OTTAWA—Spoiler alert.

Nobody knows how this one is going to end.

The Supreme Court of Canada will hear arguments starting Tuesday in a historic reference case that Prime Minister Stephen Harper hopes will set one of the country’s legislative pillars of government — the Senate — on a course towards election or extinction. (If you are on mobile, you can follow Tonda MacCharles’ live coverage here.)

MORE FROM THESTAR.COM

Prime Minister Stephen Harper calls courts enemy of Senate reform

Harper misses opportunity on Senate plebiscite: Hébert

Quebec court rejects Conservative government Senate reform plan

Senate reform won’t be a judicial rush job

Harper has asked the country’s top court to decide whether he has the power to unilaterally drive change “aimed at enhancing the legitimacy of the institution” — in the words of his federal lawyers — or whether he needs the assent of provinces, and if so, how many?

But with all 10 provinces, three territories, two francophone groups and two senators weighing in, chances are pretty good that the cushy Senate will come out looking like a misunderstood cornerstone of Canadian democracy.

Even many bedrock conservatives, such as Alberta’s Wildrose party Leader Danielle Smith, conceded last week at the federal Conservative party convention that the Senate has a legitimate purpose: to represent regional interests where an elected government might overlook them.

In an interview with the Star, Smith said: “As an opposition politician who deals with a majority government able to make decisions without any sober second thought, I do have some hope that having a second chamber as oversight to House of Commons decision-making can and should be made to work.”

Smith, like many, just wishes the second chamber were more accountable. In her eyes, an elected, effective Senate would be that.

The case that starts Tuesday and has political and legal eyes riveted has a dry name: “In the Matter of a Reference by the Governor in Council concerning reform of the Senate.”

The stakes couldn’t be higher.

Special advocates named by the Supreme Court to provide it with independent advice say the implications go beyond today’s debate on Senate reform and will shape future transformations of the Constitution of Canada.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Against a backdrop of political scandal around inflated Senate expenses — several of which landed Harper’s own appointees in hot water — the prime minister has asked the high court if the federal government can act alone to require (or allow) provincial elections for senators; if it can act alone to impose term limits (and make them retroactive); if it can repeal the requirement for a senator to own property; and if it can act to abolish the Senate outright.

Or are such changes actually constitutional reforms that require the prime minister to use one of the amending formulas set out in 1982 when Canada repatriated its Constitution from Britain? That’s a whole different kettle of fish, one Harper has been determined to avoid.

Quebec’s highest appeal court recently ruled on similar questions and said according to the 1982 Constitution Act, term limits and elections amount to constitutional change. They would require the federal government to secure the agreement of seven provinces accounting for 50 per cent of the population. The ruling didn’t deal with the question of abolition.

There’s only been one change to Senate tenure since the body’s formation in 1867. In 1965, Ottawa unilaterally moved to make 75 the mandatory retirement age for senators. Since then, there have been many reform proposals — to establish term limits, renewable terms or an elected Senate — all to no avail.

Guiding principles have been set out once before.

The high court ruled against the federal government’s power to take unilateral action in a previous reference case on Senate reform. In 1980, the Supreme Court said the British North America Act did not give “Parliament the power to alter the fundamental character of the Senate by unilateral action.” It said anything that would change the “essential characteristics” of the Senate as a means of “ensuring regional and provincial representation in the federal legislative process” required provincial consent.

Two years later, the Constitution Act of 1982 laid out new constitutional amending procedures, and now it’s a whole new ball game.

The provinces disagree among themselves on thresholds for term limits and electoral systems for Senate appointments. Most say such changes would require the general amending formula — the seven-of-10 provinces and 50-per-cent population minimum. Ontario suggests term limits — as long as they are nine years or longer — can be set by Ottawa alone.

And most provinces say abolition is a more drastic and fundamental change that would require unanimous consent of all partners in the federation, as well as the Commons and the Senate. Only Saskatchewan, B.C. and the federal government argue abolition can be achieved with the approval of seven provinces and 50 per cent of the population.

The Conservative government insists it prefers Senate elections over abolition. Pierre Poilievre, the minister charged with democratic reform, touted “democratic bicameralism that would give strong representation to the regions and contribute long-term thinking to the legislative process.”

Poilievre told reporters after Saskatchewan moved to opt for abolition that provinces are free to do as they wish. “Our position remains as is. We want to reform the Senate and abolition is the last resort.”

And yet, on the eve the Supreme Court case, Conservative ministers mused outright about abolition. Harper’s minister for small business and tourism, Maxime Bernier, called on Harper to hold a referendum next spring to abolish the Senate.

Amidst it all, the Supreme Court’s appointed “friends of the court” — amici curiae — urged the justices not to consider the merits or “political popularity” of any particular reform included in the reference questions, but to examine how the proposals would alter Canada’s constitutional architecture and how change should lawfully be made.

The hearing is scheduled for three days, with a decision expected sometime in the next year.

Read more about: