The Senate, a body often seen as a relic of Canada's past, is facing a modern crisis of attendance and engagement. While the Senate's role in reviewing government legislation is crucial, the recent trend of senators routinely missing key votes and sitting days has raised concerns about the institution's effectiveness and accountability. This issue is not new, but the current situation is particularly striking, with a stark contrast between the Senate's nominal importance and its actual performance.
One of the most striking aspects of this crisis is the sheer number of senators who are consistently absent. In the 12 months following the last federal election, the Senate convened for just 76 sitting days, yet only eight senators had a perfect attendance record. This is a stark reminder of the Senate's limited engagement and the potential for individual senators to have a significant impact on the institution's overall performance. It is worth noting that the Senate's low attendance is not solely due to individual senators' personal commitments; the institution's structure and culture also play a significant role.
The Senate's lack of accountability is a major concern. Unlike the House of Commons, the Senate does not have electronic voting, which makes it more difficult to track attendance and participation. Additionally, the Senate's appointment process, which is largely non-partisan, means that senators are not held accountable to voters in the same way as members of the House of Commons. This lack of accountability can lead to a sense of entitlement among senators, who may feel that they are above the law and not subject to the same scrutiny as their counterparts in the House of Commons.
The Senate's low attendance has also been linked to the proliferation of public bills, which critics argue has distracted the body from its main constitutional responsibility: reviewing government legislation. Defenders of the Senate, however, argue that these independent senators are highlighting issues that previously went unnoticed and are bringing new perspectives to the table. Despite these arguments, the Senate's low attendance and engagement remain a significant concern.
The Senate's crisis of attendance and engagement is a complex issue with deep roots. It is a symptom of a larger problem with Canadian politics, where institutions are often seen as outdated and irrelevant. The Senate's low attendance and engagement are a reflection of this broader trend, and it is essential to address this issue if the Senate is to remain a relevant and effective institution. The Senate's future depends on its ability to adapt and evolve, and it is up to senators and the public to ensure that this happens.
