Senate Reform

[TheNewTeddy]

The Rhino Party once proposed that Lotto winners should also win a seat in the Senate. I agree. Partly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

I propose we reform the Senate by choosing it's members at random. Random citizens, like you and I, would have the chance to make law and be Senators.

Senators would, under my proposal, serve for 5 year terms, and upon the end of their term, not be allowed to be selected to the Senate again, and, be under a 5 year ban from being elected to any office.

We would leave the pool of eligible people as wide open as possible. For each seat available, 10,000 names will be drawn, and they'd be sent a mailer asking if they wish to serve, and returned letters would be put into a large drum, and the name(s) would be thus drawn. Additional "back up" names would be drawn in the event the "main" Senator leaves the Senate early for whatever reason.

Anyone who is qualified to Vote will be qualified to sit in the Senate. People would, however, be able to opt-out. In addition, certain groups could be prohibited (like convicts serving time), but the number of people not allowed to serve should be kept as small as possible.

In such a system, it is likely that a number of people chosen will be, for lack of a better term, stupid idiots. To counter this, we would increase the number of Senators. Rather than this making more politicians, this makes more slots for people like you and I to counter-balance the elected house.

My preference is for these numbers:

ON, QC - 75 Senators Each

BC, AB - 50 Senators Each

MB, SK, NS, NB, NL - 25 Senators Each

PE - 15 Senators

YK, NT, NU - 5 Senators Each

First Nations - 25 Senators

These 420 randomly selected individuals would form our Senate. The Atlantic would have 90 Senators, Western Canada would have 150 Senators, while Central Canada also has 150... Of course, Quebec would never agree to any of this, so an alternative is:

QC - 75

ON - 50

AB, BC - 25

MB, SK, NS, NB, NL - 10

PE - 5

YK, NT, NU - 1

First Nations - 10

At least until Quebec finally decides to leave, when the original numbers would balance at 150 for the west, 75 for the middle, and 90 for the Atlantic.

The idea is to get the "lowlifes" into office. I want that 20-something single mother with two kids and a 3rd on the way who does not know weather London or Paris is in Spain or not. I want that construction worker who uses a profane word 1.25 times per sentence he speaks. I want that 90 year old man who complains about everything to anyone who will listen. Why? Because this is who we really are. Canada is not a nation of perfect people, we are a nation of real people, some of whom are rotten, disgusting, failures, and it's about time that we gave them a voice.

[Newfoundlander]

All citizens over the age of 35 are allowed to be appointed to the senate.

I'd rather a triple E senate.

[Tilter]

The Rhino Party once proposed that Lotto winners should also win a seat in the Senate. I agree. Partly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

I propose we reform the Senate by choosing it's members at random. Random citizens, like you and I, would have the chance to make law and be Senators.

Senators would, under my proposal, serve for 5 year terms, and upon the end of their term, not be allowed to be selected to the Senate again, and, be under a 5 year ban from being elected to any office.

We would leave the pool of eligible people as wide open as possible. For each seat available, 10,000 names will be drawn, and they'd be sent a mailer asking if they wish to serve, and returned letters would be put into a large drum, and the name(s) would be thus drawn. Additional "back up" names would be drawn in the event the "main" Senator leaves the Senate early for whatever reason.

Anyone who is qualified to Vote will be qualified to sit in the Senate. People would, however, be able to opt-out. In addition, certain groups could be prohibited (like convicts serving time), but the number of people not allowed to serve should be kept as small as possible.

In such a system, it is likely that a number of people chosen will be, for lack of a better term, stupid idiots. To counter this, we would increase the number of Senators. Rather than this making more politicians, this makes more slots for people like you and I to counter-balance the elected house.

My preference is for these numbers:

ON, QC - 75 Senators Each

BC, AB - 50 Senators Each

MB, SK, NS, NB, NL - 25 Senators Each

PE - 15 Senators

YK, NT, NU - 5 Senators Each

First Nations - 25 Senators

These 420 randomly selected individuals would form our Senate. The Atlantic would have 90 Senators, Western Canada would have 150 Senators, while Central Canada also has 150... Of course, Quebec would never agree to any of this, so an alternative is:

QC - 75

ON - 50

AB, BC - 25

MB, SK, NS, NB, NL - 10

PE - 5

YK, NT, NU - 1

First Nations - 10

At least until Quebec finally decides to leave, when the original numbers would balance at 150 for the west, 75 for the middle, and 90 for the Atlantic.

The idea is to get the "lowlifes" into office. I want that 20-something single mother with two kids and a 3rd on the way who does not know weather London or Paris is in Spain or not. I want that construction worker who uses a profane word 1.25 times per sentence he speaks. I want that 90 year old man who complains about everything to anyone who will listen. Why? Because this is who we really are. Canada is not a nation of perfect people, we are a nation of real people, some of whom are rotten, disgusting, failures, and it's about time that we gave them a voice.

Then, because the pay, benefits & pensions would amount to so much we would have to disband the armed forces and, because of the lack of same, arm the senate & send them where we need soldiers. This would lead to casualties in the senate & you could bet your ass that there would never be another complaint about underfunding & scrimping on the wounded veterans as they would all be senators.

420 senators @ 300 000 a year including percs---- insane idea.

[Wild Bill]

Senators would, under my proposal, serve for 5 year terms, and upon the end of their term, not be allowed to be selected to the Senate again, and, be under a 5 year ban from being elected to any office.

Great! I get chosen as a Senator. I serve 5 years, after leaving my existing job and career.

Afterwards, how do I make an income?

If I get a pension after only 5 years, will you be one of those complaining?

No thank you! If chosen I would refuse to serve.

[Newfoundlander]

Great! I get chosen as a Senator. I serve 5 years, after leaving my existing job and career.

Afterwards, how do I make an income?

If I get a pension after only 5 years, will you be one of those complaining?

No thank you! If chosen I would refuse to serve.

I kind of thought a similar thing except I thought about people who will make a huge salary for a few years and hen go back sweeping floors in an office.

[TheNewTeddy]

Then, because the pay, benefits & pensions would amount to so much we would have to disband the armed forces and, because of the lack of same, arm the senate & send them where we need soldiers. This would lead to casualties in the senate & you could bet your ass that there would never be another complaint about underfunding & scrimping on the wounded veterans as they would all be senators.

420 senators @ 300 000 a year including percs---- insane idea.

Pensions start at 6 years of service (which is why I specifically ended the term at 5)

There would also be a significant wage reduction.

For the record, we have 105 senators. Using your figure of 300K, this brings the total to 94 million, using your numbers, for the additional senators. I certainly hope we are spending more than 94 million on the armed forces.

I would reduce the wages to the average wage of Canadians, and, I would allow for things to be expensed to make up for it, with reasonable limits. IE $50 per meal.

Great! I get chosen as a Senator. I serve 5 years, after leaving my existing job and career.

Afterwards, how do I make an income?

If I get a pension after only 5 years, will you be one of those complaining?

No thank you! If chosen I would refuse to serve.

That's fine. That is part of the point. If your job and career is more important to you than public service, then you can say no. There are others however who would say yes, and these are the kind of people I want in the Senate.

(Also, generally, after you find yourself jobless, you usually find another job unless you want to linger on social support - a lesson I am learning first hand unfortunately)

I also have my doubts that someone who has had an even semi successful career, and who has then served in the Senate of the land, would be unable to re-enter the workforce at any level that is not at minimum equal to his former wage.

All citizens over the age of 35 are allowed to be appointed to the senate.

I'd rather a triple E senate.

All citizens over age 30 actually can be appointed. But they won't be, only hacks will be, and have been since 1868 (1867 was a good year)

I would, however, support EEE, but only after Quebec screws off. And modified EEE. I grew up on PEI and you won't hear them demanding as many Senators as Ontario. 8 Senators per province, but, 4 from PEI. Gives you 76 before the Territories and/or any First Nations are added.

I'd be uncomfortable with a Senate that is too small. Politicians are supposed to be our representatives. They are SUPPOSED to be there to speak for us. How can they speak for us when we can not tell them what to say? They need to be accessible. A Senate with only 60 Senators is too small IMO. In fact I'd not be comfortable with any number below 72 (being the number of Senators we had when Canada was founded)

6 per province, with all 10 provinces, and 1 per territory, gives you 63. You'd need to add 10 First nations senators to get me to back that, and even I think that is too many.

Edited July 1, 2012 by TheNewTeddy

[Rick]

I'd support having those on welfare or unemployed in a field where they made less than $50 000 annually to be provided 5 yr terms as Senators to help the less fortunate out...

Otherwise, the only good thing to do with the senate is give it an abortion.

Wastes of skin and money...

Edited July 1, 2012 by Rick

[Newfoundlander]

Why would someone want to be in the senate then if they're only going to make the average Canadian wage?

[cybercoma]

Why would someone want to be in the senate then if they're only going to make the average Canadian wage?

They should be happy just to have a job courtesy of the Canadian taxpayers.

[Newfoundlander]

They should be happy just to have a job courtesy of the Canadian taxpayers.

Yeah because there are so many people out there willing to uproot their whole lives for the courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer.

[cybercoma]

Yeah because there are so many people out there willing to uproot their whole lives for the courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer.

I didn't hear you singing this tune over the EI reforms.

[Signals.Cpl]

Yeah because there are so many people out there willing to uproot their whole lives for the courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer.

There are at least 100,000 people willing to do just that.

[cybercoma]

Jesus, guys. I was being sarcastic.

[wyly]

senate=welfare for political lackeys...there is nothing more blatantly corrupt...

[Newfoundlander]

I didn't hear you singing this tune over the EI reforms.

What?

[Topaz]

It seems most senators come from a good life and perhaps the way to get the change what Canadians may want from the senate is to have them listen MORE to the people than the party leader. Maybe there shouldn't be a PARTY, it should be a board of people that listens to the people through e-mails, letters etc. It's the "second thought" process and it shouldn't have a political party brand. Do what is good for Canada and the people, not what the seating government wants. Could the senate function without political ties?

[g_bambino]

The Rhino Party once proposed that Lotto winners should also win a seat in the Senate. I agree. Partly.

I don't. Far too random, which means one can never know what utter loon will end up there or what the composition of the Senate will be (i.e. how many loons in there at the same time), and, most of all, nobody is accountable for either.

[punked]

I don't. Far too random, which means one can never know what utter loon will end up there or what the composition of the Senate will be (i.e. how many loons in there at the same time), and, most of all, nobody is accountable for either.

What you describe is the Senate we have now so.

[g_bambino]

What you describe is the Senate we have now so.

Yea, I knew someone would say that. Thanks, but I keep my definition of "loon" in perspective. I also see someone who's accountable for Senate appointments. So, I don't see your comment as valid.

[cybercoma]

Yea, I knew someone would say that. Thanks, but I keep my definition of "loon" in perspective. I also see someone who's accountable for Senate appointments. So, I don't see your comment as valid.

Accountable how? Explain to me what happens to the person that appoints a Senator when that Senator turns out to be a complete loon? Let's say they miss over 25% of the days they're supposed to be there, then call a reporter a bitch for pointing it out. What sort of accountability are we talking about here?

[g_bambino]

Accountable how?

Responsible government.

[cybercoma]

Responsible government.

Once a Senator is appointed, who takes accountability for that Senator's screw ups?

[g_bambino]

Once a Senator is appointed, who takes accountability for that Senator's screw ups?

Did you read the linked article? "Ministers account to Parliament for their decisions and for the performance of their departments." Do you know which minister is responsible for advising the governor general on senatorial appointments?

[cybercoma]

Did you read the linked article? "Ministers account to Parliament for their decisions and for the performance of their departments." Do you know which minister is responsible for advising the governor general on senatorial appointments?

So you're telling me that the Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament for Senate appointments? Tell me exactly how the Prime Minister is held accountable after a Senator is appointed, if something happens. As far as I can tell, once they're appointed there is absolutely nothing anyone can do, other than the Governor General. Even then, reprimanding or "firing" a Senator would create a constitutional crisis, would it not? A Senator, once appointed, appears to have free reign to do whatever the hell he or she wants to do. Maybe I'm wrong, but you're more interested in having me play fetch than actually being helpful here.

[g_bambino]

So you're telling me that the Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament for Senate appointments? Tell me exactly how the Prime Minister is held accountable after a Senator is appointed...

Of course he's accountable for Senate appointments; every known action of the Cabinet is open for scrutiny in the House of Commons, that's what our adversarial system of responsible government is all about (and why I lament the denigration and emaciation of parliament as an institution). The opposition can (metaphorically) drag the prime minister over the coals for any recommendation he made to the governor general, Senate appointments included. And not just in the House of Commons; opposition MPs can speak outside of the parliamentary precinct about the prime minister's actions; they certainly have about other people Harper has recommended for the Senate or his actions in relation to the Senate in general. This can all affect public opinion, which, of course, affects election outcomes (assuming the public is paying attention, which it should be).

I can't say I'm terribly impressed by Harper's choices for the upper chamber. I wonder, though, if he's making mediocre or blatantly partisan picks on purpose.