Clearly something must be done about the Canadian Senate. This is at least the impression of the majority of Canadians, as a recent Angus Reid poll recently outlined, with the majority split between implementing reforms or dissolving it altogether. The country’s dissatisfaction with the upper house is likely going to continue to mount, especially as senate expenses again get thrust into the spotlight thanks to the trial of sentient potato Mike Duffy.
The Senate in this country is one of those things that’s a nice idea but nobody really knows how to handle. Having a second house, one that isn’t beholden to the whims of voters, is a theoretically good idea, a quieter and gentler house that would reject things that are popular but not in the best interests of people. It reduces the amount of power held by any one person, an inclination that most democratic governments tend to be built around, systems designed under the assumption that if power corrupts, we should ensure nobody has all that much.
The idea isn’t a bad one per se, but the issue is that we haven’t really had a good way to implement it. Current appointments are done largely by picking people the government at the time just likes, which has lead to the problem we are in now. Lifetime appointments mean you can get away with a great deal unless you really screw up, and there are no real consequences for being a bad senator. We have created a house of bored people with expense accounts, and now we’re surprised that they are doing something a bored person with an expense account would naturally do – spend money in frivolous ways.
So what’s the fix? Now let’s assume that you don’t want an elected Senate, because that’s just a second House of Commons and kind of misses the point of having an upper house in the first place – that is, to have a house that considers bills without the influence of politics. What we need is a way to make the senate function in a way that is accountable to the people, but is still somewhat distant from election cycles and the inherent pressures of pleasing voters. It sounds impossible, but it just needs to be a place made out of the people.
My theory, we do it as a Senate lottery. Each year, a certain number of people are called up to serve on the senate. It wouldn’t be something people can’t refuse, but those who take it up are given the same salary as the current senate for their term, let’s say six years. For the first year or so, it’s basically school as you learn your assorted senate duties, and then you’re a senator for the remainder of it. Each province gets the same number of people as they do now, and we get a steady stream of changeover in the house. Once people are done being a senator, they go back to their regular lives, the term being long enough that they are settled in the role but not so long that they get too used to the role. If one person is a bad senator, they’re cycled out relatively quick, and if someone is good, they’ll probably get noticed and get appointed to do something else. Given the limits of senate power, you’re not going to get a rogue senator doing any damage, but you’ll have a house that is run by the people of the country and serves the same function. It’s not like random selection would be any worse than the people who are in there now.
