Stephen Harper’s five options following the Supreme Court Senate decision

The Supreme Court of Canada offered a historic opinion to the Harper government's reference about what it would take to reform or abolish the Senate.

It's unanimous — they can't go it alone.

In its decision released on Friday, the eight justices agreed that the government requires the support of at least seven provinces, representing 50 per cent of the population, to impose term limits on senators or to create an electoral process.

To abolish the Senate, the Court says, all 10 provinces must unanimously agree.

[ Related: Supreme Court shoots down Harper's Senate reform plans ]

The decision is bad news for the Conservative government which had hoped to pass its Bill C-7, a controversial piece of legislation which would incline provinces to hold senatorial elections and impose a nine-year term limit for senators.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he was disappointed by the ruling.

"The Supreme Court today essentially said that for any important Senate reform of any kind, as well abolition, these are only decisions the provinces can take," Harper said while at a chamber of commerce event in Kitchener Waterloo.

"We know that there is no consensus among the provinces on reform. No consensus on abolition and no desire of anyone to reopen the constitution and have a bunch of constitutional negotiations.

"So essentially this is a decision for the status quo. A status quo that is supported by virtually no Canadian. So look, I think that given that the Supreme Court said we're essentially stuck with the status quo for the time being and that significant reform and abolition are off the table, I think it's a decision, I'm disappointed with but I think it's a decision that the vast majority of Canadians will be very disappointed with but obviously we will respect that decision."

While it sounds like he's throwing in the towel on reforming the Senate, the Tories do have some options moving forward.

Here are five of them.

Keep the status quo:

As articulately explained by the Globe and Mail, "the ruling provides another opportunity for Mr. Harper to suggest to Conservative supporters that the government’s hands are essentially tied when it comes to fixing what’s wrong with the Red Chamber."

Essentially, he can throw his hands in the air and say 'I tried.'

Meanwhile, he could continue to do what he's been doing, which is to ask his appointees to voluntarily step down after an eight-year term.

Whether that will be sufficient for Canadians remains to be seen.

Follow the Liberal lead:

The Liberals recently implemented phase one of their Senate plan by releasing all Liberal Senators from the party's national caucus. This was supposed to make the upper chamber less partisan.

According to leader Justin Trudeau, phase two would take place after he becomes prime minister. Should that happen, he said he will implement a "transparent, non-partisan public process for appointing and confirming Senators."

"No more closed doors. No more secretive deliberations," Trudeau told reporters in January.

"No more announcements the week before Christmas, under the cover of darkness."

On Friday, the Liberals again urged the Tories to follow their lead.

"The Supreme Court has clearly stated that the Harper Conservatives cannot achieve their Senate reform proposals without opening up the Constitution," Liberal Intergovernmental Affairs Critic Stephane Dion said in a statement.

"Liberals have already shown that Senate reform can occur without re-opening the Constitution, and we challenge the Prime Minster to match our action in making Senators independent of political parties and end partisanship in the Senate."

While it is an option, don't expect the Stephen Harper to emulate Justin Trudeau.

A referendum?

One of the cards that the Harper government may still yet play is to hold a referendum on the future of the red chamber.

As one Conservative strategist told CBC News earlier this week, "the prime minister could say, 'Well, we're going to go over the heads of the courts and directly to the people on this.'"

It's a option that the Canadian Taxpayers Federation agrees with.

"There’s no question that unanimous consent is a high bar for abolition, but do not underestimate how sick Canadians are of this unelected group of landowners pilfering the public purse," CTF Federal Director Gregory Thomas said in a statement.

"We’re confident that if a national referendum were held in 2015, Canadians from coast-to-coast-to-coast would come to the same conclusion – we don’t need an extra 105 unelected politicians.

"Chances are most Canadians already believe the Senate is a waste of money."

The problem with a referendum, however, is that doesn't bypass the Supreme Court ruling. Even if Canadians voted in huge numbers to axe the Senate, the feds would still require consent from provincial governments.

But, at the very least, all governments — across the country — would have a clear indication of what Canadians want.

Open up a new round of constitutional talks:

The New Democrats are urging the Tories to consult with the provinces.

"We continue to believe the unelected and unaccountable Senate should be abolished, and of course, that should only be done after consultations with Canadians and Provinces," democratic reform critic Craig Scott said in a statement.

"The Supreme Court noted, in paragraph 4 of today’s judgement, "the desirability of changes [to the senate] is not a question for the court: it is an issue for Canadians and for their legislatures."

[ Related: Pamela Wallin regrets paying back some flagged expenses ]

While consultation seems fair, it's easy to under Harper's aversion to actual negotiations with the provinces.

If he did, it would likely get messy and lead to the constitutional horse-trading that we saw during the Meech Lake and Charlottetown negotiations of the 1980s and 90s.

Prince Edward Island Premier Robert Ghiz foreshadowed that last fall. In an interview with the Globe and Mail, the Liberal premier suggested that he wouldn't vote to abolish the Senate without the guarantee of something in return — something like more seats in the House of Commons.

"I would be a fool to give up any of the influence that we have in Ottawa, and I’m not going to allow that to happen," he said.

Stop funding the Senate:

This option is a little off-the-wall and likely would face some legal challenges.

But last summer, the NDP introduced a proposal in the House of Commons to cut off the senate's spending.

The motion, which was debated in the House, was put forward by NDP MP Mathieu Ravignat.

"Our main concern for now is the lack of transparency and accountability in Senate expenses and we think it's gone far enough that it's time to cut the umbilical cord," he told Yahoo Canada News at the time.

Unlike a move to abolish the Senate, Ravignat said that he didn't think the proposal required a constitutional amendment.

"What we're asking this government to do is to just ignore that and give zero funding to the Senate," he said.

"There's nothing anti-constitutional about cutting off or not voting to give the Senate a budget. "

(Photo courtesy of Reuters)

Are you a politics junkie?
Follow @politicalpoints on Twitter!