With two provinces now publicly debating secession, it makes sense to nominate Senators who know something about politics.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 13, 2026.

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Mark Carney has put the politics back in the Senate. And it couldn’t come a moment too soon.

With two provinces now publicly debating secession, it makes sense to nominate Senators who know something about politics.

Many experienced political people across party lines simply shook their heads when then-prime minister Justin Trudeau decided to name only “non-partisan” Senators in 2015.

That decision led him to kick Liberal Senators out of the caucus, some of whom had been heavily involved in the party for decades.

It also meant that the public process forfeited the talent of political operatives who could be very helpful in the workings of government.

Then-Liberal Senator Keith Davey—dubbed “the rainmaker” for his direction of multiple winning campaigns—headed a mass media inquiry by the Senate which stood the test of time.

Former Conservative Senator Donald Oliver served as legal counsel to his party for years, and then went on to become the first Black man named to the Senate. It was his drive that introduced the first code of conduct for Senators.

Trudeau’s non-partisan directive was designed to end criticism of the Senate, which had been plagued by spending allegations and attacks on the Sente composition by the previous government.

Then-Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper headed a party created by the merger of the Reform Party and the Progressive Conservative Party. In order to accommodate Reformers, the party dropped its progressive label and continued to support some key Reform policies, which included the creation of a triple-e, elected Senate where each province would have equal numbers of Senators.

Five Albertan Senators who had been symbolically elected have been subsequently appointed to the Senate.

But spending issues continued to create challenges for which Trudeau believed the best solution would be to appoint Senators who were well-informed in their fields and political non-partisans.

Trudeau did appoint a couple of former New Democratic politicians to the Senate, but it was a standing joke in the Liberal Party that if you were recommending anyone for the Senate, make sure they weren’t Liberals.

If you look at the composition of the Senate today, there are multiple Senators who are absolute experts in their fields of endeavour, including medicine, science, and demography. But those same Senators have very little knowledge of Canada, or how to deal with political issues that could tear the country apart.

The last referendum in Quebec led to the Clarity Act, which was a pivotal piece of legislation designed to ensure that future separation questions had to be clear and concise.

The role of the Senate historically has been to serve as the Chamber of sober second thought. The reference to sober was not a reflection on the dipsomaniacal nature of Members of Parliament. Rather, Senators were supposed to provide sober-minded reflection on legislation proposed by the House of Commons.

It could not introduce legislation of its own, a nod to the elected nature of the House of Commons. But it could return or delay legislation that it deemed bad for the country. Senators needed some political wherewithal and understanding.

That doesn’t mean that all Senators were partisans. Some of the most effective were former political assistants who ended up working as non-partisan civil servants. Names like Peter Harder spring to mind.

The point being that most Senators had some knowledge of the country and the system of governance, so they could legitimately add something to a debate on national issues like secession.

Trudeau wiped out the possibility for political participants to be involved in the Senate. In doing so, he used a hammer—instead of a flyswatter—to reform the Senate.

By naming a prominent Liberal and well-known Conservative to top the Senate as well as two nominees without political experience, Carney has beefed up the Senate in a way that will be invaluable in the face of any national crisis.

He will face some criticism from those who don’t believe in the existence of the Senate. But with the Conservative appointment, that criticism will be blunted.

It will also prompt a Quebec byelection which could open up another seat in the House for the Liberals.

At the end of the day, the Senate should include a group of elder statespersons who can offer political advice based on real-life experience.

If I were going in for major surgery, I would trust my fate to the hands of a medical doctor. The same is true in politics.

When the country’s future is at stake, go with the pros.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

It would be dangerous for Liberals to skew their campaign to millennial voters. That cohort was a winner in 2015, delivering a solid majority to the Liberals. But it is not likely to be as effective this time around.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 12, 2021.

Liberal Rainmaker Keith Davey led the party to multiple successful elections.

Such was the Senator’s electoral prowess that he is widely credited with the Liberals becoming the “natural governing party” in the last century.

Last weekend’s Liberal convention reflected Davey’s rule.

He always said that the key to Liberal success was campaigning from the left and governing from the right.

The party secured the best policies for a socially progressive country while remaining fiscally prudent, so as not to scare the business community.

But this century is turning politics on its head.

In an effort to guide Canada through the pandemic, the government is spending as widely and rapidly as possible.

So, when it comes to a pre-election message, the party will have to prove that it can also be fiscally prudent.

So do not expect a blanket endorsement of a guaranteed annual income, even though this has been on the agenda of many progressives for decades.

Instead, there will be a resolution to cost the plan, and incorporate the views of provincial and Indigenous governments before anything specific moves forward on the national level.

Such a resolution will give some comfort to Bay Street, which is already making noises about excessive Liberal spending. And main street will be reassured in knowing that national income support will be available at least through the pandemic.

The convention will also embrace near unanimity on a resolution calling for the implementation of national standards for long-term care residences across the country.

There was a time when such a resolution would have meant political death in Quebec.

And everyone knows that it is near impossible to secure a majority government without substantial support in La Belle province.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Quebec Premier François Legault have been making multiple joint announcements in recent time, so they will probably organize an opt-out clause to handle the claim of federal interference in provincial health matters.

But at the end of the day, the death rate in Quebec cannot be ignored and simply assuming that more of the same will be a solution does not make sense.

The sturm and drang of a convention will allow all sides to air their perspectives but, in the end, the party will come out united behind a policy that will ensure a national strategy for long-term care and no national consensus on the Guaranteed Annual Income.

Party organizers have been very pleased with the participation level at the convention, with more than 4,000 registrants, of whom 60 per cent are new members.

New members are good news, but the party also has to be concerned about the ongoing support of long-time, loyal Liberals.

I was chatting last week with a former cabinet minister, who was a very active political organizer in the past, and he is sitting the next election out.

In his words, the party seems a lot more interested in recruitment than in involving those who have been around for a long time.

That could spell trouble, because in most elections where the Liberals lose, their loyal voters don’t necessarily change sides. They just don’t bother to vote.

Pollsters have recently identified that the party is either behind or in a toss-up in 13 ridings which they need to form a majority government.

Most of those ridings are rural, with a population that is not likely as mobile so long-term, loyal voters are important to the victory.

New political participants are important for energy and excitement. The young generation is most likely made up of urban participants who will not carry the day in the case of a tight election.

It would be dangerous for Liberals to skew their campaign to millennial voters.

That cohort was a winner in 2015, delivering a solid majority to the Liberals. But it is not likely to be as effective this time around.

The longer any party has been in government, the harder it is to keep everyone happy.

Marijuana legalization is a distant memory, and that policy will not persuade those new voters to support the Liberals again.

Instead, the party will depend on older people to carry tight ridings in rural areas.

Seniors are usually most likely to vote in large numbers, but the pandemic has altered everyone’s habits.

Trudeau’s Covid hotels have also cost support among snowbirds who represent up to 500,000 voters.

Hopes for majority could depend on whether the Trudeau glow is losing lustre with loyal Liberals.

The convention could kickstart that renewal—or not.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.