The future of the Senate's decade-old experience with independence hangs in the balance

In the background, there is an internal power struggle, allegations of a bro culture, and threats by government representatives to fall in line.

What may hang in the balance is the future of the Senate’s decade-old experience with independence — and the relevancy of the chamber of sober second thought.

“We are in a state of suspended animation,” described Alberta Sen. Paula Simons.

Over the past weeks, a heated debate erupted while senators discussed controversial pieces of legislation — the immigration measures in the Liberals’ Bill C-12, which critics say breaches international and domestic law and will mean vulnerable asylum seekers are denied protection, and Bill C-4, which reversed privacy rights for Canadians, giving political parties carte blanche to do what they please with your data — over the Senate’s proper role. 

“There’s a very significant shift in mood, in vibes, about what it means to be independent,” said Manitoba Sen. Marilou McPhedran. “There’s some kind of massive groupthink that’s taken hold.”

She is among a few dozen senators who pushed back over those bills but faced a growing cohort who felt it wasn’t their place to intervene. Several Independent senators are now discussing forming a new group, one that’s friendlier to the government.

Since prime minister Justin Trudeau’s 10-year-old reforms, the vast majority of senators have no declared partisan affiliation — only a dozen Conservative senators remain. Many of Trudeau’s appointees strongly believe in the mandate he bestowed upon them: to “restore public trust,” represent “regional and minority interests,” and transform the Senate into “a less partisan” place.  

“When I spoke to Justin Trudeau, he specifically told me: go be independent, go ask hard questions, push back against the government,” Simons recounted.

“That’s why I applied to the Senate,” Nova Scotia Sen. Colin Deacon told the Star. 

But now many senators feel the independence project is at risk.

In a February speech, Ontario Sen. Peter Harder suggested some of his colleagues are “activists,” who were giving into “cynicism” by casting aspersions about the government’s motives, and harming the institution by suggesting amendments.

“The biggest threats to an independent Senate, frankly, are Independent senators in our behaviour, negotiation and relationship with the other chamber,” Harder said. “There is a risk of overplay,” he added.

“I think the reaction of a new government, a minority government, a government that is under tremendous pressure in the circumstances of the moment, would not welcome the upset that some of the senators would have on this and other pieces of legislation,” he said.

In an interview Tuesday, Harder said he was unaware of the consequences of his speech. But his comments echoed what other senators reported after lobbying efforts by the government’s leader in the Senate, former Quebec Liberal Pierre Moreau, and the Government House leader Steven MacKinnon.

“That if the Senate becomes too activist in its pursuit of amendments, it will encourage the government to abandon the independent Senate model and to revert to a partisan Senate,” summed up B.C. Sen. Yuen Pau Woo. “Now, this is, of course, a threat. I mean, there’s really no other way to describe it.” 

For months, the Prime Minister’s Office has refused to say whether Carney plans to continue appointing independent senators. The public portal to solicit applications from Canadians is closed, and vacancies on the independent advisory board are unfilled. No new senator has been appointed.  

“People are treading a little carefully because there is a feeling that if we push back too hard, then the whole reform project could be at risk,” Simons told the Star. “But at the same time,” she said, “if we are self-censoring and saying, ‘Well, we mustn’t overstep for fear that he will remove our independence,’ then we’ve removed our independence ourselves.”

“I think if the government is determined to have a more compliant Senate, it will do so whether or not senators curb the enthusiasm for amendments,” added Woo.

Under Trudeau, senators frequently passed amendments. They spent one year, for example, travelling across the country studying the government’s Impact Assessment Act, Bill C-69. They spent nearly 18 months debating a Bloc Québécois bill, C-282, on supply management — even though it was supported by all the party leaders in the House of Commons.

Many senators felt the bill was irresponsible, that it would handcuff the government and harm Canadian interests. Harder,  the bill’s critic, even urged senators to defeat the bill “so it cannot see the light at committee.” Tuesday, he said he did so because it was a private member’s bill. 

Like many others, Alberta Sen. Scott Tannas believes senators are giving the government a longer leash after a recent election, and are adjusting to a public mood where “priorities have changed.” 

What’s complicating matters is that the Conservatives are toeing the government line — making the Independents the de facto opposition.

To top it off, there is an internal struggle within the largest Independent group that could come to blows next Tuesday. 

And then there is Carney’s influence looming in the background. His network runs deep — those in the club want to remain, those outside want to join. “Look at the white, corporate, male, wealthy troika around this prime minister. Their view of the world is very particular,” said McPhedran.

Ontario Sen. Bernadette Clement said she’s wrestling with her desire to advocate for and defend the rights of vulnerable communities. “By becoming a lightning rod for some things, I don’t know if that’s helpful in the long run,” she said.

“I wish that more people were standing up.”