News Sections
Layton calls for referendum on abolishing Senate
CTV News Video
Watch: See all Videos in the Player
Font-size:
Share
Print
Comments(26)
The Canadian Press
Date: Mon. Nov. 5 2007 10:34 AM ET
"It's a 19th-century institution that has no place in a modern democracy in the 21st century," Layton told party organizers Sunday in Winnipeg.
"It's undemocratic because (senators) are appointed by prime ministers who then are turfed out of office. But these senators end up leaving a long shadow of their continued presence in the legislative context."
Layton has long called for the upper chamber to be done away with. The idea for a nationwide vote on the issue was floated two weeks ago by Conservative Senator Hugh Segal, who favours maintaining the upper house. He said a referendum could lead to important reforms if a majority of Canadians voted to keep the upper chamber.
Layton, albeit with different motives, is trying to put Segal's idea on the floor of the Commons. He said the NDP will introduce a motion calling for a referendum in the coming weeks, and is hoping Prime Minister Stephen Harper will allow Tory members to vote freely on the issue.
The referendum would not be costly, Layton said, because it could be held in conjunction with the next federal election.
One obstacle to Layton's plan, however, is the fact that the referendum results could be very hard to translate into action.
Constitutional law prevents the federal government from making such major changes unilaterally. It would need the support of at least seven - and perhaps all 10 - provinces. Experts are divided over which amending formula would have to be followed in any move to abolish the Senate.
Four provinces - British Columbia, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba - are on record as favouring outright abolition of the Senate. But Quebec's Liberal government has already indicated it would oppose the plan. Support may also be hard to find in the Atlantic provinces, whose populations are over-represented in the upper chamber.
The prime minister has threatened to have the Senate "vanish" if it does not undergo reform. A bill that would have limited senatorial terms to eight years was blocked by the Liberal-dominated upper chamber this year.
Liberal senators said they were responding to concerns from provincial governments, which believe the proposed term limits require a constitutional amendment approved by at least seven provinces.
Still, Layton insists a referendum is well worth the effort.
"Why don't we start by finding out how Canadians feel about it? That seems to be to be a democratic approach."
User Tools
User Tools
About the tools
Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.
-


Font-size
Print Article
Comments(26)-
Feedback
Share it with your network of friends
Share this CTV article or feature with your friends. Click on the icon for your favourite social networking or messaging system, and follow the prompts.
Most Viewed News Stories
Most Talked about Stories
This is a moral test for voters in the municipal election. Electing him will be a stamp of approval for his actions. I strongly believe that the first thoughts should be for the person he has publicly humiliated, his partner. By his conduct he has made of himself, merely, a footnote in the election.


Comments are now closed for this story
shamaro
said
kenton riggs
said
Jack tho would like to just abolish the dang thing than work with the Consevatives to get Senators elected!
D Taylor
said
The Senators should have a term of 8-10 years and be
elected. They sometimes do good work and can be a
balance to the Commons, something akin to the GG.
When I hear Sen Baker and his ilk ranting without logic about holding up legislation that a minority commons has passed it almost makes me change my mind. This is what lowers the respect for the Senate.
Stephen Feltmate
said
Dan Ireland
said
kevin plemel
said
chaccco
said
Steve V
said
MRM
said
Michael Kelly
said
NT
said
george
said
Stephen Daliwa
said
It places constraints on the party in power. That is democracy in action.
Ron
said
stephen
said
Don K
said
Don
said
Jim McB
said
The Senate is supposed to represent the regions but it has not done the job since the Liberals and the Conservatives used it to support their efforts in the House of Commons (ie Liberals blocking Conservative legislation). An elected Senate with equal numbers from each province and territory might do a better job. The number of representatives could be lowered dramatically to say five, and they would stand for reelection with the HOC.
The NDP doesn't care about regional priorities, they only represent left wing idealogues from cities. Social spending is all they talk about while avoiding a discussion about the tax penalty that accompanies it.
Greg Viers
said
I hate the senate as much as the next guy, but it's not worth fighting the constitution over.
John
said
map
said
Ron from NS
said
Let's say that the Conservatives get a majority. They decide that they want to abolish the Canada Health Act. There would be no way that they could do that with a Senate which is made up of people who have been placed there from previous governments. The senate would block this abrupt turn. The senate is made up of a majority of senators that were put there over a long time from governments that Canadians agreed with.
If you have an elected senate, then you would have a duplication of parties for the most part and no check valve.
Keep the senate, it is there for a reason and the the designers of a representational government were smart.
GD Thompson
said
Michael Collins
said
Brad
said
Hope
said
I also feel that their term should be specified and there should definitely be an age limit.
They should also have to reimburse the government for every day that they are not sitting in the Senate, which is where they are supposed to be while the Government is in session.