I think most of you are at least partially wrong:
The Senate was created, in 1867, to
prevent unbridled popular democracy, which was still highly suspect in Britain. Our Senate was, indeed, intended to provide "sober second thought," because the officials in London
believed that the people, left to their own devices, would choose "beer and popcorn"* over good public policy. Thus, it was agreed, the
elites should have a voice. Our constitution was, in its way, the second draft of federalism: the US Constitution being the first, and we copied and adapted some ideas/models from Westminster and some others from America.
In a federal state one
needs a bicameral legislature because a federation is a bargain, and the
partners in the bargain, the provinces, still retain some (considerable) degree of sovereignty and they need a properly constituted legislative forum in which to guard their interests.
Prime Minister Harper is,
in my opinion, doing the wrong thing, and
I suspect he's doing that wrong thing wrong, too. The
Supremes have given him very narrow arcs of fire: there are only a few proper course of action available ~ they all involve (re)opening the Constitution, with all that implies. That is the most political of all things, and the SSC recognized that. It would be political (and policy)
madness to do anything before the election, even to appoint senators. I do not believe there is a crisis of any sort until about 2025 ~ plenty of time for someone to think of something legal and proper. Plus, I think that the prospect of a full scale Constitutional Congrees should bring Dr Johnson's quip about hanging to mind:
"When a man knows he is to be hanged...it concentrates his mind wonderfully."
_____
* Remember Scott Reid's
unfortunate quip on television about 10 years ago? Some people still don't trust the "people."