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.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 8, 2026.

OTTAWA—Do Canadians deserve clarity on the separation question?

Separatists don’t think so.

Last week, the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill to repeal the 26-year-old Clarity Act.

Ironically, they tabled the bill in the very Parliament that they would like to exit.

Motivation for the move was a decision by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith to promote a referendum on a potential secession process in her province.

At least the Bloc is consistent.

Along with its provincial counterpart, the Parti Québécois, the Bloc has never wavered in its commitment to leave Canada. However, referendum fatigue has kept the issue on the back burner.

As recently as last August, former separatist premier Lucien Bouchard called on the current PQ leader to drop his plan for a first-term referendum. Paul St.-Pierre Plamondon agreed to disagree with the PQ icon.

Meanwhile, Smith met with Quebec Premier Christine Frechette last week, ostensibly to discuss economic ties and strategies to create more provincial autonomy.

Frechette is opposed to another Quebec referendum, but Smith claimed the two provinces are so aligned that their names should be changed to Alberbec or Queberta.

Their brief discussion did not include any talk about the federal clarity rules.

Prime Minister Mark Carney made it clear that a single vote does not meet the conditions for separation.

The Clarity Act requires a clear question and a clear majority, but the Bloc thinks a simple majority of 50-per-cent-plus-one is enough. Former prime minister Jean Chrétien said a simple majority was so ridiculous that if a voter forgot their glasses, they could accidentally vote to leave Canada.

The Alberta premier claims support for Canada, but has used her powers to encourage the referendum. She has intervened on three occasions to promote the separation question.

Her party’s claim, included in a bill passed by the Alberta legislature, promotes a “Sovereign Alberta within a United Canada.”

Bill 1, passed in 2022, sets out the legal framework for the province to stop enforcing federal initiatives.

Smith is facing a political pickle. The majority of Albertans want to remain in Canada, but the same cannot be said for the members of the premier’s United Conservative Party.

The Republican Party of Alberta lists 18 separatist UCP members of the legislature.

Multiple polls place the percentage of UCP members who want to separate at about 60 per cent.

Smith has to satisfy those members to keep her job, but in doing so, she risks losing the rest of Alberta.

Smith’s plan to campaign in favour of Canada is based on the high costs of separation.

But her actions tell a different story.

Smith lowered the threshold for the number of signatures needed to launch a referendum. She also launched grievance panels, touring the province, and providing separatists with an official platform to air their complaints about the country.

Her party president, Rob Smith, has publicly stated the UCP would remain neutral on the separation question, while the premier has contradicted him.

She also defends the referendum by repeating that 700,000 Albertans asked for this vote. That statement is disingenuous at best, as 404,000 of the signatories signed the Forever Canada Petition, whose organizers explicitly opposed the holding of a referendum on the question.

The second problem with the 700,000 number is that the signatures to separate have not been verified by Elections Alberta because of a court decision that the push for separation violates Indigenous rights.

Smith’s government has appealed that decision, opposing the initial court judgment that cited a failure of the legal duty to consult with Indigenous Peoples as a reason to block the referendum.

She claims the duty to consult comes after a referendum triggers a separation process.

But Indigenous leaders have been clear that there was a failure by Smith to consult with the Athabaska Chipewyan First Nation, Blood Tribe, Piikani Nation, and Siksika First Nation.

Siksika chief Samuel Crowfoot was clear, “the Alberta government would do well to change their course in dealing with First Nations and engage with us in a respectful and meaningful way … we want to be part … (of) improving Alberta, not roadblocks in their efforts to appease a fringe majority.”

Smith knows her government has failed to consult First Nations and Métis before the referendum.

She will have a tough time convincing Albertans she believes in Canada since she has been the main proponent of her party’s path to departure.

New Democratic Leader Naheed Nenshi’s best chance of victory in next year’s Alberta election is the fight for Canada.

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