can stay in office until they reach the age of 75. The bill was first introduced by the government in the Senate on May 30, 2006. After consideration in committee and making amendments to the bill, the Senate recommended that the bill not be proceeded with until such time as the Supreme Court of Canada had ruled with respect to its constitutionality, which had not occurred prior to dissolution. The bill was reintroduced in the second session as a Commons bill on November 13, 2007, but did not become law before the session ended. Senate Appointment Consultations Act Bill C-20 (previously Bill C-43), titled "An Act to provide for consultations with electors on their preferences for appointments to the Senate", was a bill to hold referendums on Senate appointments, introduced December 13, 2006. The bill did not pass by the end of the 1st session of parliament, and was reintroduced in the 2nd session on November 13, 2007. The bill was sent to a legislative committee before second reading on February 13, 2008, but it did not become law before the end of the session. Expanding the House of Commons Bill C-22 (previously Bill C-56), titled "An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Democratic representation)" was a bill which would add 22 seats to the House of Commons. This would increase the number to 330 seats, although these seats probably will not be in use until at least 2014. Under the proposed plan, Ontario would gain ten seats, British Columbia would get another seven seats, and Alberta would receive another five seats. The bill did not pass by the end of the 1st session of parliament, and was reintroduced in the 2nd session. The bill was delayed by an amendment by the Bloc and did not become law by the end of the session. Income Tax Amendments Act, 2006 Bill C-10 (previously Bill C-33), among a long list of minor changes to tax law contained a controversial clause that would give the government power to deny taxation benefits for films made in Canada if the government deems the content to be objectionable. David Cronenberg and Sarah Polley argued it is equivalent to censorship because most Canadian films cannot afford to be produced without government assistance. The Bill was passed in the House October 29, 2007, but opposition parties later said that they did not notice the controversial part and