A radical Idea on Senate reform that will never fly?
Let me first Say that this Idea is not mine, my girlfriend came up with it when ranting about how the senate should kill this bill and that bill and the people don’t want these things to happen, etc.
Any way, we discussed the matter and she came up with what I think is a brilliant idea, that maintains the idea of “sober second thought”, but it looks more closely at who should be doing the sober second thought, business Interests, and financial elite, elected representatives, the provinces, or the people of Canada .
So what would happen under this idea is the senate as it currently exists is destroyed.
We now have a single house that is able to create and pass legislation.
However, every piece of legislation passed by the house must undergo a “Trial”. This trial (for lack of a better word) would be analogous in many ways to a criminal trial. Having a judge/speaker/leader position to maintain decorum and order, making sure that the rules are followed. Additionally, it would have prosecution/defense/advocates both for and against the bill. It might have expert witnesses, scientific evidence, etc. It would also have a Jury of randomly selected citizens who decide the illegitimacy of the bill.
Like criminal trials each bill would have a separate jury so the length of your term would be determined by the complexity of evidence to be presented (”few weeks” -> “few years”).
There are obviously a lot more details to work out.
* how large is the jury
- my guess in the 100->350 range (high enough to get ride of statistical anomalies, low enough to keep down costs)
* Can the Jury Change the bill
- maybe, but my first thought is no. just a vote (Yes/No)
- maybe, let it vote yes/no, but also make recommendation to the house but which could be (pre-approved) so to speak, so the house could approve them or not.
* Can The house send the same bill back to the jury
- maybe, I would say yes, but a different jury is taken each time.
* Does the legislation come into temporary force while the jury deliberates.
- maybe, I have no Idea.
* What happens if a Buget bill is rejected by the Jury
- nothing (same as now), but the government must make it pass the jury eventually.
Why is this a good idea ?
Until now the government acted as a custodian to the laws of Canada. A sitting government has the ability to Initiate/Debate/Approve and bring into force legislation, with out any input from the people. This change forces the government to get a approval from the people for legislation is passed.
It shifts the role of “gate keeper” for new laws from elected officials who may “represent” Canadians, but are not “representative” of Canadians. to the people of Canada. We would then hold the keys so to speak to the safe the makes new laws.
This solution is not intended to address all aspects of the democratic deficit but I think it is an idea worthy of consideration, and I think it adequately address the issues of “sober second thought” and Citizen consultation.
Note : this is not the same thing as an Assembly and assembly looks at a problem and comes up with an appropriate solution, a jury looks at a solution and determines if it is appropriate.