The modernization of the Senate

Opinion

What happens to the Senate after the election?

Senate reform and ongoing modernization of its operations will not be a prominent issue in the current election. However, the outcome of the election will have significant consequences for the role of the Senate in the national policy process and for the dynamics of its internal decision-making.

Just days before he left federal politics, now-former prime minister Justin Trudeau recommended to the Governor General the appointment of five new senators, which means there is now a full complement of 105 members in the Senate.

When Trudeau entered office in 2015 there were 22 vacancies and the government launched what Trudeau called a new merit-based appointment process intended to create an independent, non-partisan upper house. In total Trudeau made 100 Senate appointments, the most by any prime minister in Canadian history.

There is controversy over the extent to which the “new” Senate has become a more independent, non-partisan institution.

In a 2019 study I conducted for the Public Policy Forum, my conclusion was that the use of an independent advisory committee to identify potential Senate nominees had resulted in the appointment of many highly qualified individuals, only a few of whom had a Liberal party affiliation, although most could be described as progressive in their thinking.

This pattern changed in the last two years. There were 22 Senate appointments made in 2024 – 2025 and half of them had a recent Liberal background. Apparently Trudeau wanted to reward some political friends and to create a Senate which would resist the policy agenda of a CPC government led by Pierre Poilievre.

The second conclusion in my 2019 study was that the “new” Senate had exhibited greater independence than the “old” Senate appointed mostly on the basis of party patronage. There was a greater willingness among senators to challenge, delay and to propose amendments to government legislation. At the same time the new Senate has acted with restraint, stopping short of using its authority to block bills already approved by the House of Commons.

The CPC labels the Trudeau reforms a hoax. They allege that the new generation of homogeneously progressive Senators is not representative of the ideological perspectives within the country. They argue that should the CPC win the election, the country is headed to a constitutional showdown.

Historically the Senate was dominated by the two major parties which alternated in performing the adversarial roles of government versus Opposition. As a result of Trudeau dropping former Liberal senators from the parliamentary caucus, the Conservatives are the only remaining Senate party caucus with a membership that has shrunk to just 12 members.

There are three other organized parliamentary groups (with numbers in brackets) in today’s Senate: the Independent Senators Group (41), the Canadian Senators Group (18), and the Progressive Senate Group (15). Like-minded senators hold discussions in these groups but unlike the Conservative senators, group members are not subject to party discipline. There are 19 unaffiliated senators.

There is now no government party in the Senate. Instead there is something called the Government Representative Office consisting of three unaligned senators and a sizable staff complement which is responsible for steering government bills through the Senate and leading the ongoing modernization of the institution.

If he becomes prime minister, Poilievre would probably revert to a patronage-based appointment process, hoping to restore over time more ideological balance to the Senate. To speed up the process he would probably make use of a constitutional provision which allows for the appointment of up to six or eight extra senators.

If the Liberals under Mark Carney win the election, the Senate will be deferential to the the mandate of the new government. However, it will also continue to provide critical reviews of bills and to conduct useful committee studies which can help shape government thinking over time.

There could, however, be an internal fight in the Senate. The new groupings have had to work hard against Conservative resistance to gain recognition of their existence in the Parliament of Canada Act, the rules of the Senate, their representation as committee chairs and a proportionate number of places on committees, and the allocation of funding and staff to support their operations.

Left unresolved is the issue of how the official Opposition and its leader should be designated. This matters because the designation brings privileges under the rules and access to resources.

Presently, the Senate rules state that the “party” with the second-largest number of senators will compromise the Opposition and its leader will have the title “Leader of the Opposition.” Only the CPC senators operate as a disciplined party so it has been able to cling to the Opposition status by arguing that the Westminster model presumes a government-versus-opposition dynamic based on competitive parties.

This argument is not persuasive. There is in fact considerable variety among parliamentary systems based on the Westminster model, including systems where there are multiple opposition groups. A new leadership structure and a new generation of senators means that the institutional culture is becoming more pragmatic and constructive.

It is time to complete the modification of the Senate rules to recognize the multiple groupings which now exist. Fairness toward all groups or caucuses based on their numbers should determine the assignment of procedural rights and resources.

Paul G. Thomas is professor emeritus of political studies at the University of Manitoba.