Possible Senate referendum

Harper has agreed to Layton's wishes to have a referendum on abolishing the senate. Personally I support this as my position as explained elsewhere has always been in favour of abolishment, however I do think if we can have a referendum on electoral reform at the provincial level, I don't think having a referendum on senate changes is unreasonable. Now because this would require constitutional changes, which a referendum cannot do on its own, it should only be an advisory one, however I think any premier who ignored the wishes of the majority of residents in their province could risk a potential voter backlash. Therefore in order to consider negotiations on the issue, it should be required to have 60% support nation-wide, 50%+1 in 60% of the ridings, in 7 out of 10 provinces and the provinces where it got over 50%+1 must have at least 50% of the population. This is in essence would not only show there was public agreement on abolishing the senate, but also it would meet the normal test to pass a constitutional amendment.

Now those against this generally fall into two categories. There are those who want an elected senate and while an elected senate may give more legitimacy to it, there are also some dangers behind this. This could lead to even more gridlock if the parties controlling the senate and House of Commons are of different political stripes. The only reason elected senates work in many other countries (note an elected senate is not uniquely a US idea; France, Italy, and Australia just to name a few have one) is there is far greater cooperation between parties and greater willingness to work together for the common good. This is why many European countries are able to have stable minority governments. However, here in Canada, there is too much hostility between the parties that I cannot see them working together any time in the near future. Others argue we should just leave the senate alone as it is. The problem I have here is for all the good things it can do, and it does many, there are few checks on it. Since the prime-minister appoints the senators, it can easily became a place for patronate appointments and more importantly if a party gets voted out and a new one comes in, the new party could be blocked from making the changes they wanted to. Just because the status quo is beneficial to the Liberals at this moment, doesn't mean I will support it, as imagine if the tables were turned. Lets say the Tories were in power for ten years, had dramatically pushed Canada to the right and the Liberals finally get back in and promise to undo the damage the Tories have caused. During this time the Tories gain control of the senate and they decide to block all the changes the Liberals make to undo the damage the Tories did. Would this be right? I don't believe in taking positions because it currently benefits my chosen party, I take positions because they are the right ones to take regardless of which party is in control of the House or Senate. Some say we need a senate in order to ensure regional representation, but I believe this also has its flaws. A person in Vancouver has far more in common in terms of their interests with a person in Toronto than they do with a person in Fort St. John, but despite this, the senate is based on representing provinces rather than regions. A more effective way to ensure the different regions are fairly represented is to empower MPs by allowing them more free votes on more issues and not punishing those who represent their constituents, even if it goes against the party line. If MPs were not trained seals, but rather ones who represented their riding that elected them, we could have very effective representation.

Now I realize this has little chance at passing as the senate will likely block it and if they don't, it will be tough to get enough provinces on side. Still I believe abolishing the senate is the best solution.

I'll have more on the Saskatchewan election later.