The Senate's Attendance Dilemma
The Canadian Senate, a place of power and prestige, is facing a peculiar challenge: a significant number of senators are frequently absent from their duties. This issue raises questions about accountability, responsibility, and the very nature of the Senate's role in our political system.
In the past year, only eight senators managed a perfect attendance record, while others were absent for various reasons, from commitments elsewhere to illness. The CBC News analysis reveals a concerning trend, with some senators attending briefly, marking their presence, and then leaving. This practice, more prevalent on Thursdays, highlights a lack of commitment to the legislative process.
A Lack of Accountability
What many people don't realize is that the Senate's attendance issue is not a new phenomenon. It existed even during the 'partisan' era, as evidenced by the infamous case of a senator frequently absent in Mexico. However, the problem has taken a new turn since Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's reforms. By removing the 'whips' who enforced attendance, Trudeau inadvertently created an environment where senators feel less compelled to attend.
The absence of whips and the shift towards an independent Senate have led to a situation where attendance is largely a matter of personal choice. This raises a deeper question: should senators, who are not elected by the people, be held to the same standards of accountability as those in the House of Commons?
The Impact on Legislation
The implications of these absences are far-reaching. Key votes on crucial legislation, such as the middle-class tax cut, anti-hate crime measures, and border security, have been passed with barely half of the Senate present. This begs the question: are these laws truly representative of the will of the Senate, or are they the result of a minority's decisions?
A detail that I find especially intriguing is the varying attendance for different bills. While some votes attract over 80 senators, others struggle to garner even 60. This inconsistency suggests that senators may be selective in their attendance, choosing to participate only in debates and votes that align with their interests or expertise.
The Senators' Perspective
Senators themselves offer various justifications for their absences. Some argue that their responsibilities extend beyond the chamber, and attendance statistics don't reflect their commitment. For instance, Sen. Rosa Galvez missed several sitting days to speak at conferences related to her environmental engineering expertise, a role she believes is directly relevant to her legislative work.
On the other hand, Conservative Senate Leader Leo Housakos emphasizes that serving in the Senate is not a part-time job. He suggests that frequent absences, beyond legitimate reasons like illness or official duties, raise questions about a senator's dedication to their role.
The Need for Reform
In my opinion, the Senate's attendance issue is a symptom of a larger problem. The appointed nature of the Senate, as Donald Savoie points out, creates a lack of accountability. Senators, free from the pressure of elections, may feel less compelled to adhere to strict attendance standards.
Prime Minister Mark Carney's recent appointments, including a top adviser and a Conservative MP, seem to signal a shift towards a more partisan Senate. This move could potentially address the attendance issue by reintroducing party discipline. However, it also raises concerns about the Senate's independence and its ability to provide a non-partisan review of government legislation.
Personally, I think the Senate's attendance dilemma is a complex issue that requires a nuanced approach. While attendance is important, we must also consider the quality of the work senators do when they are present. A balanced approach, focusing on both attendance and the Senate's role in the legislative process, is essential to ensuring the Senate remains a relevant and respected institution in Canadian politics.
