Back in 1992, when the country was busy debating the Charlottetown constitutional accord, the Senate of Canada did something that was
very telling.

A key component in the accord, of course, was the attempt to abolish an appointed Senate. In spite of this, all parties in the upper chamber resolved to go ahead with extensive renovations to the Victoria Building, where most Senate offices are located, across from Parliament Hill.

These renovations included a striking new lobby of imported marble and salmon-coloured granite, in keeping with the aura of permanence one would find at the headquarters of a Canadian bank or insurance company.

As things turned out, the Charlottetown accord was killed off in a public referendum. So, the decision to go ahead with the Senate building’s renovations turned out to be prescient.

And there must have been guffaws in the chamber of sober second thought when Stephen Harper promised to disband the Senate on his way to becoming prime minister in 2006.

Despite years of bad press and sustained resolve by many in all political parties to get rid of the Senate, it lives on — and is likely to continue to do so for a long time yet.

That is because the upper chamber fills several essential roles in the Ottawa power structure. Ask Prime Minister Harper, who has been busy loading the place with loyal Tories in recent months, with the sole aim of gaining a Conservative Senate majority in 2010.

Harper has found a way to put his key party organizer, Doug Finley, the Conservatives’ top fundraiser in Quebec; Leo Housakos; and the Tories’ travelling troubadour, former journalist and permanent campaigner, Mike Duffy, on the public payroll.

But before you start the usual tut-tutting, just remember that the Liberals also were using the upper chamber as a place to put their key party officials on the public payroll for years. Liberal senator David Smith, the party’s resident eminence gris, is a prime example.

Keeping party loyalists in place is a necessity in modern brokerage politics. It would be a fair prediction that, if the New Democratic Party ever manages to form a government, it also would use the upper chamber as a daycare centre for its party hacks, even while continuing to vow its abolition.

Pundits have long compared the legislative system to the sausage-making process. Citizens may not enjoy looking at the components close up, even though they may approve of the results.

As much as both major parties may denigrate the Senate, they regard it as a second wall of defence in the event that things don’t go as planned in the House of Commons. Which is why Harper is in such a rush to gain control of the upper chamber in 2010.

But, politics aside, most Canadians would be pleasantly surprised at what goes on in the upper chamber.

For the most part, the atmosphere in the Senate is far less partisan than its commoner counterpart, particularly at the standing committee level. Instead of brinksmanship and confrontation, senators tend to take time for a long look at the issues.

For example, a Senate committee has been holding hearings on how to fix the retirement system, while members of Parliament in the other place have been busy pointing fingers at each other. Over the summer, Conservative Wilbert Keon chaired several weeks of hearings involving senators of all parties, on how to establish minimum standards of health care in each community in Canada.

The resulting report won wide acclaim as a trove of good ideas, so much so that MPs of all parties on the Commons health committee want to hold their own hearings on the senators’ proposals.

Senator Marcel Prud’homme once advocated making the Senate into a sort of standing royal commission to examine various issues on a dispassionate basis. Ironically, Senate committees often function like mini royal commissions now, and the country has been the better for it.

Former senator Michael Kirby became a nationally recognized leader and authority on health-care reform — particularly, mental health — because of his work as chairman of the Senate health committee.

However, an appointed legislative body is not going to get much respect from voters in the 21st century. This is why many senators — including Kirby, when he was in office — actually advocate the conversion to an elected Senate, like Australia’s.

@page_break@But an elected Senate would lead to a vastly different political landscape, in which there would be winners and losers. The executive branch of government could lose some of its powers with a suddenly revitalized upper chamber, particularly if the Opposition had the most Senate seats.

This may be another reason the current prime minister has lost his zeal for Senate reform.

The Canadian Senate may even outlive the British House of Lords.

As for the expensive new lobby in the Victoria Building, it was ripped out after 9/11 to make room for security equipment. But perhaps it had served its purpose. IE