Is the Senate becoming more accountable?
Push to oust Meredith, modernize institution could signal some improvement
OTTAWA— Unelected. Unaccountable. Out of touch.
Canada’s Senate is no stranger to such smears. Go talk about the upper house in your local Tim Hortons and you’ll probably hear them before your coffee is poured.
But as the chamber of sober second thought contemplates the first-ever expulsion of a sitting senator — the disgraced Sen. Don Meredith, found to have used his job to “lure” a teenage girl into a sexual affair over two years — it may be worth asking whether this represents an evolution in accountability for the red chamber.
After all, the expulsion push comes at a time when the Senate is grappling with change. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has made a show of severing direct partisan ties to Liberals in the red chamber, and for creating a new breed of “independent” senator that presumably don’t have to answer to a political party. (This is debatable, given they’re appointed by the PM.)
At the same time, a Senate committee is studying how to “modernize” the institution as it continues to bear the ill will of many Canadians. The expense scandals of Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin, Patrick Brazeau and Mac Harb loom still in the collective memory. How does Meredith fit into all this? Adam Dodek, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, has argued that the Senate faces a “triple deficit” — one of integrity, legitimacy and democracy. Speaking Wednesday at the Senate’s “modernization” committee, Dodek applauded the proposal to expel Meredith.
A modern Senate must show that it takes ethics seriously, he said.
“If the senate does not deal forcefully and quickly with malfeasance,” it won’t be able to serve its function, he said.
“I hope that it (the recommendation) is acted upon speedily by the members of the Senate as a whole.”
Many senators also welcomed the expulsion proposal as an example of accountability. Conservative Sen. Claude Carignan said that the ethics code under which Meredith was judged, which was adopted in the wake of the expense scandals in 2014, is considered one of the strongest in the world.
But Kathy Brock, a constitutional and parliamentary legal expert at Queen’s University, noted that the power to expel isn’t new.
In his memorandum to the ethics committee, the Senate’s legal counsel, Michel Patrice, wrote that the power to expel members was recognized in the United Kingdom’s House of Commons in 1867 “and has existed for centuries.” The Canadian House of Commons has actually used it four times, including in the case of Louis Riel, who was charged with murder in the 19th century.
Patrice also wrote that the Constitution Act lists five reasons for the expulsion of a parliamentarian: if they are absent for two straight sessions, for example. Senators can also be kicked out for allegiance or adherence to a foreign power, bankruptcy, treason, or if they don’t meet proper- ty qualifications.
What’s new is that Patrice concluded that this is not an “exhaustive list of circumstances” for the expulsion of a senator. And so the ethics committee ruled Meredith should be expelled because he “demonstrated that he is unfit to serve as a senator.” Their report said, “His continued presence in the chamber would in itself discredit the institution.”
For Brock, this brings up a difficult question about whether such a rationale for expulsion could be abused for political purposes. In a way, the willingness to expel for being “unfit” could make senators vulnerable, she said.
“If the Senate actually does this, and removes a senator because they find his conduct egregious, then there is a danger that in the future, parties could use the Senate to get rid of senators (they disagree with),” she said.
Dodek said he feels this “risk” is indeed real, but “overrated.” The Senate actually has a history of being too lenient, Dodek argued, pointing to how the chamber was slow on its move to expel Sen. Andy Thompson for his poor record of attendance. He was living in Mexico and was pushing the codified limits of attendance, Dodek said — the Constitution Act says a seat becomes vacant if a senator doesn’t show up for two straight parliamentary sessions.
Instead of getting dragged through expulsion proceedings, Thompson resigned his seat in 1998.
“The failure to act and potentially the failure to act here (in Meredith’s case) is much more damaging than potential abuse down the road,” Dodek said.
Derek Lee, a former Liberal MP and lawyer, said that, whatever the legalities, he’s not surprised the ethics committee wants Meredith expelled.
He said the recommendation is a consequence, at least partly, of Trudeau’s move to untangle the direct influence of the elected government from the Senate, as well as make the chamber less partisan.
As a result, party discipline and the levers of control traditionally used in Parliament might not be as effective as before, Lee said.
“It has crystallized the awareness that they must take charge,” he said.
“The Senate collectively has got to take charge, otherwise nobody’s in charge.”
Whatever the case, if the committee’s analysis is correct, they haven’t opened a new door with their recommendation to expel.
They just want to walk through one that’s been open all along.