There has been, of late, a great hue and cry about the need to either reform or eliminate the unelected Senate.I have had the opportunity over the past fifteen years to appear frequently, as a witness, before committees of both the House of Commons and the Senate. These appearances afforded me an opportunity to observe first hand the nature and quality of their work.With reference to the House of Commons: I observed the negative effect of the split within the liberal party ranks as between the followers of Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien, the contribution of the Bloc, the weakening of the Progressive Conservatives and the emergence of the Reform/ Alliance / Conservative party. This period also included a trajectory that saw the country move from a majority Liberal government to a minority Liberal to a minority Conservative and finally to a majority Conservative government. The membership and experience found on committees changed dramatically, reflecting the respective parties' political fortunes. These changes brought with them a significant loss of knowledge and culture that was manifested in the quality of committee work. We moved from a time when it was not unusual for a majority governing party to consider, accept and act upon a suggested legislative amendment from a member of the opposition to the current situation wherein an omnibus Bill of 400 to 500 pages, with the obvious flaws that accompany such a large Bill, is passed without a comma or period being altered.The government members have been deprived of their freedom to think or act independently. Their sole purpose is to sit quietly and vote blindly in support of the government. Democracy as practised at the House of Commons committee level, at this time, could be best described as either dead or comatose.In contrast to the situation in the Commons, the Senate committees continued to function at a much higher level and for a longer period of time. The Senate was largely populated with senators appointed by the Liberal and Progressive Conservative parties. As a rule, these appointees were very well educated and brought important skill and knowledge to the Upper Chamber. In my appearances before Senate Committees I found them as a rule to be well prepared, knowledgeable of the subject matter, testing of the government's proposal and authors of independent views. They were universally polite, constructive in their comments and devoid of the partisanship that became the hallmark of the House of Commons.The strength of the Senate flowed from the quality of the appointees and the fact that they could devote their full attention to their responsibilities absent the pressure of local constituency issues and the need to plan for a possible election That characterization gradually began to change post 2009 with the appointments made by the current Prime Minister.The ability of the Senate as an institution to fulfill its constitutional role is a reflection of the values and judgment of the Prime Minister who appoints the individual Senators. Its strengths flow from the knowledge, experience and skills of the individual members and the stability of their tenure. Poor quality appointees coupled with the poison of extreme partisanship can cripple any institution; be it the Senate or the judiciary.The process followed which lead to the decision of the Senate on November 5, 2013 to suspend Senators Duffy, Brazeau and Wallin is a recent example of the weakness to which that institution has been reduced. One of the cornerstones of the Canadian legal tradition, which predates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by hundreds of years, is the duty to act fairly, or as some have described, it the duty to act without bias either for or against an individual. The right of the most odious person who has committed the vilest of crimes to have a fair hearing has been jealously guarded in our country. We, as a civilized community that believes in the rule of law, restrain our instinct for mob justice and offer to all a fair hearing by an impartial body.We have to ask ourselves whether justice was done in relation to the Senators Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau. It may very well be that these Senators after a fair and impartial hearing would receive the same judgment and suffer the same consequences. That, however, is not the issue. Rather, we must concern ourselves with the question as to whether they were treated fairly.From what we know, one or more of the three Senators has indicated that he/she complied with the rules in place regarding expenses, purported to have received approval for these expenses and has indicated that all the facts leading to the current situation have yet to be made public. Depending upon which of the Senators' cases is involved, they have pointed to four of their fellow Senators as having played some role in the events that led to their eventual suspension. . The four names that have been advanced are Senators Gerstein, LeBreton, Steward-