More Senate

In this article entitled A modest proposal for Senate reform: jury duty, Globe and Mail columnist Harry Koza suggests that we put in place Senate Duty. Like Jury Duty, Koza’s proposal for Senate reform would involve adults Canadian citizens selected randomly who would serve three year terms on the Senate to keep the House in check.

Surprisingly, this idea has been quite well received by those who see it as a way of getting rid of the unaccountable class of senators while avoiding a new set of elections. It’s understandable why one could find such a proposal quite tempting. Nevertheless, after quick reflection, it’s pretty obvious that this proposal just doesn’t cut it.

The real problem is that being a Senator requires expertise. Although we like to think that our Senators spend their days reading and playing chequers, they’re actually quite busy people with quite difficult jobs. They have to serve on Senate committees, redraft legislation, debate bill amendments and ultimately decide whether to make bills into law. This type of work isn’t for the average Joe. Harry Koza suggests an introductory course and a mandatory reading list. I suggest 20 years in the House of Commons.

And one more quick thing: The House of Commons represents the Canadian population. The members of the House of Commons draft bills that represent the desires of their constituents and of the Canadian public. The Senate does not represent the Canadian population. It is rather comprised of imminent individuals who are more knowledgeable than the average Joe and whose knowledge can keep the average Joe from doing anything really crazy. With Senate Duty, we’re just creating a second House of Commons which will be representative but no particularly imminent or knowledgeable.