If There's No Other Way To Reform The Senate...

Is Stephen Harper giving up on the Senate reform? According to the Calgary Herald article by Link Byfield, that's the way it may look like:

In his postelection media conference last week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper was starting to sound at least a little exasperated about Senate reform.

He threatened to revert to the tradition of choosing senators himself if provincial governments don't hurry up and start electing them.

The reality is, however, that with only minority support in both Houses, and yawning indifference among the provinces, the Conservative government is trapped.
...
So Harper is reduced to threatening to return to the old way of doing business, which is exactly what his opponents want, so it isn't a threat at all. In fact, it would constitute a surrender.

More

Even if so - that's a Pyrrhic victory for the opposition. Simply because the Liberal control over the Senate won't last "for the years to come". With 17 Senate seats being already vacant and with all the upcoming retirements, filling all the Senate vacancies with Conservatives (on condition that they resign once a Senate election is called) will ensure a narrow Conservative plurality (50:49) as early as January 3, 2010.

Then Stephen Harper could apply the constitutional clause which allows him to appoint 8 additional Senators and bingo: He's got his majority in the Upper Chamber. With 58 Conservatives versus 49 Liberals, 3 Independents, 2 PCs and 1 NDP, the Senate will pass the "omnibus bill" on Senate reform probably before the summer recess of 2010, leaving it up to the opposition in the House (especially - the Liberals) to decide what they want to happen next.

Their choice will be simple: Either they let the bill pass and start looking forward to elect more Senators than they could appoint in 2011-2014 or they block the bill and get stuck with almost 40 new Conservative Senators until 2030s at the least. Can we count on at least 12 Liberal MPs to find the first option to be the lesser of the two evils? (Or - on at least 24 Liberals to abstain from voting?)