Back in 2003, the Committee on Aboriginal Peoples considered a government bill called the Specific Claims Resolution Act. The bill had proposed a new tribunal to deal with the enormous backlog of First Nations specific claims - claims to land or other benefits that may have been taken illegally, badly managed by the state, or promised but never delivered. The bill drew great opposition from First Nations groups, who felt they had not been properly consulted. Responding to their concerns, the committee made six amendments. The bill passed into law in November of that year, but was never implemented.

Three years later, the same Senate committee reported on the continuing logjam of specific claims, then estimated at over 800 - and the anger and desperation this caused among First Nations. It urged the government to address the problem and gave concrete recommendations for moving forward. In June 2007, the government announced that it accepted this new way forward, and began by consulting First Nations. In 2007, it introduced Bill C-30 to implement the committee's recommendation for a new, effective tribunal to deal fairly with specific claims, lauded by the Assembly of First Nations. The bill arrived in the Senate in May 2008 and senators were proud to see it pass into law on June 18, 2008.

The rights of our French and English minorities have many champions in the Senate, such as the members of the Committee on Official Languages. But it was the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs that handled Bill C-13. Considered by the Senate in winter and spring 2008, this bill aimed to reform the court trial process.

When the bill was sent to the Legal Affairs Committee, Quebec's Bar Association asked to appear to provide its point of view. While it supported most of the bill, the association felt that the changes in the process of choosing the language of trial could breach the rights of an accused Anglophone in Quebec.

The committee agreed. Among its six amendments, two addressed this problem: one to increase reporting by the courts about trial language; and one to require the trial judge to personally inform the accused of their language rights. The House accepted the other four amendments. But it felt these two would add excessively to the courts' administrative load and the bill proceeded to Royal Assent without them.

Until recently, military reservists were in a bind when called to active service: they could stay home and keep their civilian job, or they could go, and risk having no job when they return. Senator Hugh Segal felt that Canadians called to serve their country should be treated better. In 2006, he introduced a motion calling on the government to bring into force the job protection provisions of the Public Safety Act, 2002. The Senate passed it unanimously. In September 2007, the federal labour minister emphasized the importance of Senate support of reservists' right to their jobs, and the government committed to solving the dilemma in the Throne Speech of October 2007.

To keep momentum building in the public domain, Senator Segal went one step further. In October 2007, he introduced Bill S-202, which aimed to legally trigger those sections referenced in his motion. The bill never reached third reading in the Senate. But Senator Segal was proud to rise in the chamber on February 26, 2008, to speak to the government's Bill C-40 (examined by the Senate in March and April). Though it approached the problem from a different angle, the bill had the same objective as Senator Segal's: to secure the jobs of reservists in federal jurisdictions who are called to active service in emergencies and other situations designated by the Minister of National Defence. The bill received Royal Assent on April 17, 2008.

The bill to implement the Federal Budget 2009 arrived in the Senate on March 4. Knowing it could immediately help Canadians caught in the recession, senators quickly referred to the Senate Committee on National Finance. Many senators, however, had received letters and emails from Canadians objecting to some of the bill's measures, like changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Since they felt these measures were not as urgent, senators considered splitting the bill. They argued that this would allow them to quickly pass the stimulus package but give those with concerns time to explain their position on other elements.

When it became clear the bill could not be split, the National Finance Committee created a schedule for 40 hours of meetings to hear from Canadians; it aimed to pass the bill by March 31. But in its first meeting, it found that if the Senate did not quickly approve the bill, additional EI benefits would not be available to anyone eligible as of March 1. Not willing to risk these benefits to Canadians who needed them, the committee quickly reported the bill without amendment.

When the Senate passed the bill on March 12, it ordered certain Senate committees to scrutinize the non-stimulus-package parts of the bill in more depth. These four separate studies gave Canadians who protested these measures a chance to voice their opinions. The committees were ordered to report by June 11.