Sundays at 1 p.m. PT, 2 p.m. MT, 3 p.m. CT, 4 p.m. ET, 5 p.m. AT and 5:30 p.m. NT Cross Country In An Hour Mondays at 3 p.m. ET in some markets only.
Sunday, February 17, 2013 | Categories: Episodes
The Senate
Guests and Links Mail Download mp3 (right click and choose 'Save Target As')
Yes, reform is needed. If its role was respected by the Prime Minister and/or its own members, it could be the place of sober second thought that it was meant to be. Instead, it is probably the highest level of patronage that exists in Canada.
With our democratic system, a minority of some 33% of voting electeurs can permit the government can run roughshod over the rest of the country as is happening now. With some form of regional representation the needs and cares of the different parts of Canada would have their voice respected.
Canada's parliament, as it is now, is creating a very divided country, more than the North-South divide in the U.S. With overwhelming control by the new West. the eastern part of the country might as well separate and suffer and survive together.
Bob Steele
La Pocatière, Québec
I think that casting aspersions on the character of a number of Senators over their expense accounts is unfair, and I include Senator Brazeau. These are all people of some accomplishment in their prior lives. Under Stephen Harper, candidates for election to public office and appointees are vetted as no others in Canadian history. There is nothing in your personal life you can hold back. It is so intrusive that it would deter many, even if it is not made public. It would be devastating if it were made public, not because people have something to hide, but because some of the information is so personal, so private. No system is perfect but I submit suggesting people with a long history of ethical behaviour are now behaving improperly is unfair. Historically, if you were a newly elected M.P. you were shown to your office and left to figure things out for yourself. Somewhere around the Mulroney years, I think, it was thought M.P.s needed more, and formal orientation sessions would be a good idea. I do not know if that was ever done for senators. I think most of the senators currently under scrutiny are senators with a significant connection to Ottawa. In the past, what province do you represent and do you own property there? Living expenses have been around for a while, but not that long. If upon appointment, senators were given a check list of what is required with respect to income tax, health card, drivers licence, etc. this might not have happened. The answers may not always be easy. I think senators should not be sanctioned, but rather they should have been given greater clarity about the rules.
Audrey
In a time of many cutbacks in education and health, this is an expensive anachronism that Canada cannot afford.
G, Klug
The Senate should be either drastically reformed or abolished. Stephen Harper has cynically and in a highly politically way abused the Senate, and has threatened Senators who might not support his policies, through intimidation. Senate appointments are based on patronage. This House, with the abuses involved, is antithetical to the democratic process.
Mrs. Eryl Court
Toronto, Ontario
I don't think that the latest controversies in the senate suggest we need to reform this institution, I think it adds to the case that we need to reform our systems of government. The alleged abuse of living expenses by senators is a symptom of a deeper political disease, and that is lack of openness and transparency across the Federal body politic. There are more egregious examples that are more sinister and likely costlier to the unfortunate Canadian taxpayer. These would include the cynical active suppression by the Harper government of the amount of money spent to host the G 20 summit and their unwillingness to provide a projection of the costing of the Omnibus crime bill or even have an effective debate over policy with the opposition. They seem to have a severe allergic response to any ombudsman's scrutiny. Openness and transparency seems to be defined by our Federal Government to mean open to any tactic that allows them to push through their own agenda. And transparency seems to be their lack of concern about how visible are the layers of obfuscation and deceit. Any reforms need to include more accountability at all levels, let's hope we get to dictate the definition.
Martin Harvey
Calgary, Alberta
The Senate is like road construction in Quebec: political crony-ism using tax payer dollars.
Dell
S.W. Saskatchewan
I don't think that the Senate should be abolished. I don't like the idea of elections for the Senate either. We can't afford it and who needs another level of elections and who wants to have a Prime Minister with no further checks and balances. Scary... If you think that the young voters are disconnected now, you haven't seen anything yet.
Having said that, I think that representation of the provinces can be better distributed to represent the population of each province. Also, instead of having the Prime Minister appoint people, the provinces could provide a name or list of names for the PM to choose from. They should be vetted (residence, credentials, etc.) before they get on the list. The provinces would have a say in the potential candidates.
The rules should also be revised, such as how long they serve, what they spend and for what, transparency.
All the people on Parliament Hill must remember that this is not a free ride, it is our money that they are spending. Where is accountability, honesty, respect for the citizens that they are working for?
Claire
Gatineau, Quebec
I think that the Senators should be prepared to have someone scrutinize their expense accounts since they are spending our money. I would like to see people like Sheila Fraser and Kevin Page elected or appointed, but I do not think we will ever see people like this in the Senate.
Faye Fergusson
Toronto, Ontario
I am not comfortable with a referendum on the Senate when the majority of the electorate is of the belief that a "sober second thought" means not being three sheets to the wind when you go to work.
The analysis the Senate is supposed to undertake in the legislative process, in committee and with first and second readings, involves extensive study at a level that does not and cannot happen in the HoC.
The face of the Senate has drastically changed since the hypocritical Harper appointments of many failed CPC candidates and fundraisers.
There is not enough talk of the good work of the Senate and the real solution is how do we weed out the bad and keep the good ... that as it applies to both Senators and the institution itself.
Neeta Kumar-Britten
Sydney, NS
For years I have been in favour of abolishing the senate. However, the recent spate of omnibus budget bills that include the kitchen sink and many things not bedgetary have made me feel that an elected senate would be able to derail or delay the near absolute powers of whoever the current prime minister is. We would need much thought as to structure.
Still, if we were to abolish the senate, we would need to reform the commons at the same time.
Robbie
Burlington, Ontario
The Senate is needed, but the appointment process needs revision. The Senate is intended to be a check against the possibility of an elected House of Commons not acting in the best interest of Canadians. We have witnessed south of the border the Iraq quagmire that has resulted from 2 elected houses following a single party line, and we must avoid similar possibilities. To be Effective, the Senate should be a counterbalance against the inherent weaknesses of an elected Commons. Where the Commons is partisan and committed to party principles, an effective Senate should be independent of party affiliations, non-dogmatic, and open to alternative solutions. This would eliminate conflict of interest between meeting the needs of the constituency versus following the party directives. Where the Commons is an adversarial house, often showing behaviour unbecoming of national leaders, an effective Senate should be collaborative and structured around collaborative processes. Where elected MPs often do not have expertise in the areas that they are legislating, Senators should be selected on the basis of merit and competence. Where MPs are predominantly white males with extrovert personalities, an effective Senate should be representative of the diversity and pluralism of Canadian society. Such a Senate clearly cannot be elected, yet the current method of prime-ministerial appointments has many valid reasons for criticism. There are several models for a transparent appointment process that would meet the objectives of a Senate being an unbiased house of sober second thought. Such processes would include non-partisan appointment bodies with a clear set of nomination and selection criteria. In other words, a better path would be to reform the Senate to be "Equal, Effective, and Selected".
Glenn Johanson
Eagle Bay, British Columbia
An American friend who follows politics tells me that our Senate is wonderful and we shouldn't touch it. Why, I ask? Because, he says, there will always be patronage. The best that you can hope for is a system which gives the patronized just enough money to make them feel special, and no serious power. Voila! However, as they have no such body in the States, they have to give real positions of power to their patronized, such as ambassadorships to various countries, and the people in those positions can do real and lasting damage, and have potential access to funds much larger than Senators salaries. Don't fix what ain't broke!
Jeff Wiseman
Toronto, Ontario
The Senate can be redeemed if it is strengthened. Make it a counterweight to the dictatorship of the PMO by making the Senators appointed by the provinces for defined terms. It will force the Government to rule with a better eye to all of the country's concerns, and introduce a helpful check to the unfettered powers that Canadian PMs enjoy in a way that is unparalleled in the Commonwealth. At the very least, do not allow them to police themselves. They should be given the same latitude that everyday Canadians get from CRA.
Best,
Patrick Nantel
Orleans, Ontario
Isn't it interesting that while the federal government is trying to get the First Nations bands be accountable for the financial support given and that apparently disappeared into a few pockets over the years, yet this same government doesn't seem to feel the Senate or even the elected members of parliament need to be accountable for their expenditures utilizing the "public purse"!!
Why is it that we continue to hear of such abuses by our elected and appointed officials--is it something that is in the air of their offices, that gives them the idea/assumption that they can freely spend money they have not earned?
Thank you
JSenoy Patrick
What is more important - Mike Duffy's 'official residence' or his contribution to the Senate? Why is the chair of a Senate Committee stating "Senate attendance is not so important? We had one senator attend sittings 47 times in 14 years!
Patrick Breazeau qualifies for a pension at age 40. !
I think the Senate is ripe for reform - after being elected.
Daniel Palladini
Lancaster, Ontario
The Senate should be accountable to either the Parliamentary Budget Officer or the Auditor General. Residency rules should be very straight forward, each Senator must possess a driving permit and health card from the province he/she is representing. Expenditures by Senators should be posted on the web site for Canada's parliament.
As for appointments to the Senate, how about a multi-party appointment system akin to the Supreme Court, where the government of the day puts forward the names and seeks agreement from all opposition parties in the House of Commons. This would go a long way to de-politicize the red chamber, which in turn would encourage it to work as a chamber of "sober second thought". This would also encourage the appointments of Canadians of good substance rather than partisan hacks.
We need the senate, or a similar body, to be a check on the House of Commons. Since the current government seems unwilling to answer questions in the house, refuses to provide information to the Parliamentary Budget Officer as required by law, and conducts parliamentary committee meetings in camera on a regular basis, I think it's more important than ever to have another body overseeing legislation, and representing ordinary Canadians.
These are are very achievable.
As for a referendum, there would need to be massive public education done about the senate, its history, role, constitutional function etc. If this educational campaign could be carried out and funded by the public purse, rather than paid political lobbyists, such a vote might have some credibility.
Stephanie Sydiaha
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Canadians that I have talked to, and myself included, have wondered why the present Harper government is so intent on weaning Canucks from the so-called "nanny state", while on the other hand supports and applauds an institution which eschews self-reliance and rewards sloth. The now-independant senator Brazeau still gets paid - and for many people, that's all that matters. The average Canadian should be so fortunate to have such a guarantee.
Richard Weatherill
Victoria British Columbia
Given the immense constitutional hurdles involved in any effort to abolish the Senate, is it not worth our while to at least consider options for reform that would improve Canada's governance?
I have in mind a model similar to one floated by Rex early in the show -- the one that made John Geddes burst out laughing. Could we not envision a Senate comprised, on a strictly non-partisan basis, of the best minds and the most experienced and talented thinkers in the country? Could we not place the power of appointment in the hands of someone other than the governing party (such as the Governor General's office)?
The benefits of such a body could be great. As the gridlock in Washington demonstrates, a bicameral system in which both bodies are beholden to reductive ideological dogma that plays well in campaign brochures is disconnected from the complexities of economics and diplomacy -- and hobbled in its decision-making.
A non-partisan Senate with representative thinkers from across Canada's philosophical, demographic and cultural spectra might be able to add thoughtfulness and nuance to our governance. Not an easy ideal to achieve, certainly -- but is abolition likely to be any easier?
Rob Desjardins
Edmonton, Alberta
Several individuals including Senator Segal keep presenting one an error as a fact. The Senate cannot stop legislation. A Bill is forwarded from the House. The senate examines it. It can reject it and send it back to the house (with recommendations). The House can then take those under consideration, and if it wishes, just re-submit the same bill.
The senate then must pass it as re-submitted, thus it cannot "thwart" the will of the Commons.
Andrew Hebda
Noel Shore, Nova Scotia
I do not feel we can axe a portion of the designed structure of our democracy without looking at the governing institute holistically.
As it stands now (example : we can have a government with only ~ 35% of the popular vote ruling the country -- ~ 65% of the population do not want what the laws they are now passing) we do not have a democracy. What do we have for checks and balances in this democracy? If you abolish the senate we need to have some other form of checks and balances. Possibly a lower house elected by percentage of vote for individuals and parties since we seem to be stuck on party politics.
Thill Dallas
Calgary, Alberta
Senate reform should be directly linked to a greater renewal of confederation - call it Confederation 2.0. For about 100 years we have abandoned the idea of creating new provinces in this country, yet at one time the "provincial idea" was at the core of the Canadian democracy. Our current provinces have become feudal states, they are destroying resources from remote areas to feed urban areas without considering the ecosystems and people who live in those remote areas.
Let's fix Canada, by creating new provinces where they are needed, let's become a bio-regional nation and then have our Senate represent those regions on questions of national unity and inter-provincial stewardship.
To place this in context - in British Columbia when we joined Confederation in 1871 it was the only province where First Nations people constituted the majority. Upon entry British Columbia's population was 36,247. Today, if Northern BC were to become its own province within the Canadian confederation its population would be approximately 225,000 people, which would be greater than the Province of Prince Edward Island.
Similarly, if the Southern Interior of BC were to become its own province within the Canadian confederation its population would be approximately 740,000 people, which would be greater than the population of Newfoundland and Labrador.
If these two regions entered confederation within a single combined province the total population would be 965,000 people, which would be greater than the population of Nova Scotia and nearly that of Saskatchewan. The landmass of these combined inland regions that would include the North Coast would be larger than the size of Great Britain.
We need more local self-determination so that we can solve tough issues in the rural and remote towns and villages of this country.
Don Elzer
Monashee Foothills in the North Okanagan, British Columbia
I would like to see the Senate become a source of long term planning (lacking in any 4 year term government) that can work on long term problems. Problems like fossil fuels/climate change, globalization, etc. This would require a strong scientific bent to the Senate and so we'd have to slowly change the type of people in the Senate.
Ed Thacker
Victoria, British Columbia
I suggest that Canada keep the Senate but fire all of the Senators and allow for open, unpaid membership of any Canadian. By doing so the Government in power would have a true finger on the pulse of Canadians want, while taking a further step towards true Democracy.
Cole Turner
Trenton, Ontario
Way back in the last century I regularly performed classical music for speakers of The Senate Riel and Charbonneau. These dinners were lavish three-course events and were as often as not family affairs rather than official Senate business. Some sort of audit happened and our gigs abruptly disappeared. So I do believe the Senate can be held up to an audit.
Thomas Brawn
Ottawa, Ontario
I think that the original idea of the Senate, a place for "sober second thought", is still a good idea. The party pressures, electoral pressures, and time-pressures faced by our MPs may lead to decisions that do not stand up to a less hurried analysis. The present system, in which members are appointed to the Senate by the governing party with the expectation that they will accelerate the passage of government legislation does not accomplish this. Au contraire, it reduces the amount of independent thought that goes into legislation. With the present system, there is the impression that the appointments are partisan patronage and a reward for party loyalty; this reduces the respect that citizens have for our government. This is very unfortunate. Citizens should feel that their government is legitimate. I conclude that change is needed. I see two, very different, ways of improving the Senate.
We could retain the system that a Senator is appointed, rather than elected, but require that all appointments have the approval of both the governing party and the largest opposition party. This would eliminate the perception that these are patronage appointments and assure that only highly respected, experienced, and thoughtful people are appointed. I believe that this would restore the idea of a chamber of sober second thought.
The unelected senate could be replaced by a proportionally elected senate (PES). There are many variations of proportional election but I would suggest one in which there are no parties but there are lists of candidates of like mind. The system should assure that even smallish minority groups have a voice in the Senate. The goal would be to make everyone feel that they have at least one person in the Senate who represents their views. We want all voices to be heard and, all people to feel that their voice can be heard.
Many groups prefer proportional election, but there are also advantages to the regional representation system that we now have in the House. Replacing the appointed Senate with a PES would give us a hybrid system with the strengths of both. If the PES and the House had the same number of seats, conflicts could be resolved by a joint session in which both houses vote. This would give everyone 2 representatives in Parliament; one would represent their political views, one would represent their geographical area.
Either of these alternatives would strengthen the idea of "sober second thought". The first is the simplest. It could be done voluntarily right now. The second is more radical but has advantages; the major advantage is that both houses are elected and there is a simple way to resolve disputes between them.
David Lorge Parnas
Ottawa, Ontario
I believe that, given the excesses of the Senators and Politicians a different way of funding these fat-cat patronage appointmens rather than the taxpayers of Canada. I believe that the pork barrel feeding frenzy which are evident in these times, when the very same Senators and Politicians are asking the public (taxpayers) to practice financial restraint is a travesty and not what the forefathers of this country foresaw.
To quote Jamaican musician and poet Jimmy Cliff "Politics is from the Greek word Poli (people) and Tics explains itself.
Thanks you for all the fine work you do in exposing and giving the public a voice on CBC.
Gerard Meharchand
Toronto, Ontario
How about combining this issue with the Idle No More movement: get rid of the Senate and replace it with a venerable council of native women elders, such as held sway in the Iroquois Confederacy of old, with all of their wisdom and attendant powers (i.e. to get rid of the 'chief' if they deemed it necessary)?
Norma Corbett
Halifax, Nova Scotia
First, I think in the subject as presented on today's show we are talking about two different things. The current issues - Senator Brazeau's situation, expenses, and official residences - are transitory and could even be considered "housekeeping" issues. There must be rules in place, so see that they are enforced and if they are broken, take some action.
That is apart from the second and more important matter: whether the Senate should be reformed or abolished.
For the sake of brevity I will just say, let's try to make the Senate, more or less as it exists now, work the way it is supposed to work. Get rid of political partisanship in favour of finding the best minds and experience to provide that "sober second thought" we always talk about.
Howard Solverson
Ladner, British Columbia
The members of the Senate should be the runner up on the election ballots. They would be replaced with each election and all the regions of the country would be represented.
The House of Commons would still have the bulk of power and the Senate could ensure that the national interest is addressed.
June MacDonald
Toronto, Ontario
Senators, being members of the house of sober second thought, should not be appointed until they are at least fifty years old. Senators should not be appointed by a unilateral decision of the Prime Minister, that is too self serving. A committee of all parties should vet the proposed nominee. I really enjoyed hearing Senator Hugh Segal on your show.
Jean Charles Michel De Salaberry
Osoyoos, British Columbia
The real problem, in my humble opinion, is our system of government in its entirety. That is, it is not a true democracy. Democracy is not "representative". It is immediate to the citizenry or it is simply not democratic, but rather serial elitism and in some cases, serial authoritarianism.
Elitism runs on reward and punishment, in a competitive milieu. To fix all the many problems of false, " representative" democracy, the system must take the giant step of switching to some form of true, "direct" democracy. Some call for more referenda. Too expensive IMO, although referenda certainly engage the population. And we do not have a safe way to vote for anything via the internet.
As I type this, I hear someone from Victoria talking to you about an idea I have been promoting for over 30 years to no success. I am amazed to hear someone voicing my old idea, but glad to hear it. That idea is this--
Leave the House of Commons to an electorate, its numbers distributed by vote share percentage, if the party system persists (I hope to God it does not), electoral financing must be to individuals from a common fund source.
More importantly the senate must be filled by ordinary citizens randomly chosen from the voter's lists. Each "senate" to sit for one session, then be replaced by another. This short-term body would pass legislation sent to it, or send it back to the House for improvement. It would debate the merits and demerits of bills after listening to House proponents and their opposites. They would then, by open count, vote yea or nay. No law comes into effect without their say-so.
They would also be responsible for all government appointments, judicial, civil service, crown corporations, etc.
Much more to say, but you may feel I've said too much, in view of your conservative sensibilities.
So I'll stop abruptly.
cheers,
Mike Turner
Windsor, Ontario
I think discussion about what to do about the senate has gone far off-track. The subject is senate accountability, which includes individual senator's expense accountability and not senate reform. Senate reform is needed but that will take many years and will not necessarily solve the accountability problem. Whether people are elected or appointed does not make them any more honest or dishonest. Accountability is an issue at all levels of government not just in the senate.
We have a problem with the accountability of the servants of the people, whether elected, appointed or employed. I propose that the government put into place a national guideline for financial reporting and accountability. This would be binding upon our federal government, provincail governments, local governments, first nations governments, various government agencies. Standardized reports get posted on the internet just like any other government reports. The granularity of reports would be the key and the auditor general could shed a lot of light on this.
An example for reporting accountability is the National Instrument 43-101, for mineral resource reporting. Quote from Wikipedia: "NI 43-101 is a national instrument for the Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects within Canada. The Instrument is a codified set of rules and guidelines for reporting and displaying information related to mineral properties owned by, or explored by, companies which report these results on stock exchanges within Canada This includes foreign-owned mining entities who trade on stock exchanges overseen by the Canadian Securities Administrators, even if they only trade on Over The Counter (OTC) derivatives or other instrumented securities." This Standard of Disclosure is so successful it is often used by companies not listed on the Canadian Exchange because it is accepted as a rigorous guideline, hence the results can be trusted.
A similar guideline for standardized reporting of expenses and operating expenses across all levels of government would make it easier for more Canadians to understand the reports and get involved/interested in what is going on.
Roman Wasylechko
Ottawa, Ontario
The purpose of the Senate should be to help to ensure the long term health and prosperity of Canada and its citizens through reviewing and vetting laws from the House of Commons. The Senate should be appointed. Candidates should be submitted from provincially based groups such as: business, law, medicine, aboriginals, farmers, engineering, science, labour, religion, education, broadcasting/entertainment, women's groups, environmentalists, etc. For example, the medical candidate for Ontario would be submitted by the Ontario Medical Association.
The candidates would be non-partisan, and not allowed if they are.There should be 10 year terms.
The candidates would be responsible to the groups they represent in each province and could be recalled. If the Senators are elected, there will just be another house of partisan squabbling.
Al Buchkowski
Hastings, Ontario
If we could guarantee that our federal government, whatever the party, was open to discussion and compromise, and allowed elected MPs to truly represent their constituents, then we would not need a senate. However, as power becomes ever more concentrated in the PMO, I think we would be wise to try and recreate an upper house that was non-partisan and representative of the people so they could counter a government that was too ideologically driven.
Paul Tatamagouche
Rex, the one problem inherent to a referendum is that many, many people who actually make the effort to vote will be voting based on emotion, generated by the recent spate of perceived scandal. Lord knows that there are enough reasons to criticize, but I venture that it's a very small minority of Canadians who actually understand what the Senate is, what it's role is, and how it actually constitutes the whole democratic dynamic.
I'm not defending activity within the Senate today, I'm simply pointing out the flaw in that proposition.
Patti Scott
Vancouver Island
I suggest there an another option to electing or abolishing the Senate and that is The Citizen Senate, comprised of an Online Senate and a Sitting Senate, the latter itself comprised of members of the Online Senate promoted by their online peers.
This model gives direct, meaningful participation to as many Canadians as possible and provides a comprehensive and evolving representation of our citizens to Parliament.
A few immediate advantages of this model are, it is resistant to corruption and partisanship, is gender neutral, regionally balanced and would smooth out ideological swings in government policies.
Key concepts in this proposal are:
1) That the Senate be comprised of qualified Canadian Citizens, initially selected at random, in much the same way we select juries for criminal trials.
2) Citizens participate in all the present duties of the Senate in online, moderated forums.
3) That the Senate will have several levels of participation starting with an online presence of several thousand people. Based on merit and the support of their peers, members of the senate may be promoted to Sitting Senators, the actual physical presence of the Senate on Parliament Hill.
4) That the Senate will take advantage of modern communications technologies, especially the internet, to allow the practical participation of a comprehensive and substantial sample of the citizenry.
We have the technology to do this.
We only need the will.
Phil Young.
Victoria, British Columbia
Were the Senate to be aboilished we would have to re-name our hockey team. Given the superiorly stupid titles blowing in the wind on naming our new CFL franchise, we should keep The Senate just to keep the silliness quotient down.
Thomas Brawn
Ottawa, Ontario
It seems odd to pick on the Senate when really it's the House of Commons that needs reform!
A few Senators abused their expenses or even committed criminal offences -- hasn't it happened with House of Commons members too? (What about a former PM accepting $300,000 from a lobbyist and not admitting it is relevant?) Where's the proportion? The H of C isn't exactly reflective of public opinion either.
I think we still need the Senate as a place of sober second thought. Keep its right to initiate bills, let it be a "college" of sober second thought. Making it technically powerless to stop bills dead, it can become all the more vital as a platform for proper debate, which often doesn't happen in H of C. Secondly, make the Senate a laboratory of electoral reform. At almost every national election, one party or another is under-represented in Parliament, while another is overrepresented. Require each over-represented party to dismiss, and each under-represented party to appoint, the due number of senators, thereby making the Senate more reflective of popular vote, while still retaining the remaining portion for the sake of continuity. The highest vote failed candidates might sometimes then be given the option to accept a Senate seat.
Zeb Landon
Simcoe
The very existence of the Senate is an insult to the people.
It is an insult that has its origins in the creation of the "House of Lords" and the "House of Commons" in Britain. This too was an insult to the people at large. When the people of Britain demanded a say in the governing of Britain, the so-called House of Commons was created. The House of Lords was intended to separate the so-called "nobility" from the lowly "common" people of Britain
who would occupy the House of Commons since the nobility felt that it was beneath them to sit with the so-called "commoners".
Since Canada was a colony of Britain this mentality was imported into Canada in the form of the Senate, the "upper" house, and the House of Commons, the "lower" house. Such terminology is in itself very insulting. On top of this we have the Senate being considered as the house of "sober" second thought implying that the House of Commons is a bunch of drunken fools. From the above, it is apparent that the Senate had no real purpose in Canada and was a mere importation from Britain to suit the predilections of certain vested interests.
Hence, rather than reform the Senate it must be abolished altogether. Both reform and abolishment will meet with the same constitutional hurdles. Therefore, it will be simpler to "cut the Gordian knot" by abolishing it.
Needless to say it would save society a vast amount of resources. In monetary terms, these savings could run into hundreds of millions of dollars.
Sincerely,
Kabeer Sayeed
Ottawa
Canadians are fortunate to live in a great country. Our government system is not as great as our country and has become strictly suited for partisan political manoeuvring. I hope we can reach a grand bargain consisting of a proportional parliament (although that may depart from the British parliamentary model), a triple E+ senate (with the plus being that senators can't be associated with political parties for 5-years ) and both chambers with absolute transparency (a la Scandinavian governments).
This will give our great country the great government that it deserves.
Moness Rizkalla
Calgary, Alberta
It should be abolished. It is a relic of the 19th Century, and in the case of the US Senate, a relic of the 18th Century. In 2013 it is not needed in this country. Modern day communication and the general increase of power of the provinces since 1867 it is not needed in 2013. The Senate has done some good work in the past, but this is now 2013.
A Senate which is made up of the same majority as the House of Commons then it is a rubber stamp. If its majority is opposite to the House of Commons, then The Senate tends to block legislation and the process becomes grid locked, as we see in the USA - which is in a very sorry state.
The Senate today costs over $90 million a year. An elected Senate would be many times more expensive - expensive elections, expensive research and support staff and more expensive committees. Elected members need more research than appointed members.
Second chambers, in modern times, have been abolished more often then created. There has been no creation of second chamber since the Legislative Council in New Zealand, and that one was retired in 1950. Since 1867 in addition to NZ, second chambers have been abolished in both Ontario and Quebec.
Why be like the USA? The Senate is not needed in Canada's parliamentary system. G.W. Bush tweaked daylight savings time by only going a half measure. He should have"advanced" the clocks on full hour. Why go half way with a Senate reform? Abolish The Senate of Canada.
Robert
I have been listening to your discussion of the Senate and I strongly believe that the Senate does have value and should be retained, but on the basis of an equal number of Senators elected by each province. This will establish a democracy of REGIONS as distinct from a democracy of NUMBERS. This will ensure that the regions have the right to impose a sober second thought, as well as amending powers, based on the rights of regions as a corrective to the concentration of population in certain areas. I strongly believe that this would deepen and strengthen Canadian democracy.
Alexander Duncan
Toronto, Ontario
One cannot look at fundamentally changing or abolishing the Senate in isolation.
Less than 40% of voters elected a majority government. Given Canada's particular adaptation of the Westminster Model of Parliament, where a majority there is a propensity toward despotic governance. With the Senate there is at least the semblance of safety valve.
If one wishes to abolish the Senate then the process of electing the members of the House would need to be changed; (probably, to some form of proportional representation).
How would one get to an elected senate? There could be a referendum but there has to be something to have a referendum on; people will have to know what they are voting for, a.k.a. the parameters set out in the "clarity act" for a separation question for Quebec. .Divisive would be an understatement! Major challenges - allocation of seats (status quo; regional, provincial, rep by pop); form of .voting (first past post; proportional etc). It would make repatriation look like a walk in the park.
However, would I ever love to work on the file.
Jim Quinn
Richmond, Ontario
The senate does not have to be reformed but there should be a different way of choosing senators. More average Canadians should be chosen to fill the senate. I would like to see truck drivers, store clerks and farm workers in the senate. They would be confirmed by our federal government, by a vote where 50% of members of all parties with more than ten members in the legislature.
J. Campbell
Would love to see a 50/50 male/female and yes equitable representation of aboriginal populations. However, in this technological age, couldn't we use our libraries that in one form or another are in every community to vote as second sober thought on bills, etc. It would renew the libraries role in our lives and give us all the opportunity to initiate; stall, veto as the senate does today and would let the people speak. I would start returning to the library once a week or at least connect by my limited devices.
Nancy Klassen
Coquitlam, British Columbia
Sundays at 4:00 p.m. ET, (1:00 PT) Cross Country In An HourMondays at 8 p.m. ET
podcasts 
twitter