The recent scandals over housing allowances claimed by some senators has given added impetus for somethiung to be done about the Senate. There are those, including the NDP who want to aboilish it and those including the Liberals and the Ref/Cons who want to reform it. Let's look at both proposals and see what can be done.
     Firstly, abloition of the Senate may not be possible or may be a very lenghty and divisive idea.    It may be abolished onlt by constitutional amendment that requires the consent of at least seven (7) provinces, together representing at least 50% of the population of the country, as well as the consent of the House of Commons and the Senate. It means that either Ontario (38%) or Quebec (24%), must agree and then six (6) of the other eight(8), Western and Atlantic provinces must agree too ( This is a typical Caqnadian compromise in that it has to have the consent of the large provinces as well as the medium and small provinces for amendments to take place eg Ontario or Quebec and the 4 Western provinces or the 4 Atlantic provinces cannot do it. You must have some support from each region. It has to have support from each region to satisfy the needed 7 provinces and must have support from either Ontario or Quebec to get the required 50% of the population. The Large provinces of Ontario and Quebec make up more than 50% but lack the 7 provinces needed and also the 4 Western and 4 Atlantic provinces cannot do it alone because they lack the 50% reqiured). Quebec will not agree to any amendments, because to do so mean that they recognise  the "patriated" constitution, which they have refused to do so far. The small provinces (N.B. and N.S. especially) will not be willing to give up their allocations, unless some guarantees are made ( whatever those maybe). So a lenghty and possibly very acrimonious and divisive debate. Forget abolition also, because as a federal system there has to be a "house" to represent the provinces. So that means replacing the present Senate with something else with enumerated powers and that will be another battle, lenghty and divisive.
     That leaves us with reforming the Senate. Not an easy task either. Any changes to the Senate involving its membership, its powers and its functioning has to be done through amending the constitution. What do you change? How members are chosen? Appointed or elected and by whom? The people at large or from each region or each province / or by municipal councils of the regions/ provinces? or by some specially constituted body?  The term?  Life? Eight years? Retirement at 70? 75?. What powers? Equal  legislative powers as  the House of Commons?  Powers to protect and represent the regions/provinces? Representation? Regions or provinces? How many from each area? Equal or weighted so that large provinces/regions get more than small ones? So many questions  and so many options. Long and acrimonious and divisive. 
     What to do? Its great to critize and score political points but after that, what? 
     One thing that can be done and easily is the manner of appointments. Take the power away from the Prime Minister, who has used it to reward party hacks and friends "the choicest plum in the patronage basket" and give it to an independent body (say 9) made of retired judges, members of the business community ( to satisfy property qualifications/representations) as well as workers reps. and community groups, who serve a five-year term. This will take the patronage abuses and make the Senate a useful chamber of "sober second thoughts".  
     It's a start. 

     The bloody sectarian war continues unabated in Syria. Tens of thousands have been killed and wounded and many more tens of thousands have been displaced forming huge refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey. Towns and villages are targeted because of them being Sunna or Shia and the neighboring countries are drawn in with Iran, and the Shia majority Iraq, Hizballah in Lebanon supporting the Assad regime and Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Sunnis supporting the "rebels".
     Who are these "rebels"? Some of them form the Syria Free Army and others represent foreign fighters who are connected to Al Qaeda, and other Islamist groups. Why are thery there? Some want to get rid of the Assad regime, while the others want to establish a Islamic/ Sharia state and still others want to use it as a base to attack the West. What about the West? As usual they have misread the situation and are about to create another cesspool of violence that has overtaken Iraq and Libya? Some wanted to weaken Syria and to make it less of a threat to Israel and less of a sponsor of Hizballah, and of course there is the connection to Iran. The greatest harm the West can do to the region and itself is to arm the "rebels". Hopefully, they are not too dumb or blinded by "interests", theirs or Israel to forget the lessons of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, where they have made a bad situation worse and bequeathed misery, anguish and bloodshed for years. They have turned stable, albeit tyrannical systems into a charnel house, with one religious group slaughtering another even though they profess to believe in the same God.