Editing Senate of Canada (section)

==Legislative functions==
{{Multi image
|align=right |direction=vertical
|image1=The Senate of Canada 2.JPG
|image2=The Senate of Canada.JPG
|footer=Seats within the old (pre-2019) Senate chamber in the [[Centre Block]]
}}
Although legislation may be introduced in either chamber, 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.

In conformity with the British model, the Senate 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. Although the Senate has not vetoed a bill from the House of Commons since 1939, minor changes proposed by the Senate to a bill are usually accepted by the Commons.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/senate/|title=Senate of Canada|first=Richard|last=Foot}}</ref>

The Senate tends to be less partisan and confrontational than the Commons 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 from what 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.{{Citation needed|date=March 2022}}

The Senate, at times, is more active at reviewing, amending, and even rejecting legislation. In the first 60 years following Confederation, approximately 180 bills were passed by the House of Commons and sent to the Senate that subsequently did not receive Royal Assent, either because they were rejected by the Senate or were passed by the Senate with amendments that were not accepted by the Commons. In contrast, fewer than one-quarter of that number of bills were lost for similar reasons in the sixty-year period from 1928 to 1987.<ref name=senfocus>{{cite news | title=THE CANADIAN SENATE IN FOCUS 1867–2001 | date=May 2001 | publisher=The Senate of Canada | url =http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/senate/legisfocus/focus-e.htm | access-date =August 4, 2007 }}</ref>{{Failed verification|date=October 2018}} The late 1980s and early 1990s was a period of contention. During this period, the Senate opposed legislation on issues such as the [[Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement|1988 free trade bill]] with the US (forcing the [[1988 Canadian federal election|Canadian federal election of 1988]]) and the [[Goods and Services Tax (Canada)|Goods and Services Tax]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?snav=pb&id=691 |title=Challenges in Senate Reform: Conflicts of Interest, Unintended Consequences, New Possibilities |access-date=August 4, 2007 |last=Gibson |first=Gordon |date=September 2004 |work=Public Policy Sources |publisher=Fraser Institute |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070609064258/http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?snav=pb&id=691 |archive-date=June 9, 2007  }}</ref> In the 1990s, the Senate rejected four pieces of legislation: a bill passed by the Commons restricting [[Abortion in Canada|abortion]] (C-43),<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/11/17/mulroneyera_cabinet_documents_reveal_struggle_to_replace_abortion_law_thrown_out_by_court.html |title=Mulroney-era cabinet documents reveal struggle to replace abortion law thrown out by court | work=Toronto Star}}</ref> a proposal to streamline federal agencies (C-93), a bill to redevelop the [[Toronto Pearson International Airport|Lester B. Pearson Airport]] (C-28), and a bill on profiting from authorship as it relates to crime (C-220). From 2000 to 2013, the Senate rejected 75 bills in total.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/compilations/houseofcommons/legislation/billsbyresults.aspx?Parliament=&BillResult=03d93c58-f843-49b3-9653-84275c23f3fb|title=House of Commons bills sent to the Senate that did not receive Royal Assent|date=November 16, 2010|publisher=parl.gc.ca|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150420151815/http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/compilations/houseofcommons/legislation/billsbyresults.aspx?Parliament=&BillResult=03d93c58-f843-49b3-9653-84275c23f3fb|archive-date=April 20, 2015|url-status=dead|access-date=April 7, 2014|df=mdy-all}}</ref>{{Failed verification|date=October 2018}}

In December 2010, the Senate rejected [[Climate Change Accountability Act (Bill C-311)|Bill C-311]], involving [[greenhouse gas]] regulation that would have committed Canada to a 25 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020 and an 80 per cent reduction by 2050.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/panther-lounge/2010/11/senate-vote-to-kill-climate-act-disrespects-canadians-and-democracy/ |title=Senate vote to kill Climate Act disrespects Canadians and democracy |publisher=davidsuzuki.org |date=October 19, 2010 |access-date=May 9, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110503164126/http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/panther-lounge/2010/11/senate-vote-to-kill-climate-act-disrespects-canadians-and-democracy/ |archive-date=May 3, 2011  }}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://sencanada.ca/en/Content/Sen/chamber/403/debates/065db_2010-11-16-e#43 |title=Debates of the Senate, November 16, 2010 |website=Senate of Canada}}</ref>

=== Divorce and other private bills ===
Historically, before the passage of the ''[[Divorce Act (Canada)|Divorce Act]]'' in 1968, there was no divorce legislation in either [[Quebec]] or [[Newfoundland and Labrador|Newfoundland]]. The only way for couples to get divorced in these provinces was to apply to 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 in [[Ontario]] before 1930. This function has not been exercised since 1968 as the ''Divorce Act'' provided a uniform statutory basis across Canada accessed through the court system.{{Citation needed|date=March 2022}}

However, though increasingly rare, private bills usually commence in the Senate and only upon petition by a private person (natural or legal). In addition to the general stages public bills must go through, private bills also require the Senate to perform some judicial functions to ensure the petitioner's request does not impair rights of other persons.{{Citation needed|date=March 2022}}

=== Investigative functions ===
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,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/esm-ms/prob4_e.cfm#davey|title=Concentration of Newspaper Ownership|access-date=November 17, 2007|publisher=[[Canadian Heritage]]}}</ref> since "appointed senators would be better insulated from editorial pressure brought by publishers"; this triggered the formation of press councils.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2007/11/13/ToriedLove/|title=Aspers and Harper, A Toried Love|last=Edge|first=Marc|date=November 13, 2007|work=[[The Tyee]]|access-date=November 17, 2007}}</ref> More recent investigations include the Kirby Commissions on health care (as opposed to the [[Royal Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada|Romanow Commission]]) and mental health care by Senator [[Michael J. L. Kirby|Michael Kirby]] and the ''Final Report on the Canadian News Media'' in 2006.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/391/tran/rep/repfinjun06vol1-e.htm|title=Concentration of Newspaper Ownership|date=June 2006|access-date=November 17, 2007|publisher=Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications}}</ref>