The Canadian Senate is a vestigial organ of the 1688 formation of the English Parliament. The House of Lords was a compromise for the aristocracy to cede a lot of its inherited powers. The House of Lords (where the aristocracy sent its sons) was designed with a minor role in legislative affairs. And the Canadian Senate had a similar role in the formation of Canada in 1867.
Thus, the Canadian Senate is not a full bicameral legislature. It cannot introduce new bills, but it can suggest amendments to current bills and hold up legislation from Parliament.
The Canadian Senate became a patronage grounds for governing parties to put their political operatives into cushy jobs. Such an appointment encourages other party hacks to work hard for the party and behave so that they too might get such a job. As time passed, the Senate became a rubberstamp for whatever Parliament decided. More than a few senators took their position as as highly paid vacation, not dissimilar to some American senators that eventually brought on the 17th amendment.
Circa 1980, the uselessness of the Senate was becoming more known to Canadians. Political pressure was mounting for both change and abolishment of this institution. Then about 1995, the Liberal government made these changes that were within the confines of the Canadian Constitution:
1) Senators must retire by the age of 75.
2) The appointees were no longer party hacks. Most were accomplished Canadians in fields other than politics.
This was enough to reduce the public pressure. Senators seem to working 40-hour weeks. And I would say that the Senate is more influential in federal legislation than it used to be.
We could still make the argument that the Senate is not fair or right or democratic. But it is now an institution that is reasonably functional--and is no longer a burr under the saddle of most Canadians.
---------------------
Jobs are moving all over the world. Call centers are one such industry that can locate just about anywhere where there are enough people who speak reasonable English. If a call center moves from USA to Montreal (or maybe even to India), there is undoubtedly some cost savings in regards to employee pay and benefits. Whether this is good or bad is another discussion. For sure, Canadian companies are not burdened to provide health care insurance for their employees.
----------
If a Canadian business person wants to move south of the border because taxes are less, I say "good riddance." Such a person does not have much of a social conscience. There will be other business people willing to take up the slack. For the long term, we need to encourage capital that has a social conscience.
While there are Canadian professionals moving to the USA, mostly for a higher net income, again we have that problem of social conscience. If they are motivated mostly because of a bigger paycheck, maybe we are better off without them. But at least 95% of professionals stay in Canada. There is no brain drain that is hampering the social fabric of our country.
And these days, it will be harder for Canadian business people and professionals to justify moving to the USA when there is all sorts of political turmoil. Making and enjoying wealth requires a strong civil society--and the USA seems less capable of that.
The growing inequality of wealth does tear holes in the social fabric. When the lower classes see no hope, they have a way of rebelling--regardless of whether they live in a democracy or a dictatorship. History has proven this many times.
It really doesn't matter if the president or senators are elected when one has a toothache and cannot afford a dentist. Or that treatment takes a big bite out of the family income for three months.
-----
As for tuition to universities and colleges, it seems the American educational institutions have become big businesses, charging whatever the market will bear while sitting on their endowments.
------------
That's it for now.
