David Braley Resigns His Senate Seat

[South Pender]

Here's a brief piece on this from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... e15737026/

Would have been nice if his face had appeared in the picture....

[sj-roc]

Here's a brief piece on this from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... e15737026/

Would have been nice if his face had appeared in the picture....

I don't think that's even him in that head cut-off picture. Looks like a stock fashion photo or something.

CTV makes the cut on this criterion, or rather, doesn't make the cut:

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

[JohnHenry]

Mr. Braley probably didn't want to be associated with such a crummy organization which is just a waste of taxpayers money. I'm sure he has better things to do.

[Big Time]

Good for David Braley for making a decision based on his morals and values rather than continuing to serve as part of the national embarrassment that constitutes our senate. Braley is clearly much more comfortable dealing with the criminals known as the CFL Board of Governors!

[TheLionKing]

Kudos to David Braley. Hope the other senators do the right thing and resign

[WestCoastJoe]

Mr. Braley, who also owns Orlick Industries Ltd., a Hamilton auto-parts manufacturer, did not give a reason for his decision. But he told a Hamilton community newspaper in September that the situation in the Senate was giving all members a black eye and his wife had asked him to consider leaving.

“There are four people who are causing the problems for the other 100 senators,” Mr. Braley told the Hamilton Community News. “We are being tarred and feathered.”

Mr. Duffy, Patrick Brazeau and Pamela Wallin, all appointed by Mr. Harper to sit as Conservatives, have been suspended without pay over the issues with their expense claims. Mac Harb, who was a Liberal senator caught up in the same expense scandal, has resigned.

Well done, David Braley.

Trudeau called it "feeding at the public trough."

The Senate is an embarrassment. Good for Braley's wife pressuring him to get out. He doesn't need the money. He certainly doesn't need to associate with people who run up their personal bills on the taxpayers' credit card.

How many years before we just abolish the Senate?

[sj-roc]

How many years before we just abolish the Senate?

I believe this would require a constitutional amendment, whose passage requires approval from at least seven of ten provinces comprising at least 50% of the country's population (so-called 7/50 formula).

So look for this to happen... never.

[TheLionKing]

The Senate is totally useless, nothing more than a retirement home for political hacks.

[South Pender]

How many years before we just abolish the Senate?

I believe this would require a constitutional amendment, whose passage requires approval from at least seven of ten provinces comprising at least 50% of the country's population (so-called 7/50 formula).

So look for this to happen... never.

Given the general dissatisfaction in this country for the Senate, wouldn't it be likely that 7 provinces and 50% of the population would support this?

On the other hand, there's something to be said for a functional (and honest) chamber of sober second thought--with limited powers. Not like the US Senate, constituting one of two truly powerful bodies that now have plunged the US into complete partisan (House vs Senate) gridlock paralyzing any meaningful legislation. It's true, as TheLionKing says, that our Senate is now populated by political hacks (although I'd exempt David Braley from that description--he seems like a truly honorable man)--backroom boys, campaign contributors, friends of the PM and MPs, etc.--but if it could be reformed into an elected body (perhaps with term limits), it might be worth preserving. At one time it was a big issue for Harper to reform the Senate. In my view, having a second body with a more national than regional perspective, along with limited powers to affect legislation coming from the House of Commons, might be a good thing, but only if really effective, honest, and elected people sat in it.

And I completely agree that David Braley should be applauded for his action.

[notahomer]

..........On the other hand, there's something to be said for a functional (and honest) chamber of sober second thought--with limited powers.
........At one time it was a big issue for Harper to reform the Senate. In my view, having a second body with a more national than regional perspective, along with limited powers to affect legislation coming from the House of Commons, might be a good thing, but only if really effective, honest, and elected people sat in it.

And I completely agree that David Braley should be applauded for his action.

Totally agree on all points. Especially that Braley should be applauded for his action!
____________________________________________________________________________
I voted for Stephen Harper the LAST time he lost the federal election (Martin's Liberals formed a minority). Harpers comments on the Senate IN THE PAST, were one of the reasons why.

[sj-roc]

How many years before we just abolish the Senate?

I believe this would require a constitutional amendment, whose passage requires approval from at least seven of ten provinces comprising at least 50% of the country's population (so-called 7/50 formula).

So look for this to happen... never.

Given the general dissatisfaction in this country for the Senate, wouldn't it be likely that 7 provinces and 50% of the population would support this?

On the other hand, there's something to be said for a functional (and honest) chamber of sober second thought--with limited powers. Not like the US Senate, constituting one of two truly powerful bodies that now have plunged the US into complete partisan (House vs Senate) gridlock paralyzing any meaningful legislation. It's true, as TheLionKing says, that our Senate is now populated by political hacks (although I'd exempt David Braley from that description--he seems like a truly honorable man)--backroom boys, campaign contributors, friends of the PM and MPs, etc.--but if it could be reformed into an elected body (perhaps with term limits), it might be worth preserving. At one time it was a big issue for Harper to reform the Senate. In my view, having a second body with a more national than regional perspective, along with limited powers to affect legislation coming from the House of Commons, might be a good thing, but only if really effective, honest, and elected people sat in it.

And I completely agree that David Braley should be applauded for his action.

With 30 members, the four sparsely populated Atlantic provinces are overrepresented in the Senate so it seems unlikely they'll go along with any reform that doesn't preserve this, and it's also unlikely that the four western provinces, underrepresented with 24 members, will go along with any reform that doesn't increase theirs (presumably at the expense of the Atlantic). So, impasse.

When Harper came to power he had already been vocal for years about reforming the Senate, as you say. For his first nearly three years as PM he appointed almost no senators as the vacancies accumulated from incumbents either resigning, dying or reaching mandatory retirement age (75). There were only two exceptions. One was Bert Brown in Jul 2007, who was (twice) elected by Albertans in an officially non-binding election that Harper acknowledged anyway, especially convenient as it was that Brown was a Conservative and also in favour of reform. Brown left the Senate after turning 75 in Mar 2013. The other was Michael Fortier, whom Harper appointed as soon as he became PM in Feb 2006. This latter appointment was made in order to appoint Fortier as Minister of Public Works in what was presented as an effort to provide Quebec (and specifically Montreal IIRC) with a more proportionate voice in the cabinet since there were few MPs elected in QC under the government banner. Fortier later resigned to run in the Oct 2008 federal election but lost and has since remained out of federal politics.

All through this nearly three year period there was insufficient appetite among the provinces for Senate reform and then the parliamentary crisis of Dec 2008 happened. Harper came out of this unscathed after the prorogation (but only barely so) and almost immediately set about re-filling the Senate with 18 appointments in Jan 2009, no doubt fearful that if he didn't, the opposition would immediately do so if they ever brought down his then-still minority government and took over. He's been fairly diligent in appointing new senators to replace outgoing ones since this, although there are currently nine vacancies. He may be strategically holding off on new appointments to avoid casting more attention on the Senate under the current climate; his last appointment came on March 25 of this year.

These nine vacancies notwithstanding, there's a small part of me that wonders if Harper's treatment of the Senate ever since this turning point five years ago is all part of some clever reductio ad adsurdum argument to reform it. "Oh, you don't want to reform it? Fine, you'll just have to learn the hard way how easy it is to use the current framework to turn the whole thing into a complete mockery. Maybe then you'll see things my way."

For reference a list of Senators appointed by Harper, sorted chronologically by appointment date can be found here. There are dropdown menus on this page to obtain other lists of Senators (e.g., an all-time list, those appointed by other PMs, etc).

[Sir Purrcival]

I hear the idea of an elected Senate being promoted as a possible solution to the issue of the Senate. I can't agree.

The problem with the Senate as it is constituted is one of partisanship. The supposedly neutral body, that bastion of sober second thought is really nothing but an extension of the will of the party that has the most Senators. It is anything but independent. I really fail to see how an elected Senate would be any solution to this fundamental problem. Vast numbers of voters are disengaged in this county and of those that are engaged, many don't take the time to look beyond the colours that candidates are wearing. Also not understanding what Senators do for the most part, how are voters to judge who is a good candidate?

The US Senate is an elected body. Anybody think that is working well? If one party has a majority of MP's it would seem likely that those Senators backed by that party (either overtly or covertly) would also have a majority of members. And if not as is the case in the US, then the ruling party in the house might find itself horribly hamstrung by a partisan Senate blocking measures unreasonably. It would either be a rubber stamp or a dead end.

In a purrfect world, a senator would be an non-aligned member. IE, no party affiliations. These would be people chosen by an all party committee from Canadians of all walks of life who have shown themselves to be true representatives of the nation, not just one segment of it. Terms could certainly be involved but I think 10 years would be closer to the mark than shuffling out people every 4 years. It would also avoid the necessity of costly by-elections if a Senator were to depart early for whatever reason. Don't know if that would be a working solution but whatever is done short of abolition, the Senate has to stop being an "old friends" network. That is the only way that it might be workable.

[TheLionKing]

The probable reason why Harper appointed Braley to the Senate is because the latter was the biggest contributor to the Conservative Party.

[sj-roc]

The probable reason why Harper appointed Braley to the Senate is because the latter was the biggest contributor to the Conservative Party.

Not sure about that. You're only allowed to donate a maximum of $1200 per year to a political party. Assuming it had anything to do with his getting money into the CPC's coffers, I'd say it was from fundraising efforts through his personal network. There have been reports that some Harper Senate appointees were heavily involved in fundraising.

Late in his run as PM, Jean Chretien banned donations by corporations and introduced an ongoing annual taxpayer-funded political party subsidy of $1.75 per vote according to the results of the most recent federal election. He also capped the individual annual contribution limit at $5000. These moves were regarded in some circles as a way to kneecap the fundraising efforts of his successor Paul Martin, whose longtime behind-the-scenes manoeuvring to take over the Liberal Party reins from Chretien left the outgoing PM none too pleased.

After Harper took over, he went even further by extending JC's corps donation ban to unions and all other organisations, meaning only individuals could contribute, and he even cut the individual limit from JC's $5000 to $1000 (now at $1200 with indexing). After the 2011 election, he also enacted a plan to gradually phase out the per-vote subsidy, eliminating it completely by 2015 (this subsidy elimination was originally proposed in late 2008 as part of the government's action plan against the nascent economic crisis and helped trigger the Parliamentary crisis I mentioned in my last post).

You don't really need Braley's wealth to afford a donation of $1200/year. I suppose it's possible he was donating large sums, perhaps through his businesses, before Chretien's actions. But this would have before the Conservative Party was merged from the Alliance and the PCs in late 2003 shortly after Paul Martin had become PM. So whatever donations of this description there were, these would have to have been made to the CPC's predecessor parties. Though in this case a 2010 Senate appointment would seem a rather long time coming as an act of patronage, especially considering that Harper appointed almost no senators for nearly his first full three years in power despite numerous vacancies created in this time by outgoing incumbents.

[sj-roc]

Incidentally, the existence of the Senate could create a bit of a problem for the NDP should they ever actually succeed in forming a government. With absolutely no Senators in the upper chamber, it's not clear that any legislation passed in Commons could survive. On top of this, the NDP has long been on record as not favouring mere reform of the Senate but outright abolition. So for all the accusations of hypocrisy Harper has faced over appointing Senators, an NDP Prime Minister doing the same would face all the more slings and arrows, although in my view, such accusations toward either of them come off a little bit extreme. The alternative is to appoint no Senators as seats are vacated and eventually some regions become denied their proper Senate representation — at least in the constitutional sense, and perhaps even in a "common sense" sense, however one might wish to define this. So this doesn't make the most sense, either.