The wrongdoing of a few senators has many Canadians asking: just what should we do about the place?

Canada’s political leaders are asking themselves the same question, and each are coming up with different answers.

What to do about the Senate has been a theme of Canadian politics for decades. And it remains a completely separate issue from them affair involving the prime minister’s former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, and former Conservative Senator Mike Duffy. But this problem, which continues to dog the Tory government, has only served to focus minds on what the future holds for the Red Chamber.

All parties agree that reform of some kind is needed. The form those changes should take is where the parties disagree.

Liberals are looking for the least amount of reform to the Senate. Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau wants to ensure the selection process is improved without any other major changes, making the nomination of senators a more transparent and less partisan affair. While it might not be bold or visionary, it is probably the most pragmatic reform currently on offer.

The fact of the matter is that any significant reform to the Senate is impractical because of the constitutional wrangling that would be required.

This is the main reason why the Conservative Party, which has campaigned on wholesale reform to the Senate that would require senators be elected and sit for shorter terms than the current lifetime appointment (or at least until they are 75), has dragged its feet on the issue. They are currently awaiting word from the Supreme Court on the government’s ability to unilaterally make changes to the way senators are chosen, a position that allows them to show they are doing something, while knowing that it is likely to come to nothing.

The Supreme Court is unlikely to give the federal government the kind of sweeping powers needed to change the Senate. Even the modest proposals the Conservatives are currently pushing — which would ask provinces to hold senatorial elections to produce nominees a prime minister would then appoint — are limited in scope. If their plan went ahead, it would only rely on the optics of a sitting prime minister refusing to appoint elected senators to force them to go along with voters’ choices, along with the dubious hope that every province would actually hold senatorial elections. None of these stipulations can be enforced. What happens when, say, Quebec refuses to hold senatorial elections or, if they do, a sitting prime minister refuses to nominate a duly elected PQ nominee?

As a nod to how opinions about the Senate have turned sour, Stephen Harper has now invoked the option of abolition as the way to go forward if reform is not possible. That puts him in agreement with Thomas Mulcair and the New Democrats, who have long called for the abolition of the Senate. It also puts them in line with public opinion, which is overwhelmingly in favour of either reform or abolition instead of the status quo.

But the NDP’s position is just as unlikely to come to fruition as the Conservatives’ hope for real reform. Their recent failed motion to withhold funding from the Senate highlighted the problems with their position. If the Senate ceased to be able to function due to a lack of senators or a lack of funding, it would be impossible to get legislation passed as even an unfunded or unpopulated Senate would still be a constitutional and unavoidable part of the governing system.

In the end, the groundswell of support for major reform to the Senate (or for the end of it) does not exist, at least in strong enough terms to get the provinces onside for the necessary constitutional tweaking. What to do with the Senate is unlikely to be a major policy plank or vote-deciding issue in the next election. That does not mean that those who are pushing for reform of some kind are doing so in vain, but until they come up with a plan of how to actually go about transforming the way Canada is governed the issue will remain, as it has for time immemorial, unresolved.

Éric Grenier taps The Pulse of federal and regional politics for Huffington Post Canada readers on most Tuesdays and Fridays. Grenier is the author of, covering Canadian politics, polls and electoral projections.

Related on HuffPost:

Loading Slideshow...
  • Pamela Wallin

    Pamela Wallin, at Tory senator from Saskatchewan, also found her expense claims under close scrutiny in Februrary when it was revealed <a href="" target="_blank">she billed taxpayers $142,190.26 for trips between March 1, 2011, and Feb. 29, 2012</a>. But only $10,551.99 of her expenses were related to travel between Ottawa and Saskatchewan, while the remaining $131,638.27 was filed under "Other." Questions were also raised about whether or not she satisfied the residency requirement needed to represent Saskatchewan in the Upper Chamber. Wallin split her time between Toronto and New York prior to being named a senator in 2008, but <a href="" target="_blank">does own a plot of land in the province and two properties with family members.</a> <em>With files from CP</em>

  • Patrick Brazeau

    Patrick Brazeau first came under fire in December of 2012 amid reports he was using <a href="" target="_blank">his former father-in-law's address </a>in Maniwaki, Que., to claim a Senate housing allowance, while actually living in Gatineau, just across the river from Parliament Hill. The Senate Board of Internal Economy subsequently asked an auditor to look at Brazeau's residency claims and expenses. In early February, Brazeau was arrested and charged with <a href="" target="_blank">assault and sexual assault </a>after a heated argument with his girlfriend turned violent. The charges promptly got Brazeau turfed from the Conservative caucus. On February 12, Brazeau was <a href="" target="_blank">suspended indefinitely </a>from the Upper Chamber. <em>With files from CP</em>

  • Mike Duffy

    Conservative Mike Duffy also courted controversy over his housing allowance. The P.E.I. senator <a href="" target="_blank">claimed his cottage in Cavendish as his primary residence</a> and his long-time in home in Kanata, a suburb of Ottawa, as a secondary residence for which he collected $33,000 in living allowances he since 2010. While always maintaining he was entitled to the compensation, Duffy <a href="" target="_blank">vowed on February 22 to repay the money</a>. He blamed the entire issue on confusing and vague Senate paperwork. <em>With files from CP</em>

  • Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu

    Pierre-Hughes Boisvenu, a Conservative senator from Quebec, came under fire in early March when it was revealed <a href="" target="_blank">he collected a housing allowance of $20,000 despite living little more than a drive across a bridge from Parliament.</a> Boisvenu claimed his primary residence was in Sherbrooke, but sources said he had been staying at his secondary residence in Gatineau since separating from his wife in February, 2012. Boisvenu was then forced to admit in March that he had been <a href="" target="_blank">carrying on a relationship with an aide, Isabelle Lapointe</a>. The Senate ethics officer had told him last year that he couldn't have his girlfriend on the office payroll but Boisvenu ignored the warning for months. The two have since split up and Lapointe is now working elsewhere. <a href="" target="_blank">Boisvenu has repaid the $900 stipend he collected while living with Lapointe for three months near Ottawa.</a> <em>With files from CP</em>

  • Mac Harb

    Liberal senator Mac Harb also had his expenses audited after it was discovered that he claimed <a href="" target="_blank">about $40,212 in living expenses for a secondary residence in Ottawa from Nov. 30, 2010 to Nov. 30, 2012</a>. Harb, a former Ottawa MP, claims his primary residence is <a href="" target="_blank">a bungalow in the tiny village of Westmeath</a>, but neighbours claim that nobody lives there year-round and that it is basically a cottage.

  • UP NEXT: The Many Faces Of Pamela Wallin

  • UP NEXT: Twitter Users Unhappy With Wallin