Elaine Shein is Producer managing editor.
If any of us were expected to show up for work and appeared only 12 times (out of more than 450 occasions) in seven years, we would be either fired or our farm would go out of business.
We surely would not continue to be paid almost $65,000 a year (plus another $10,000 tax-free allowance) with that type of attendance record.
Yet senator Andrew Thompson has continued to do this on taxpayer dollars and get away with it.
Calling him an embarrassment to the Liberals is an understatement.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
Prime minister Jean ChrŽtien finally had enough recently and – oh, the horror – wrote a letter informing Thompson he was longer a member of the national Liberal caucus.
With only three years left until Thompson’s retirement, it’s doubtful he was devastated by this letter.
He hasn’t exactly rushed into the Senate chambers to support the Liberals on issues.
When attendance records were started in 1990, Thompson obviously wasn’t concerned.
According to the records, from October 1990 to January 1994, the Senate wasn’t graced with his presence at all.
He hasn’t been a role model for Serge Joyal and Thelma Chalifoux, the newest senators appointed by Jean ChrŽtien.
Two more senators will be appointed before spring.
Thompson ridicules democracy with his abominable attendance record.
To show up only when it’s convenient, such as to sign the necessary documents to state he still meets the senator requirements, then scurry away to Mexico for four months of the year, is an insult to Canadians.
He may claim personal or family health reasons prevent him from being in the Senate, but if those reasons bar him from his duties, he should step down.
Forget it being an honorable action – it’s a responsibility he owes the taxpayers.
Even more contemptible is that Thompson must be aware that Canadians are already disgusted with the Senate and have cried for several years to alter or end this mecca for political appointees.
The latest appointments have stirred the debate again inside and outside the House of Commons.
Four thoughts come to mind.
One: should there be more requirements for senators regarding serving the people of the land?
(Other than that they must be at least 30 years of age, resident of province from which appointed, and own property valued at a minimum of $4,000.)
Two: why is there no mechanism to deal with such deadbeats?
Senators should be turfed if they can’t do a job. Instead, the toughest actions were Thompson was booted from the Liberal caucus, and the Senate didn’t approve an increase he requested for his office budget. So his toiling employee was affected, but still not Thompson.
Three: why did the Liberals wait so long to do anything with their errant senator?
Four, to the Senate: what kind of job is it if one of your appointees can avoid so many years of work and not be missed?
Until Thompson and a few of the other low-attendance senators bother to show up to earn their cheques, the Senate will remain a mockery for Canadians.
