Go to the Globe and Mail homepage

Jump to main navigationJump to main content

(Sean Kilpatrick/THE CANADIAN PRESS)
(Sean Kilpatrick/THE CANADIAN PRESS)

The conversation: Feb 16 letters and other talking points of the week Add to ...

Why would we want an elected Senate? The Red Chamber, fighting for its reputation and its dignity, is beset by battles over senators’ living expenses and bad behaviour, with a poll showing that a third of Canadians feel it should be abolished. Our readers, print and digital, joined the fray

As a passionate supporter of the Senate’s value, I was delighted to read Globe columnists Jeffrey Simpson’s and Lysiane Gagnon’s thoughtful perspectives on Senate reform. The current model is not working, and any reform that requires constitutional change is unrealistic.

So I agree with Ms. Gagnon’s suggestion that we can recruit the best and the brightest who will act in the interests of all Canadians by adjusting the selection process.

May these two columns finally spark the beginning of Senate reform based on the needs of Canadians, not politicians.

Jim Sanders, Guelph, Ont., letter


Our Prime Minister wanted a Triple-E Senate and now he has it: embarrassing, expensive and eccentric.

Allan Stone, Owen Sound, Ont., letter


Since senators don’t actually do anything, why don’t they do it from home so we can all save on their travel expenses?

Mike Tevlin, Toronto, letter


How complicated is defining a primary residence? It isn’t, unless you’re a senator.

Rainer Paull, Sudbury, Ont., digital reader


The Senate is so 19th century. Thankfully, major corporations have the answer. Compile a strong board of directors who will meet on a regular basis to provide guidance on how to run the country. They’ll keep their day job; we’ll simply pay their expenses. The prestige would be enough to attract the best and the brightest. The savings and lack of drama would be a well-deserved relief for the country.

Jim Houston, Brampton, Ont., letter


New Zealand abolished its Senate in 1951 and hasn’t looked back. Like Canada, New Zealand has competing regional interests, an urban-rural political divide, and an aboriginal population with many challenges in a post-colonial society. Unicameral federal governance (although decisions are also ratified through the judiciary) clearly works.

Andrew McLaren, Halifax, digital reader


It’s almost as if Stephen Harper wanted to make Senate choices that would so infuriate people of all political stripes that they’d want to get rid of the whole motley crew.

David Boult, Stittsville, Ont., digital reader


Senator Pamela Wallin, in her article Wadena Is My Home, The Senate Is My Job, says that, last year, she “spent 168 days in my home province … participating in dozens and dozens of events.” She then goes on to list a multitude of activities, none of which has anything to do with the passage of legislation.

We already have 308 MPs who travel back and forth between their ridings and Parliament Hill doing all of that glad-handing. Do we really need 105 senators duplicating the work of our MPs?

Peter A. Lewis-Watts, Barrie, Ont., letter


If I had an apartment in Ottawa, a condo in Toronto, a cabin at Fishing Lake and a generous expense account, I certainly wouldn’t be found in Wadena too often.

Marcel Brazeau, Ottawa, letter


There are many good senators who say things our MPs won’t or can’t. I’m thinking, for instance, of Hugh Segal’s call for a guaranteed annual income and Michael Kirby’s work on mental health.

Janice Braden, Saskatoon, digital reader


I propose the complete erasure of pay for our senators. They can support themselves on their own – and they certainly have plenty of time to do so. Those then vying for a Senate seat might be cut from a different cloth than the current bloated heap.

Kristov Kully-Martens, Edmonton, digital reader


As a self-employed Canadian taxpayer, I look at developments in the Senate with utter disdain. While the provinces face budget cuts and reductions to critical services, the Senate – unelected, unaccountable, dysfunctional and incompetent – incurs more than $100-million in expenses. I see zero return on this “investment” to Canadian taxpayers.

And so-called Senate reform is just another monumental waste of taxpayers’ time and money.

The solution is simple: Abolish the Senate and divert those funds to the real needs of Canadians living and working in the real world. If the House of Commons is doing its job properly, we don’t need a Senate.

Mike Whitfield, Calgary, letter


If Stephen Harper is so keen on reforming the Senate, why doesn’t he start by reforming Conservative senators?

Hugh Wood, Saltspring Island, B.C., digital reader


Abolish the Senate. We don’t need to double-vote for political representatives.

Stephen Brophy, St. John’s, digital reader


Lysiane Gagnon says the Senate is “a haven for hacks and fundraisers,” and she proposes that it be packed with outstanding citizens chosen by a committee of university presidents and other such people. There! It will be a maven haven.

Report Typo/Error
Single page

Follow us on Twitter: @GlobeDebate


Next story




Most popular videos »

More from The Globe and Mail

Most popular