Justin Trudeau will – again – violate his promise to Canadians that, “My Liberal [Senate] Caucus, from now on, will only have people who were elected by the people of Canada in it.”[i]
Trudeau has lied to Canadians so many times and about so many things that it’s impossible to be surprised any more.
Justin Trudeau’s plan to appoint ten new senators before he resigns is a blatant attempt to stack the Senate with Liberals, in defiance of the will of Canadians.
His actions are neither necessary nor in the best interests of Canadians.
Harper’s Senate Strategy: A Precedent for Responsible Leadership
It’s fitting that Justin Trudeau’s final “middle finger” to Canadians will bookend his legacy with broken promises about the Senate.
Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper recognized the Senate’s broken structure and refused to perpetuate its partisan dysfunction.
He advocated for a Triple-E Senate (elected, equal, and effective), and deliberately left 22 Senate seats empty prior to the 2015 federal election.
Harper’s actions were not neglectful; they were intentional and principled. He sought to restore credibility to an institution marred by scandals.
Rather than fill vacancies for partisan gain, Harper respected the democratic will and sought systemic change through an agreement with Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party. They agreed to move away from political appointments and transition toward an elected Senate.
Trudeau – in what became the hallmark of his tenure – broke his word as soon as he took office. He stacked the Senate with appointees who, despite being labeled “independent,” consistently supported Liberal policies and opposed Conservative ones.
Trudeau’s eleventh-hour Senate cronyism and patronage confirm that Trudeau never had Canada’s best interests in mind.
The Senate’s Role and the Salisbury Convention
The Senate of Canada is an unelected body, and its legitimacy rests on its duty to act as a chamber of sober second thought, not as a partisan roadblock to an elected government.
According to the Salisbury Convention[ii], unelected senators must not oppose government bills that have been the subject of clear election promises.
This principle is rooted in democratic legitimacy—if a government is elected with a mandate for specific policies, the Senate should not obstruct their implementation.
Trudeau’s last-minute appointments ensure that a Liberal-dominated Senate can obstruct a future Conservative government’s legislative agenda, even when that Conservative government has a clear democratic mandate.
This is troubling because of Pierre Poilievre’s commitment to implement the Simplified Firearms Classification System.
If elected, Poilievre would have a clear mandate to pass this legislation, yet a Trudeau-stacked Senate could attempt to delay, amend, or outright reject it, despite historical precedence that shows the Senate rarely blocks government bills.
Trudeau’s Partisan Manipulation of the Senate
Trudeau’s claim that appointing senators is his “responsibility” is misleading.
Renowned constitutional lawyer Peter Hogg has stated unequivocally that there is no legal obligation for a prime minister to fill Senate vacancies.[iii]
This is a discretionary power—one that should be exercised with restraint and responsibility, particularly in a transitional period when an election is imminent.
Historically, Senate vacancies have been left unfilled without disrupting parliamentary function.
The only critical threshold is that a minimum of 15 sitting senators are required for quorum, a number far from being at risk.
Trudeau’s rush to appoint more senators is not about maintaining the Senate’s functionality; it is about securing Liberal dominance in the upper chamber for decades to come.
The 1990 Precedent: Packing the Senate for Political Gain
The last time a prime minister engaged in such blatant Senate-stacking was in 1990 when Brian Mulroney appointed eight new senators to push through the Goods and Services Tax (GST) legislation.
While technically legal, this move was widely criticized as an abuse of power and set a dangerous precedent for using Senate appointments as a partisan political tool, not a way of improving governance.
Trudeau’s planned appointments continue this undemocratic practice and should be condemned just as harshly as Mulroney’s were.
The Consequences of a Liberal-Dominated Senate
If Trudeau follows through with these appointments, the consequences for Canada’s legislative process include:
- Obstruction of Conservative Legislation – A future Conservative government, even with a strong majority, will face unnecessary roadblocks from a Senate filled with Trudeau appointees. Legislation that reflects the will of the electorate could be stalled or significantly altered to align with Liberal priorities.
- Undermines the Will of the People – The principle of responsible government means that policy should be determined by the elected House of Commons, not an unelected Senate. Trudeau’s appointments threaten this balance, allowing unelected senators to override democratic mandates.
- Reinforces Partisan Politics – Despite Trudeau’s claims of an “independent” Senate, his appointees have overwhelmingly supported Liberal policies. By filling vacancies at the last minute, he ensures a continuation of Liberal influence long after he leaves office.
A Call for Restraint and Integrity
If Trudeau truly respected democratic principles, he would leave the Senate vacancies open for the next government to fill according to its electoral mandate.
Given the likelihood of a Conservative victory, it is undemocratic for him to impose a Senate designed to resist the very policies Canadians vote for.
Canadians deserve a Senate that reflects their will, not one pre-rigged to thwart it.
Trudeau’s final act as prime minister should not be one of political partisanship, but of democratic integrity. The decision to appoint senators should be left to the next duly elected government—anything else is a disservice to Canadian democracy.
[i] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOmyG6GDcvE
[ii] https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/salisbury-doctrine/
[iii] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/is-stephen-harper-obliged-to-fill-empty-senate-seats-1.2701619
