David Braley Resigns His Senate Seat

[TheLionKing]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/conserva ... -1.1572145

[Tighthead]

I like Braley, but it's not like the Senate wasn't already the pinnacle trough of patronage when he was appointed.

I will give him credit for stepping down, but would be truly impressed if he had passed on it to begin with.

[Toppy Vann]

I'm not sure I like his logic as that makes those who stay and who believe in the work of the Senate look bad by that phrasing as to why he is leaving.

It's definitely a timely thing to discuss the Senate and its role and relevance but like the Head of the State - now the Queen - it really doesn't get a lot of focus.

But to say you are quitting due to the few bad actors there would like the entire City Council of Toronto resigning due to Rob Ford's antics. Stay and fix it if you believe in it.

[Coast Mountain Lion]

I'm not sure I like his logic as that makes those who stay and who believe in the work of the Senate look bad by that phrasing as to why he is leaving.

It's definitely a timely thing to discuss the Senate and its role and relevance but like the Head of the State - now the Queen - it really doesn't get a lot of focus.

But to say you are quitting due to the few bad actors there would like the entire City Council of Toronto resigning due to Rob Ford's antics. Stay and fix it if you believe in it.

Well put. But I'm one who believes that, in spite of the sometimes blatant political pork-barrelling, the Senate has a lot of good people in it and does a lot of valuable work that it isn't given credit for. Braley was a good choice, and his resignation is a loss.

I have mixed feelings about term limits and retirement ages. I don't think direct election (or the indirect method used in Alberta) is a good option, especially if they have to seek re-election just like any other politician. I've given it some thought, and my idea is to re-build it like this.

- no political lines
- each provincial and territorial premier is a member (or an alternate delegated by the premier, but anyone who has sought or held elected federal or provincial office within the last four years is ineligible)
- the mayor (or delegate) of each city over 250,000 population (or 200,000, 300,000 or some other prescribed minimum)
This would fulfil one of the Senate's intended roles of giving the provinces a voice in Ottawa, and adding in the mayors would add both municipal voice and regional population balance. Forget about term limits; each member has a seat in the Senate only as long as they (or their sponsor) hold their provincial or municipal office.
Add in first nations leaders: the heads of the AFN, Metis National Council, ITK, others?
Each former prime minister would also be a member but ex-officio and non-voting.

The Senate already has all the powers it needs, but rarely exercises them in recognition of its non-elected status. Making it a collection of elected leaders or delegates would give it legitimacy.

[Toppy Vann]

I'm not sure I like his logic as that makes those who stay and who believe in the work of the Senate look bad by that phrasing as to why he is leaving.

It's definitely a timely thing to discuss the Senate and its role and relevance but like the Head of the State - now the Queen - it really doesn't get a lot of focus.

But to say you are quitting due to the few bad actors there would like the entire City Council of Toronto resigning due to Rob Ford's antics. Stay and fix it if you believe in it.

Well put. But I'm one who believes that, in spite of the sometimes blatant political pork-barrelling, the Senate has a lot of good people in it and does a lot of valuable work that it isn't given credit for. Braley was a good choice, and his resignation is a loss.

I have mixed feelings about term limits and retirement ages. I don't think direct election (or the indirect method used in Alberta) is a good option, especially if they have to seek re-election just like any other politician. I've given it some thought, and my idea is to re-build it like this.

- no political lines
- each provincial and territorial premier is a member (or an alternate delegated by the premier, but anyone who has sought or held elected federal or provincial office within the last four years is ineligible)
- the mayor (or delegate) of each city over 250,000 population (or 200,000, 300,000 or some other prescribed minimum)
This would fulfil one of the Senate's intended roles of giving the provinces a voice in Ottawa, and adding in the mayors would add both municipal voice and regional population balance. Forget about term limits; each member has a seat in the Senate only as long as they (or their sponsor) hold their provincial or municipal office.
Add in first nations leaders: the heads of the AFN, Metis National Council, ITK, others?
Each former prime minister would also be a member but ex-officio and non-voting.

The Senate already has all the powers it needs, but rarely exercises them in recognition of its non-elected status. Making it a collection of elected leaders or delegates would give it legitimacy.

All proposals seem to fail on giving provinces and territories equal numbers and eliminating rep by pop which of course gives power to the large provinces (Ontario and Quebec).

I agree that elections for Senate is not a good thing.

The reality is that successive gov'ts in power realize that wasting a lot of political capital on Senate reform when there are many other issues to deal with isn't likely going to give you another term in office. Also - and I have mixed views here - it gives the government a place to reward loyal party people or those who have stepped aside and given up a seat to facilitate a greater good like giving a national party leader a seat in Parliament.

I have no better solutions but I have long believed that perhaps making some changes to the House of Commons would far more productive for democracy.
In the House of Commons I'd like to see this:

> free votes on all legislation and if the government can't convince its own back benchers to vote for legislation then they won't bring it forward to a vote until they know they can get a majority in Parliament in support of it.

> Under this proposal losing a vote would not automatically be considered a non-confidence vote in government leading to their resignation. But this would trigger either an opportunity for the Opposition to move non-confidence in the government and then have that resolution voted and people can then vote on party lines to keep their party in power.

This change would not come easy as there would still be party pressure to hold party lines on votes but it would give MPs who have grave differences of views on a single issue the chance to vote according to what they perceive to be in the best interests of the country and their constituents are.

What we would not want to see is a republic style of government where MPs like members of the US House of Reps and Senators are really very independent and thus open to moneyed lobbyists to get them voting certain ways.