The Canadian Senate is supposed to be a "sober second thought" on government legislation. But, in many cases, as far as I know, senators are not meeting the expectations of the Canadian people, or fulfilling the requirements of the job. The question is, should the senate be reformed? In my opinion, the Canadian Senate should be reformed because it is not elected, provinces are not equally represented, nor is it effective.
             Historically, the Governor-General was supposed to appoint senators but, in actuality, the elected Prime Minister appoints the members of our Canadian Senate. At Confederation, this system seemed like a good idea. It made sense to have the Prime Minister appoint good people that he knew would make responsible senators. People generally understood these appointments to be a great honour and responsibility, and therefore took the position very seriously. In the culture of the time, it was an honour to serve your country this way. Unfortunately, as the years went on, this system has been subjected to abuse. An example of this, is the expulsion of Senator Andrew Thompson in 1998. The 73-year old senator was said "to represent almost every negative stereotype that ever existed about the Senate." He was aging and apparently ill. He had shown up for work only 12 times since 1990. He collected an $85 000-a-year compensation package, and spent most of his time at a lavish villa in Mexico. In my view, this shows a senator who, himself, didn't consider the work he was doing and the interests of the region he was representing, important. This is only one case; there have been about 17 other senators who have been held up for criticism for poor attendance. Each had missed more than half the year's sittings. This abuse of the system is one of the reasons why I believe the senate should be elected by the people.
             Senators don't have to be elected or face periodic elections, s...