Tom Mulcair wants to make the Fair Elections Act a key issue in the next election. I think he should go even further and use it to make the case for why senate renewal is the more pressing issue. After 150 years, a genuine House of Sober Second Thought could be only an election away. And I say we should go for it. Given Mulcair's support for abolition, talk of enlisting him in senate renewal may sound strange, but let's start by noting that abolition is no longer an option. Quebec Premier Phillipe Couillard has made it perfectly clear that he won't discuss constitutional change unless Quebec's traditional demands are also on the table. Because this is a non-starter, constitutional change is a non-starter. But we still have to decide what to do about the senate, and so we have to look at other options. At the moment, the only light in the tunnel seems to come from Justin Trudeau's decision to dismiss senators from his caucus and, if he becomes prime minister, to establish an arm's length appointment process. Trudeau's plan is interesting because it frees senators to do everyday what on occasion they have done so well in the past: take on serious policy issues; build up expertise; take a stand on principle; and scrutinize bills from the lower chamber. Some will scoff but, with the partisan shackles lifted, I think the senate could finally become the institution Sir John A. Macdonald said it should be. A full discussion of how would lead us into the appointment process, so I'll have to leave it for another day. For now, let's just say that Trudeau's approach at least raises the prospect of turning the senate into something useful. Moreover, as it doesn't require constitutional change, even Couillard could support it. And that should worry Mulcair. He is now isolated on the issue and has effectively abandoned the field to Trudeau. Should senate renewal become an issue in the next election, Mulcair risks having nothing more to say on the senate than that he wants to blow it up, which in the current context sounds pretty lame. It doesn't have to be this way. Given Couillard's views, Mulcair is now free to reposition the NDP on senate reform, if he chooses. Moreover, he could do so in a way that allows him to break some important new ground. While Trudeau's model is promising, so far he has done little to make the case that it does much for the public. Its main role has been to distance him from the scandals in the senate. To really engage the public on this option, it has to be seen as something more than a way of avoiding political contamination. The first step is to show how freeing senators from party discipline really could lead to a house of sober second thought, as I was just suggesting. But while that's important, we can go even further. Sober second thought would, in turn, provide a principled way of putting a much-needed parliamentary check on the growing power of the Prime Minister's Office—and the Fair Elections Act could be just the foil we need to get the argument going. New Democrats could argue that Couillard's position leaves them no alternative but to move beyond abolition. They would thus accept Trudeau's approach, but with a caveat. They would say that, while they agree with the goal of sober second thought, they also have reasons of their own for supporting the new approach. These reasons are reflected in the mounting opposition to the Fair Elections Act. Opponents of the Act come from across the public policy community; and their criticisms of it reach far beyond policy disputes or even ideological differences. Many believe that key aspects of the bill are nothing less than an assault on democracy. The NDP could capitalize on this sentiment by arguing that, in a healthy democracy, such a bill would never see the light of day. That it is now poised to become law therefore carries a deeply disturbing message about our own democracy, namely, that the PMO now has parliament so tightly in its grip that it feels it can redefine the election process at will. A renewed senate along Trudeau's lines would tell a very different story. Unlike the commons, which the PMO controls through the whip, the new senate would have the constitutional power to block such heavy-handed tactics—and the independence to use it. Of course, in order to be seen as legitimate, the new senate would have to earn the public's trust. It could do so only by ensuring its actions were firmly grounded in principle, evidence and recognized expertise and that it was respectful of the commons' superior status. But if it stuck to these principles, its reputation for sober second thought would grow, as would its legitimacy. As people came to see the important contribution it was making to governance, it would quickly emerge as a credible voice that could effectively challenge heavy-handedness from the PMO. So by raising the issues around the Elections Act to a higher level, Mulcair could give Trudeau's approach to the senate the boost it needs to become a real issue in the next election. This would put Stephen Harper in a difficult position. Obviously, he could not side with Mulcair on the Elections Act, but neither would he support this kind of senate. The government depends on its control of the senate to govern. It is therefore highly unlikely that Harper would agree to release his senators the way Trudeau did. Instead, he would be left in the awkward position of trying to explain why he opposes renewing this dysfunctional institution and turning it into something more useful—event respectable. That would make for an interesting election debate.   Dr. Don Lenihan is Chair of the Ontario Open Government Engagement Team and Senior Associate at Canada's Public Policy Forum in Ottawa. He is an internationally recognized expert on democracy and public engagement, accountability and service delivery. Don's latest book, Rescuing Policy: The Case for Public Engagement is an introduction to the field of public engagement, a blueprint for change, and a sustained argument for the need to rethink the public policy process. The views expressed here are those of the columnist alone. Don can be reached at: [email protected] or follow him on Twitter at: @DonLenihan