The NDP referendum plan is similar to an idea floated by Conservative Senator Hugh Segal.
Harper has put his own reform proposals that call for electing senators but that has been blocked by the Liberal-dominated Senate.
Harper has also put legislation before Parliament that would set eight year terms for senators.
The combined Tory-NDP vote would allow for the passage of Layton's proposal but it would still likely have to pass the Senate, where Liberal senators have objected to any significant reform.
The NDP motion would put pressure on Liberal Leader Stephane Dion to either support the plan or side with his unelected colleagues.
Layton recently described the Senate as an outdated institution that has no place in a modern democracy.
"It's undemocratic because (senators) are appointed by prime ministers, who then are turfed out of office," he told New Democratic Party organizers on Sunday in Winnipeg. "But these senators end up leaving a long shadow of their continued presence in the legislative context."
"Why don't we start by finding out how Canadians feel about it? That seems to be a democratic approach."
....
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071105/harper_senate_071105/20071105?hub=Canada&s_name=
Note: http://www.ctv.ca/servl...
PM To Back NDP Call For Senate Referendum
Posted on Tuesday, November 06 at 10:51 by N SayContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
And we need to have a Senate. Elected. Not having one gives too much power to Parliament.
---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.
Who will benefit most from eliminating the Senate? Clearly it would be the Prime Minister and the Executive Branch of government which, in a majority situation, would have absolute power.
There is no doubt the Senate as it currently operates is not perfect. However, it does still act a break on the power of the Executive Branch even if it can never totally prevent the will of Parliament from being executed.
There must be some checks and balances in the system. I can understand why autocrats like Harper and Layton would want to eliminate any breaks on their absolute power but voters should be cautious about handing them a blank cheque.
---
When you are up to your ass in alligators it is difficult to remember that the initial objective was to drain the swamp
Layton fully expects the NDP to replace the Liberals as the second party in Canada. In the next election he expects to be leader of the opposition and in the election following that the Prime Minister. Without a Senate he would have no check on his power.
Those people to want to radically transform a country need absolute power to accomplish that objective. Since radical change will encourage a great deal of opposition it is much easier if that opposition can do nothing to slow the process until the public are informed of the implications for them.
The merger of the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Party was based on the concept that if it was to be done it had to be done quickly and without adequate debate and discussion.
I would guess that Harper has already set the process in motion for a referendum. If he can get the referendum set for the next election it will catch any opposition unprepared especially since the official policy of his party is an elected Senate rather than the elimination of the Senate.
Layton and the NDP are definately playing into his hands and playing a dangerous game just as they did with changes to the election act that places control over who can run for election in the hands of financial institutions. Someone who I respect a great deal and who knows Layton personally has suggested to me that while Layton is a basically nice person he is naive.