i'd obviously like to see more details, but the liberals are right on this one - if we abolish the senate, we set up an elected dictatorship. we should be trying to create more checks and balances, not less.

i'd just add a caveat: if we're going to give an unelected body of academics and policy wonks the teeth to overturn an elected body, it should automatically invoke a referendum on the legislation. the idea is a chamber of sober second thought. that means we ought get a chance to think it over after listening to what the experts have to say, rather than just having them kibbosh it outright.

i also agree that we need to really take a step back and find ways to reassert the autonomy of individual mps.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-harper-trudeau-senate-duffy-1.3186954 

Caliburn
Upper House defenders who claim that “sober second thought” is valid only perpetuate a myth. Sober second thinking – in effect a check on the democratic impulses of the Commons – is only theory, it’s not the practice, never has been and instances of failing to provide such thought are legion.

The regional representation idea failed right from the start because seats have NEVER been appointed by "region", ie "the Maritimes" or "The Atlantic Provinces" or "Central Canada". The seats are allocated according to provincial boundaries.

Think about Duffy - whatever he said about representing PEI was pure rhetoric - the reality is he represented the Conservative Party. What region did Brazeau represent? None - he looked out for Aboriginal peoples and, of course, the Conservative party. And Wallin - well she waded in on trade, military matters, women's rights and the Conservative Party - can you think of a single Saskatchewan initiative?

Provincial premiers speak for the regions, as do lobby groups and face it - the House of Commons effectively expresses regional differences through MPs who are more in direct contact with the places and people across Canada!

So;
• “sober second thought” – nice idea, but that’s all it is, and
• “regional representation” – there’s no such role to play!

Therefore let's scrap this pointless, unelected, Upper House and make Canada a true democracy.

Jessica Murray
i really don't think that harper's appointments are very useful in determining the value of the senate. rather, they are useful in determining the value of the prime minister, which we all know is very low. and, see, that's the point - there needs to be some kind of a check, there.

i don't think it should be based on regional representation, either. i think it's value is that it is an unelected body, and that that is an aspect that should be retained. i'm not really that keen on majority-rules democracy. we've largely avoided that in canada through our reliance on minority governments, which has often given the ndp the balance of power, and we're really better off for it.

in terms of a checks and balances approach, i'm looking more at the united states senate/house system as something to draw on. in theory, it's a good idea to have these duelling houses. but, in practice it's created a lot of gridlock. so, how can we take that good idea and modify it so it slows the process down a little but doesn't grind it to a halt?

so, we don't want this elected system - it's going to slow things down too much. and, we don't to get rid of it - it would give the prime minister unlimited power in both practice and theory. we need to find a middle point that allows the body to function as it was meant to.

and, i do think a merit-based appointment process is the right approach. it's just a question of finding the right procedures. perhaps it's something the civil service could take a lead in. and, it's also a question of finding the right balance between a body that can provide suggestions and oversight from a position of knowledge and a body that is going to suppress democracy.

the liberals aren't who they used to be, but they have a pretty good track record at this. working it out may be a slow and difficult process, but it strikes me as the best option, nonetheless.

to put it another way: we've seen the results of a system that allows any idiot that can get a mandate to run the country into the ground. and, we need to adjust to prevent that from happening again.

i don't really deny that the senate has never been the body it was intended to be. but, that's a reason to reform it to fulfil it's function, not a reason to jettison it.