The Empty Seats of Power: Why Senate Absenteeism Should Concern Us All
There’s something deeply unsettling about walking into a room where the people in charge are… well, not there. And yet, that’s precisely the reality in Canada’s Red Chamber, where dozens of senators routinely miss key votes, according to a recent CBC News analysis. What’s more, some legislative changes are passing with barely half of the members present. Personally, I think this isn’t just a procedural hiccup—it’s a symptom of a deeper issue in how we perceive accountability in our political institutions.
The Numbers Don’t Lie—But They Don’t Tell the Whole Story
In the 12 months following the last federal election, the Senate convened for just 76 sitting days. Out of nearly 100 senators, only eight had perfect attendance. Now, before we start pointing fingers, let’s acknowledge that absences can be legitimate—illness, official duties, and other commitments are part of life. But here’s where it gets interesting: some senators are reportedly showing up just long enough to be marked present before slipping out. This is especially common on Thursdays, the final day of their three-day sitting week, when the lure of an early weekend in Ottawa seems too strong to resist.
What makes this particularly fascinating is the disconnect between attendance and voting. Sometimes, more senators are marked present than actually cast votes. This raises a deeper question: Are senators treating their role as a checkbox exercise rather than a serious commitment? In my opinion, this isn’t just about missing votes—it’s about missing the point of their role as stewards of Canadian democracy.
The Post-Trudeau Senate: A World Without Whips
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s reforms effectively eliminated the role of “whips,” who once policed attendance and counted votes. This was meant to create a more independent Senate, free from party pressure. But here’s the irony: without that oversight, there’s little to compel senators to show up. As one source put it, senators are now “accountable only to their conscience and God”—a standard that, frankly, feels a bit too loose for a body tasked with shaping national legislation.
What many people don’t realize is that this isn’t entirely new. Even in the “partisan” era, attendance was an issue. Remember the senator who was famously busted for spending too much time in Mexico? The difference now is that there’s even less accountability. And that’s a problem, because if senators aren’t held to a higher standard, it erodes public trust in the institution itself.
The Carney Factor: A New Sheriff in Town?
Prime Minister Mark Carney has signaled his intent to overhaul the Senate, emphasizing the need for “strong, effective, and focused representatives.” But here’s the catch: Carney’s appointments, including former Conservative MP Richard Martel and Liberal strategist Tim Pitfield, suggest a return to partisanship. Personally, I think this could be a double-edged sword. On one hand, partisanship might bring more discipline; on the other, it risks turning the Senate into a mini House of Commons, undermining its role as a chamber of sober second thought.
What this really suggests is that the Senate’s problems aren’t just about attendance—they’re about identity. Is the Senate a place for independent thinkers, or a staging ground for party politics? If you take a step back and think about it, this tension reflects a broader struggle in Canadian politics: how to balance accountability with autonomy.
Beyond the Chamber: The Work Senators Do (or Don’t Do)
Some senators argue that their responsibilities extend beyond the chamber. Sen. Gigi Osler, for instance, points out that senators’ duties include work outside Parliament Hill. And it’s true—senators like Rosa Galvez and Rob Black have missed sittings to speak at conferences or events related to their legislative work. But here’s the rub: while these activities may be valuable, they shouldn’t come at the expense of their core duty—reviewing and voting on legislation.
One thing that immediately stands out is the lack of clarity around what constitutes “other public business,” the catch-all category for absences. Without clear guidelines, it’s all too easy for this to become a loophole. In my opinion, senators need to strike a better balance. Yes, engage with the public, but don’t forget that your primary job is to be in the chamber, debating and voting on the laws that shape our country.
The Cost of Apathy: Why This Matters to You
Donald Savoie, a former member of the Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments, puts it bluntly: “As long as the Senate is appointed, it will be what it is—not accountable.” And that’s the essence of the problem. Senators aren’t elected, so they don’t face the same consequences as MPs. But here’s the kicker: their decisions still impact all of us. When critical legislation passes with barely half the chamber present, it’s not just the senators who lose—it’s Canadian democracy.
A detail that I find especially interesting is the salary senators earn: a base of $192,700, plus benefits. That’s a significant public investment for a part-time commitment. If senators don’t show up, it’s not just their seats that are empty—it’s the trust of the Canadian people.
The Way Forward: Accountability or Apathy?
So, what’s the solution? Some argue for stricter penalties for absenteeism, while others suggest term limits or even an elected Senate. Personally, I think the answer lies in a cultural shift. Senators need to see their role not as a perk but as a privilege—one that comes with a responsibility to show up, engage, and vote.
If we don’t address this issue, the consequences could be dire. As Savoie warns, “There will be a growing disdain for our institutions.” And in an era of rising political cynicism, that’s the last thing we need.
Final Thoughts
The empty seats in the Red Chamber aren’t just a logistical problem—they’re a reflection of how we value our democratic institutions. As a society, we get the Senate we tolerate. So, the next time a senator misses a vote, ask yourself: Is this the standard we’re willing to accept? Because, in the end, it’s not just about who’s in the room—it’s about who’s showing up for Canada.
