The Senate's Empty Seats: A Symptom of Deeper Democratic Malaise
There’s something deeply unsettling about walking into a legislative chamber and seeing rows of empty seats. It’s not just the physical absence that’s troubling—it’s what it symbolizes. A recent analysis by CBC News reveals that dozens of Canadian senators routinely miss key votes in the Red Chamber. But this isn’t just a story about absenteeism; it’s a reflection of broader issues in our democratic 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. Some were absent for valid reasons—illness, official duties, or commitments elsewhere. But here’s where it gets interesting: a growing trend involves senators briefly attending, getting marked present, and then slipping out. This is especially common on Thursdays, when the three-day sitting week ends, and senators seem eager to leave Ottawa.
What makes this particularly fascinating is the disconnect between attendance and participation. While attendance numbers might look decent on paper, the actual number of senators casting votes on critical legislation is often shockingly low. For instance, the government’s budget—arguably the most important piece of legislation—was voted on by just 70 senators. This raises a deeper question: if senators aren’t showing up to vote on the most consequential bills, what are they prioritizing instead?
The Senate’s Identity Crisis
Prime Minister Mark Carney’s recent overhaul of the Senate appointments process signals a desire to transform the chamber into a more effective legislative body. But here’s the rub: the Senate has always struggled with its identity. Is it a place for sober second thought, or a platform for senators to pursue their own agendas?
From my perspective, the issue isn’t just about attendance—it’s about accountability. Unlike MPs in the House of Commons, senators aren’t elected. They’re appointed, and as Donald Savoie, a former member of the Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments, points out, they’re only accountable to their conscience. Personally, I think this lack of direct accountability is at the heart of the problem. When there’s no electoral price to pay for absenteeism, why would senators feel compelled to show up?
The Myth of ‘Public Business’
One of the most intriguing justifications for absences is the vague category of ‘other public business.’ Senators like Dawn Anderson and Nancy Karetak-Lindell have missed significant portions of sitting days under this banner. While some absences are undoubtedly legitimate—like Sen. Rosa Galvez’s keynote speeches on climate change—the lack of transparency around what constitutes ‘public business’ is concerning.
What many people don’t realize is that this category is so loosely defined that it could encompass almost anything. If you take a step back and think about it, this loophole essentially allows senators to decide for themselves what their priorities should be. In my opinion, this undermines the very purpose of the Senate as a legislative body.
The Cost of Apathy
Here’s the thing: senators are well-compensated. With a base salary of $192,700 and generous benefits, they’re not exactly struggling. Yet, the expectation that they attend just 76 sitting days a year seems almost laughably low. As Savoie aptly puts it, ‘If senators don’t show up for work, there will be a growing disdain for our institutions.’
What this really suggests is that the Senate’s attendance problem is a symptom of a larger issue: a disconnect between the public and the institutions meant to serve them. When senators prioritize their own agendas over their legislative duties, it fuels cynicism—especially among young people who are already disillusioned with politics.
A Call for Reform—Or Radical Change?
Carney’s reforms are a step in the right direction, but they may not go far enough. The Senate’s structure itself is the problem. As long as senators are appointed rather than elected, accountability will remain elusive. Personally, I think the only way to truly fix the Senate is to rethink its very foundation.
One thing that immediately stands out is the need for term limits. If senators knew their time in the chamber was finite, they might feel more pressure to make their tenure meaningful. Additionally, introducing some form of public accountability—whether through regular performance reviews or a mechanism for recall—could incentivize attendance and engagement.
Final Thoughts
The Senate’s empty seats aren’t just a logistical issue; they’re a metaphor for the erosion of trust in our democratic institutions. If we want the Senate to be a place of meaningful debate and legislation, we need to demand more from its members.
In my opinion, the Senate’s current state is a missed opportunity. It could be a powerful force for good, but only if senators take their responsibilities seriously. Until then, the Red Chamber will remain a symbol of what’s wrong with Canadian politics—a place where absence speaks louder than words.
What this really suggests is that the Senate’s problems aren’t just about attendance; they’re about purpose, accountability, and the very essence of democracy. If we don’t address these issues now, the consequences could be far-reaching—and deeply damaging.
