Most Canadians know very little about the work of the Senate.  Most of what they do know is absorbed through the media.  The coverage by the media tends to be negative, leading many Canadians to question the need for a Senate and some political leaders proposing to simply abolish it all together.  Well, as the old saying goes: for every complex problem there is a simple and easy solution…which is usually completely wrong!Since Confederation, the role of the Senate has been a recurring theme in Canadian politics.  The very idea of Senate reform has been a topic of discussion in Parliament since 1875. Although reform has been on the table for well over one hundred years, only one formal change in the constitution of the Senate has occurred (compulsory retirement at the age of seventy-five).It is important to recall when debating this question that the Fathers of Confederation never intended for the Senate to be an equal partner with the House of Commons in controlling government.  Though the Upper Chamber was granted equal powers in legislative matters, in the areas of revenue and taxation the power rested with the House.  The Senate has thus never been equal to the House of Commons.As Sir John A. Macdonald once said: “an Upper House if it did not exercise, when it thought proper, the right of opposing or amending or postponing the legislation of the Lower House...would be no value whatever... [as] a regulating body, calmly considering the legislation initiated by the popular branch, and preventing any hasty or ill-considered legislation which may come from that body.”The first members of the newly formed Senate came from the various legislative assemblies of the provinces. In the first session of Parliament, the Senate was comprised of equal representation from both sides of government and opposition.Succeeding Prime Ministers upset this balance with new senatorial appointments from their own party to ensure successful passage of controversial legislation.  It is this Prime Ministerial prerogative that thus began to tarnish the image of the Senate – reducing it to being seen as little more than a 'rubber stamp' extension of the Lower House.Canada is one of many nations in the world with both an Upper and Lower House.While the perception of the Senate is one of a minor role in legislation, in reality the Senate committee system does more than give a 'sober second thought'.The Senate and its committees have had a prominent role in establishing legislative history.  The Upper House has been responsible for investigations and revision of legislation.  These investigations are often conducted more thoroughly than are those by House of Commons committees.  The activities of the Senate in its investigative studies and in its revision of legislation are a useful complement to the work of the House of Commons.Another important Senate function is to revise poorly drafted bills.  This process is not done on the Senate Chamber floor but rather in Senate committees, resulting in little public exposure about this vital function.  The lack of exposure on such important processes does not help the Senate's lack of popularity in the public's eyes.Senate reform is imperative – but not simple.  On the one hand, the Senate cannot be made so weak that it will be powerless or so powerful that it will become a rival to the House of Commons.A new proposal for choosing Senators was announced by the Trudeau government this week and it is indeed uniquely Canadian.  Appointing all of the members of the second chamber in the manner described by Democratic Institutions Minister Maryam Monsef will make the process a permanent tool of intergovernmental coordination – without constitutional tinkering – thereby giving provincial Premiers a voice in the federal legislative process.Our Fathers of Confederation saw the Upper House in the same light as the British House of Lords, as opposed to a powerful and active American-style Senate.The role of the Senate as a 'House-of-review' is the main function of this body.  A body that gives government a check and balance aspect to any proposed legislation.  It is also one of the most crucial elements of the contemporary variants of the Westminster model -- considering that in 2015, the executive virtually monopolizes the initiation of measures of public importance. This 'House-of-review' function can and should be expanded to enhance the Senate's duties and give it a more relevant and viable role.  Altering the role of the Senate by eliminating conflicts of interest and encouraging its powers of scrutiny seems to be a practical reform, which can be implemented from within at little cost to taxpayers.The Senate is part of the system and workable Senate reforms should focus on exploiting the full potential of the Upper House.In the 1970's, then Leader of the Government Senator Paul Martin Sr. noted that nothing prevents the Senate from setting its own course; the Senate, he argued, can provide a useful forum for scrutiny and enquiry.  Senator Martin's remarks give credence to the idea of inner reform.The media also plays an important role in the success of Senate committees.  By reporting on committee findings (e.g., Senator Kirby's landmark review of Healthcare in 2002) they make it difficult for government not to respond to the committee's work.However, the positive or negative nature of the media's reports is very important.  By creating a more positive image of the Senate, the media can ensure its work is taken seriously.Without this positive coverage, the Senate committees lose considerable effectiveness.Unquestionably the Senate could be more active in various fields of inquiry, but it does not currently command the public respect which would lend to its debates and its reports – as well as to its amendment or rejection of legislation – the moral authority essential to the exercise of an influential role in our democracy.More attention should be accorded the Senate by the media when debate occurs on big issues.  While some of the decisions by the Upper House may not be popular with some Canadians, media coverage of the debates in the Senate could, at a minimum, provide the public with a better sense of its work.  As Senator Normand Grimard once wisely noted, disparaging Senators is a common practice.  If they worked seven days a week and agreed to have their salaries cut in half they would still be regarded as parasites by a portion of the population, simply because they are not elected.Despite their many positive features, Senate committees nonetheless still face some basic problems. One glaring problem is that of absenteeism – made most famous in the media by Senator Andrew Thompson.The basic duty of a Senator includes attending sittings in the Senate Chamber and participating in committee meetings.  Lack of attendance in the Upper House is still to this day a major problem and does little to bolster public perception of the Second Chamber.Any member of the Upper House who is unable to fulfill these basic duties should not be in the Senate.This again is an internal matter that could be enforced by the Senate membership.If a Senator is chronically absent without just cause (illness, family emergency, etc.), fellow Upper House members could recommend dismissal from any committee investigations.Senators should prove their worth to fellow committee members via hard work, dedication and good attendance records; any deviance from this notion should not be tolerated.Although Senators cannot be dismissed outright for being poor workers or lacking enthusiasm, preventing them from actively participating in committees or giving them very minor roles in committees because of poor work habits could prove embarrassing and provide the necessary motive a truant Senator may need.  It is an essential part of internal reform that could prove important in redressing poor performance by making it unacceptable behavior in the Senate – which, sadly, is not currently the cultural norm.Talk of Senate reform has been with us for a long time.  Bravo to our new government for tackling the issue and making a constructive effort to better our country and its vital institutions.A mari usque ad mare.Doug Lauriault has advised numerous federal and provincial politicians in Canada for over 25 years and sometimes they even listened! He is currently a Washington, D.C.-based consultant and a proud alumni of the Senate Page program.