick Brazeau, and Mac Harb. --Cornellier (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clear Statement of the Senate's Purpose 

message: "Quebec, in particular, does not want its share of the Chamber's seats diluted."
I removed this sentence, since it is blatant speculation. Different provincial governments have held different positions in this regard, while the Bloc Quebecois has openly demanded the outright abolition of the Senate.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.163.137.138 (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Quebec wants? 

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

message: apperently
the senate see's the remaining PC senators as a full-fleged party. they get "official party status" quite similar to Mr. St.Germain when he was the only CA Senator.
according to the Senate, the PC Party is still around. to avoid confusion I therefore named them the "Progressive Conservative Caucus"
Pellaken 05:00, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  2004 

message: The seating chart needs to be updated as Liberal Herbert Sparrow retired January 4, 2005. The tables and appointment chart have already been updated. AndyL 00:17, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I explained over on Talk:Carolyn_Parrish sometime ago, a member has the privilege to identify with whatever party label s/he likes.  Ms. Dyck was appointed as a New Democrat and will remain as such until she says otherwise.  She is, however, not a member of the NDP caucus.  With respect to the PCs, they are now an official party under the Rules of the Senate, they will be apportioned part of the budget and will get to chair a committee, though both of these things may not happen until the next session. - Jord 23:58, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005 

message: I just noticed that there are two mentions of this power, each citing the same example of it's use.  The one under "Senators" is needed and well written, but the one in "Legislative functions" seems redundant and irrelevant.  Does anybody object to a complete deletion of the second mention?  --rob 8 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)
:Deletion done.  The remaining wording about eight senators seems complete, and remained unchanged.  No information was lost (just redundant words).  --rob 17:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant power to appoint eight extras 

message: Why do you have to wade through almost the entire article to get to the bit about legislative functions?
Tony 04:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a helpful little box at the top of the page marked "contents". 86.136.0.145 18:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legislative functions 

message: Several years ago there was a senator who hadn't come to the senate in years because he was living in Mexico.  Does anyone remember who this was ? Dowew 03:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See here - Jord 16:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senator in Mexico ? 

message: "Senate seats are divided among the provinces, so that Ontario, Quebec, the Maritime provinces, and the Western provinces are equally represented." - What a load of crap. By population, it is not fair.
--Liam27 07:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the purposes of the Senate is to provide regional representation. So, no, by population the regions aren't equally represented. That's not the point, though, of the distribution of Senate seats. --142.242.2.248 14:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, they aren't equally distributed by region either. The atlantic provinces actually have 30 if you include Newfoundland. Secondly, grouping the 4 most western provinces into one region is just silly. BC has almost nothing in common (economically, politically, geographically, enviromentally, cuturally, etc) with Saskatchewan for example. Kilrogg 03:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rep-by-pop is indeed what the House of Commons does. The Senate is a body of regional representation to offset the power of population by reflecting the regions. View the US Senate, which gives two to each state - Rhode Island and California are equal. However, this would not work as well in Canada because we have 10 provinces, they have 50 states; most states have "peers" that can join with them, whereas in Canada, very few provinces have "peers". It might work better if we divided large provinces like Ontario into senatorial regions each of which has a population closer to (but not as low as) the median population of all of Canada's provinces, then assign a number of senators to each of these senatorial regions and the less populous provinces. More populous provinces would still have more senators, but not as overwhelming as now. Provinces of population lower than the median would be overrepresented, while provinces above the median would be underrepresented, in terms of population. GBC 20:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The real reason the seats are the way they are is because it was decided long ago, when the west was small and atlantic Canada still fairly large.  Of course it is best to have an equalizing factor, but with 30 seats in Atlantic Canada it's hardly equal.  Saskatchewan and Manitoba can get left behind too (actually all provinces complain about the others getting everything, and most of it is probably perception.  Atlantic Canada gets a lot of support from the federal government).  I think a senate with equal regions of Atlantic Canada (including NL), Quebec, Ontario, and the Prairie provinces, with B.C. as "half" a region, is what will probably end up happening.  The West has complaints, too, about under-representation.  If all of Western Canada is only equal to Quebec, this is hardly equality.  You can't consider population for two provinces and not for the others.  Besides, the senate will never be elected or have any real power if the balance is not shifted to reflect at least some of the population trends of the past century.  And as long as the status quo remains, the equalizing factor is mythical anyway.  Atlantic Canada should sacrifice a little for the sake of having the Senate elected and thus meaningful - Atlantic Canada would have more power this way than high representation in a lame-duck senate. 24.82.141.209 (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All arguments for what would be the "most fair" way to divide distribution of Senate seats given current demographics are academic anyway since any meaningful reform would require a change to the constitution, which we already know is virtually impossible to achieve. Since our "first-past-the-post" electoral system already over-represents the majority in the lower house (whether it be a Liberal majority, a Conservative majority, or a population majority - i.e. Quebec and Ontario), I think it kind of a nice balance that the Senate now over-represents the "little guy" (i.e. the Maritimes, typically smaller both by population and by economic clout). This perception of mine is perhaps only comforting in a symbolic way since we know that a majority government can "stack" the Senate when it needs to push something controversial through (i.e. as Mulroney did to get the GST bill passed into law). The REAL democratic deficit in Canada is not to be found in the Senate but rather in the way we concentrate so much power in the PMO. I like the idea of eventually finding a way of having an elected Senate but, frankly, the various ideas I've heard coming from my fellow westerners, most being put forth as ways to achieve a "Triple E Senate" are not practical but rather would shift the balance of power to be even less fair than it already is. If Canadians want meaningful political reform the place to start is not with how we select senators but rather in how we decide which group of elected members of the House of Commons will form future governments. (BTW, great article, I will read in more detail and see if I can add some suggestions for improvement). Garth of the Forest (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Representation in the Senate 

message: Someone has edited the seat composition table to make the total "105/105" — I would think that the logic in this change is that there are one hundred seats, including the vacant seats.  However, I would think that it would be more appropriate (as I would think is more in keeping with the original intent of the table) for the numerator to be equal to 105, less the vacant seats.  Would it be okay if I changed it back to "105/105"? FiveParadox 15:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand.  You're going to change it from "105/105" to "105/105"?  HistoryBA 18:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My apologies!  Meant "100/105".  :-S  FiveParadox 00:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vacant seats in current total 

message: I've read a few transcripts of the Senate precedings, before, and notice they frequently refer to the House of Commons as "the other place". I'm just curious if there's a history behind the custom, or what. I don't recall ever seeing an MP refer to the Senate in that manner .. --142.242.2.248 14:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually MPs regularly refer to the Senate as "the other place" as well, here is a search which will produce you the results.  I am not sure where the exact origins come from, but one would assume that as there are two chambers it makes sense; I could assume that it might be in the same manner that you don't refer to members by name, maybe you don't refer to the other chamber by name?  That is just conjecture and I suppose this isn't really the place for it anyway ;) - Jord 15:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Basically, parliamentarians aren't supposed to discuss affairs of the other chamber.  So "the other place" is their workaround.  Maureen McTeer once wrote that she thought that MPs were talking about heaven until her husband corrected her. -Joshuapaquin 20:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very common occurrence in Westminster parliaments.  Members of the Australian Senate and House of Reps regularly refer to their counterparts in the other chambers as being "in another place", or "in the other place".  I presume it goes back to a British tradition.  JackofOz 02:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The other place" 

message: hey, just browsing for a picture for a school project and i just happened to notice there was was no section titled criticism. is this covered? again, i didn't read the article. just looking for pictures... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.109.118 (talk • contribs) 
:Read the article.  HistoryBA 20:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Here's the first link I've found about the senator's death:  Mindmatrix 14:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More:   Mindmatrix 14:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Forestall

message: I'd just like to say that I think it would be nice to put in a visual representation of the seating in the Senate as there is on the House of Commons article.  It doesn't have to be an actual picture, I mean in most of the Alberta Legislative Assembly pages these depictions are simple coded text to make coloured squares.  I was just wondering if anyone else thought this was a good idea before I do it (because I can do that if others like this idea). (Grizzwald 14:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, it's been two weeks since I suggested this, so I'm going to go ahead and assume no one has a problem with this.  I'm going to place the layout around the number of Senators table. (Grizzwald 22:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visualisation 

message: I question to wisdom of having the reform section right after the history section (which seems, offhand, far too short), before discussing in detail the working of the Senate in the later sections.  Surely the article should be first about what the Senate is rather than what some people want it to be.  I am not saying, of course, that reform should not be mentioned (it has been a constant in Canadian political debate since Confederation, though I personally don't see what the problem is); I'm just saying that its placement in the article makes it seem as if reform of the Senate is more important than its actual, current functioning---which is preposterous.  I would humbly suggest that the section be moved near the end, probably as far down as after "Relationship with the Government". 74.96.93.49 18:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, and after further study (I need to read the article more thoroughly first), if warranted, let's be bold, and do it. Garth of the Forest (talk) 06:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. An example of the important practice of read first, comment later. I see this has already been done. Good move. Garth of the Forest (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position of the "Senate Reform" section 

message: Ok, we have a conflict on the number of senators.  I know that the government website says that there are 65 Liberal Senators and 4 Independant, but on our List of Canadian Senators page, we have only 64 Liberal and 5 Independat.  Raymond Lavigne's page states that he was ejected from the Liberal Caucus for missappropriations of Senate funds, which would thus make him an Independent Senator.  So which data do we want to go on, the government page or our own page? (Grizzwald 07:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I understand why the numbers were changed.  There are a few things to consider.  While media reports all said things like "Lavigne kciked out of caucus," and he is no longer listed on the Liberal website as one of their Senators, Graham's actual statement was that "It is inappropriate for Senator Lavigne to sit with the Liberal caucus until any investigations have been completed."  This implies something more temporary.  Furthermore, both the official standings on the parliamentary website, as well as the official Senate seating plan list him as a Liberal.  Even if he has been ejected from caucus, he still identifies himself as a Liberal - a prerogative allowed to Senators irrespective of which caucus they sit in.  Examples are the NDP and PC Senators.  I think the solution would be to footnote the Liberal numbers indicating that Lavigne is no longer sitting in the caucus, but still identifies himself as a Liberal.  Thoughts?PoliSciMaster 05:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a good idea, and will go ahead and do it now. (Grizzwald 21:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict in Data 

message: "Only Quebec is represented by a number of senators proportional to its share of the population."  Who came up with that?  If anyone can come up with a rational meaning for this, please enlighten me.  Otherwise I'm taking it out.  Foxmulder 06:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not it should be included in this article, this sentence seems to have a straightforward, rational meaning to me: The proportion of the total number of Senators that are Quebec senators is the same as the proportion of the total population of Canada that Quebec has.  More concretely: Quebec Senators make up just under 25% of the senate, and Quebec's population is just under 25% of the population of Canada.  --thirty-seven 19:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ohhh right, I see.  Perhaps I'm an idiot.  But that still seems a little unclear; when I looked at it, I thought "Well, there is a proportion of Senators per person, but there exists such a proportion for every other province too."  I guess what threw me was the "number of Senators"; it's not really the number that the sentence is talking about, but the percentage out of the whole Senate.  I will rephrase that so idiots like me can understand it ;) Foxmulder 05:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for making the effort to make this less ambiguous in the article. --thirty-seven 19:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to make the "Population per Senator" table more transparent on this issue, I added a final row to the table for the total number of Senators (105) and the average nationwide population per Senator (301,075.2 based on the Canada 2006 Census total population of 31,612,897).  This should make Quebec's proportional share more explicitly understandable as the next closest are Manitoba with 191,400.2 and Ontario with 506,678.4.  --Kralizec! (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaningless statement

message: So, some people and even two parties (NDP and Bloc Quebecois) want the Senate to be abolished. But what would the chamber and associated offices be used for after abolition?
:Check out how much space the federal government leases from the private sector. Surely we could store some dusty old papers or museum quality items there instead ... oh wait ... we already do...>GRIN<Garth of the Forest (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Very funny... I assume the Chamber would be turned into some kind of museum or into a committee and protocolar room just like the Salon rouge in the Parliament of Québec. The buildings that belong to the Senate would be used for other governemental purpose I guess they would probably be used by the Lower House or the Library.--RXcanadensis (talk) 04:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Abolition

message: What reason is there to list Bert Brown as a "Senator-in-waiting" rather than "Senator-elect"? Was he not elected? Giamberardino 02:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was an election, but it has no legal backing to it.  The Crown can just ignore the results if they want.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The practice to "elect" senators in my home province of Alberta is just a partisan bargaining chip used to appeal to the masses of "anti-Ottawa" lemmings out here that would vote Conservative even if their riding association nominated a fencepost to send to Ottawa. In reality, until there is a constitutional amendment, senators in Canada are and will continue to be appointed by Her Majesty the Queen (or, in her absence from the country, Her Majesty's representative the Governor General, on the advice of Her prime minister). The only way we will see a truly elected senate and some true form of democracy is when we finally shed the last trappings of colonialism and become a republic or some similar modern structure. In my opinion, it is long over due for Canadians to give the Queen and her inbred German future spawn the heave ho. However I doubt this will happen in my lifetime or my children's lifetime. Garth of the Forest (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Senator Elect?

message: :Image:Can-pol w.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Can-pol w.jpg

message: The seat chart shows 10 vacancies, yet the smaller chart says 12. What gives? Also, the Liberal seats don't add up. GoodDay 18:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The seating plan is from February, while the chart is up to date.  The correct number of vacancies is 12.PoliSciMaster 20:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: # of vancacies?

message: Can anybody add to this article, PM Harper's threat of dissolving Parliament (thus precipitating a Federal Election) if the Senate fails to pass his 'Crime Bill'? I wasn't aware that the PM could do so. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The prime minister can advise the governor general to dissolve Parliament for any reason (or even for no given reason).  Generally, the governor general is expected to oblige. --thirty-seven (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very interesting. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  As Thirty-seven has advised, in the Westminster style of parliament, the government can dissolve itself at any time ("resign"), however it risks being punished in the general election if it does so for frivolous reasons, hence all the political posturing. The government of the day will typically only do so if it is defeated on a confidence motion or budget bill, or, in the case of a majority government, if it is nearing the end of its current mandate. Canada has had very few minority governments in the past 100 years or so, we in the prairies in particular have grown accustomed to sending our fenceposts - er, I mean - representatives - to Ottawa every 4 or 5 years or so, and when something as boring as a general election is brought to the forefront in the news more frequently than that, western Canadians tend to get grumpy and punish those they feel were responsible for reminding us of our democratic responsibilities. Most of us are too busy spending money we don't have to be bothered with something so mundane as exercising our democratic responsibilities. (removing tongue-from-cheek...) Garth of the Forest (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Harper's March 1 deadline

message: It might seem an odd question but why is it called a senate and not a house of lords? is it just because they didn't want the members to become lords?(Morcus (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Canada does not have peers, so there were no Lords to put in it.PoliSciMaster (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The American Upper House is and was at the time of Confederation called the "Senate". As there were no other names for an upper chamber than House of Lords and Senate, they used Senate because there is no form of nobility in Canada except for the Royal family. Plus the name "Senate" has roots in Ancient Rome. They could have make up a word though.--RXcanadensis (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There were, in fact, more than two names they could have chosen.  The Province of Canada's upper house was called the Legislative Council, for example, and there were a few other names along that line.  They probably just chose the name because it has cool historical roots.  It might also be because the Senate was meant to give regional representation, like the US Senate.  If someone was willing to read through the transcript of the Confederation debates we could probably find the real answer.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone know why its called a senate? 

message: What, if anything, can it do between the dissolution and the election (or, perhaps, the swearing-in) of the House of Commons?  I assume that all senators are still senators - but what is the senate right now (10-Sep-08)?  IIRC, in Japan, if there is an emergency during an election period, the upper house can legislate, although such legislation requires post-election ratification.  In the USA, the House of Representatives is never really dissolved - instead, the congress simply turns over on its appointed day.  So, in our case, if, say, Lithuania or Lesotho or the Vatican declared war on Canada, what, if anything, could the Senate do about it?  And, if it did do something, what could the new Commons do after the election?Jacques A55 (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When Parliament is dissolved, the Senate ceases as a deliberative assembly, but as you correctly point out, Senators remain Senators.  Two of its committees, namely the Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee, and the Committee on Conflict of Interest are granted an inter-sessional authority that allows them to deal with business in between sessions and parliaments.  What does not end is the executive.  The Prime Minister and his Cabinet remain in office until their successors are sworn in.  Were there to be an emergency such as war, it would be handled by the executive.  No legislative authority is required to go to war.PoliSciMaster (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, as you said the Prime Minister and his Cabinet remain in office. Declaring war is a privilege exclusive to the Crown. Also, in case of extraordinary emergency the Governor General is still there and could constitutionally deal with the situation.--RXcanadensis (talk) 05:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of Senate and Senators during election period =

message: Unlike the House of Commons, the Senate has no effect in the decision to end the term of the prime minister or of the government. Only the Commons may force the prime minister to tender his resignation, or to recommend the dissolution of Parliament and issue of election writs, by passing a motion of no-confidence or by withdrawing supply. Thus, the Senate's oversight of the government is limited.
On several pages, most notably Talk:1975 Australian constitutional crisis (and related articles), I've seen it asserted that the Canadian Senate does actually have the power to block supply (being based on the pre 1911 House of Lords) and in theory use it to bring down the government, a la the Australian Dismissal, though given its appointed nature the political reality is likely that it wouldn't happen and if it did the Senate would get its head handed to it and the PM would never come in for criticism the way Whitlam did. (The Australian Senate is elected, although on a "each state has the same number" basis, and one of the big issues of the 1975 crisis was appointed casual vacancy replacements altering the balance from that elected.) Has there ever been any clarity on the Supply question in Canada or does it remain a never-used power? Timrollpickering (talk) 11:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the problem. The Senate graph is showing 107 seats (instead of 105). GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ability to block supply? 

message: Senator Anne Cools is not a member of any party or caucus, nor is she classed as an independent.  The official Senate website has a period beside her name where party affiliation would otherwise be.  This wikipage has at least 4 terms to refer to her, not including the period.  That is low quality.  One term should be chosen and used exclusively.  Elections Canada (which doesn't oversee this appointed Senate) uses the term No Affiliation to refer to candidates/members who are in the position of Anne Cools, that is they are not a member of a party and they are not classed as an Independent.  I am not sure which terms is used within the Senate.  I mention the term No Affiliation becuz, altho it has no legal basis and (to my knowledge) no customary basis either in the Senate, it is in use in some capacity in Ottawa.  The terms Unaligned, Non-Aligned and Other are not used.  As an encyclopedic page, this should have only one term used to refer to the affiliation (or lack thereof) of Senator Cools.Alex.garofolo (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not important to find one word and stick with it. The only thing we really have to do is be careful that we don't use the term "independent" since she inexplicably shuns that term. In addition to using blank spaces, the Senate also uses "no political affiliation". The two tables we have both use notes to explain her, so it just doesn't seem necessary. If we insist on a specific term, we'll need some basis for choosing one and rejecting the others, and there simply is no such basis. It is annoying that Cools rejects labels, but that's what he have to deal with. In any event, if you really think we need a consistent term for the two tables, how about "None"? I object to using Elections Canada as a guide because the Senate is not elected and because senators are allowed to choose their own party label, which is why the PC senators can still use that term even though there aren't enough of them to form a party group and Lavigne can still call himself a Liberal despite being expelled from the caucus. -Rrius (talk) 05:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

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

text: Where on earth do you get the idea that unthinking consistency somehow equals "encyclopedic"? I am not urging inconsistency for inconsistency's sake, but where other concerns exist, I am not going to ignore them in favour of consistency. I have already said that using the same term in the infobox and the broader standings table makes sense, but the space considerations with your table make a short term more desirable than a consistent one. Now, please refrain from impugning my fitness for the project. Arguments like that are unhelpful, and—at the very—least border on personal attack. -Rrius (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anne Cools: Unaligned/Non-Aligned/No Affiliation/Other/./ 

message: I was just looking at this official senate webpage: <http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/senmemb/senate/ps-e.htm> it shows the party standings in the chamber.  There is a vacancy in NB.  Upon further investigation i found that this year, Harper nominated only 4 senators, not 5.  If this is the case, then much of the information on this wikipage is off by 1 senator.Alex.garofolo (talk) 05:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he nominated 5, but the 5th won't officially receive a summons until the 28th, but still before the State Opening. I wasn't going to be bothered about correcting the various standings around WP after someone had already included all 5, but if you want to change it, let me know and I'll change the map. -Rrius (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in Current Composition 

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

message: New senators were appointed today.  I updated the party counts, but I can't for the life of me figure out how to edit the image to match so I informed Rrius via his talk page.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/01/06/pol-new-senators.html
Grandmartin11 (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, but only six of the seven were actually appointed today. The PMO press release makes it clear Dagenais's appointment will be later. -Rrius (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This article suggest at least one other appintment (Vern White) isn't effective immediately either. http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120106/OTT-vern-white-senate-appointment-120106/20120106/?hub=OttawaHome  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjww88 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New senators appointed 

message: I can find nothing in this article in its current form that clearly articulates what exactly the Senate's function is.  Why does it exist?  What does it do?  Shouldn't this be spelled out front an center?  This article appears loaded with intimation and implication from paragraph-1, and doesn't answer any of the obvious questions, say, a child would ask.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.128.178 (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The function of the Senate is covered in the section "Legislative Function". Mediatech492 (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Function 

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

message: It appears the seat table in the infobox has been changed to refer to the Liberals as independents. As I understand it they are still Liberals, they just aren't in the Liberal caucus. At the very least, could a footnote be added to the table noting that most (32?) of the independent senators are in fact members of the Liberal party? TastyCakes (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The Parliament website listed them as independents yesterday, but reverted to calling them Liberals today. Maybe we should use a label like "Liberal (unaffiliated)". —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should follow the official Parliament source and call them Liberals.   According to this source, "the rules of the Senate allow senators to designate themselves as they please" so what the Liberal Party says doesn't really have any bearing on their affiliation.  However, I don't object to some sort of qualification.  What about "Liberal (Senate caucus)"?  That's what James Cowan has suggested: .  TDL (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Until the official Senate standings at http://www.parl.gc.ca/SenatorsMembers/Senate/PartyStandings/ps-E.htm say otherwise there are 32 Liberal Senators. Downwoody (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: They can self-designate as Liberals, but the fact that they are not in the official Liberal Party caucus is very encyclopedicly notable. Calling them simply "Liberal" without prominent note explaining the situation would be misleading. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

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

message: I believe the part about Alberta Senators is incorrect. Five Senators-in-waiting have been appointed. Unless I'm wrong?
MarkFizz (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senators in Waiting 

message: Added some statistics on rejected bills since 2010.  Also modified the introductory text about the "rarely rejects" bills, for 2 reasons:
1.  Rarely is a subjective term.  2 bills per year could be deemed a lot.
2.  Statistically, the number of rejected bills is increasing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.172.239 (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rejected Bills 

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

message: The Senate is modelled after the British House of Lords and consists of 105 members appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister.
Seats are assigned on a regional basis: four regions—defined as Ontario, Quebec, the Maritime provinces, and the Western provinces—each receive 24 seats, with the remaining portions of the country—Newfoundland and Labrador and the three northern territories—assigned the remaining 9 seats apart from these regional divisions. 
Senators may serve until they reach the age of 75.
The term of appointment properly belongs immediately after the sentence discussing appointment, otherwise the political magnitude of the appointment is left hanging, especially for non-Canadians, who might have no prior opinion, and completely different political models. 
The third sentence quoted here isn't even a full statement of term, as it essentially states the converse, that "no Senator may serve after the age of 75", while specifying nothing about conditions arising before then, though it does seem to imply that a Senator can voluntarily choose to step down at any time (through another piggyback shade of "may" smuggled in through this ambiguous door). 
Is there a dis-appointment process of any kind, or is the position effectively a life sinecure? Not stated. 
Note also that the entrancing second sentence is where attention sneaks off to smoke a joint under a dark entrance ramp. We're already halfway down the homespun "9:30 in Newfoundland" rabbit hole, while the basic concept has yet to be fully fleshed out. — MaxEnt 19:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuller treatment of term 

message: Per WP:BETTER#SIZE, at 84,147 bytes this article is too long, period. Further, it doesn't contain enough information about what the senate actually does today, and how it came into being. It does contain a lot of unreferenced information in the "Chamber and symbols" and the "Senators" section, as well as a lengthy section on Procedure, which is entirely unreferenced. The history section, which mostly contains a well-referenced discussion of failed senate reform, contains too much detail for a general article and should either be deleted or moved to a separate History of the Senate of Canada article. While ostensibly well referenced the article contains a lot of links that redirect to home pages. Thoughts? --Cornellier (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there hasn't been any comment, I'm working on consolidating some info in this article. E.g. the "vacancies" section could be merged into the appointment section. Also info from the Reform section could be put there, e.g. Trudeau's changes to the appointment process which do not constitute reform per se. Other info can be moved to History. --Cornellier (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article too long 

message: In May, 2019, The Globe and Mail revealed that Trudeau used a partisan database called "Liberalist" in order to vet all of his senate appointments, which contradicts Trudeau's claim that his appointments were non-partisan.referece: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-pmo-confirms-use-partisan-database-liberalist-to-vet-prospective/
: Removed ref tag from URL above so it doesn't appear at the bottom of the talk page. Anyway, I can't view the reference since I don't have subscription. A non-subscription reference is always preferred. --Cornellier (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Partisan Liberal Party Database called "Liberalist" to vet Senate Appointments 

message: If my addition is correct isn't it 60 (not 59) independent senators with the appointment of Tony Loffreda? Cheers--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what's meant by affiliation here. The article says there are nine "Liberal" senators. "Liberal" links via a bit of a WP:EASTER to Senate Liberal Caucus which states that "The caucus is not formally affiliated to or recognized by the Liberal Party". So are we saying they're both affiliated and not affiliated? --Cornellier (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the affiliation I am referring to is how they register with the Senate.  Of course, the Senate Liberals are a unique case because they remain Liberal Party members, but are not part of the Liberal Party Parliamentary caucus in the House of Commons (unlike the Conservatives).  It is not really WP:EASTER because there is a footnote next to it which explains.  That is all besides the point though.  My edit did not affect the Liberal numbers.  It was to add a Independent Senators Group member, Tony Loffreda.  And make that table consistent with the one in the article here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony Loffreda is non-affiliated and not in the ISG. Source https://sencanada.ca/en/senators-list/ . There are two kinds of independent Senators in the Senate, members of the ISG, and non-affiliated. Until the official senate page shows that Tony Loffreda joined the ISG (if he wishes to do so), he is a non-affiliated senator and not an ISG senator. I have corrected the standings. DeCoolRuler (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Numbers of Senators (by affiliation)

message: Hi everyone,
I've restored the Template:Canadian party colour transcluded template in the "Current composition" and Infobox of this article. At Template talk:Canadian party colour, we're currently discussing updating the colour for Progressive Senate Group.
Similarly, at :commons:File talk:Senate of Canada - Seating Plan (42nd Parliament).svg, I've initiated an RfC discussion to look into updating the Senate seating chart.
Cheers,
--Doug Mehus  T·C 21:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian party colour for the [[Parliamentary group|parliamentary groups]] in the Senate 

message: This article mentions that legislation passed in the Commons hasn't been vetoed since 1939, it then goes on to say that the Senate has rejected numerous bills. What's the difference between a veto and a rejection? Sounds a bit confusing and could maybe use clarification. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this is very confusing.  Goes to the core about how powerful the Senate actually is.  --El Chivo 3 (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Veto versus rejection?