The Senate's Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators has completed its deliberation, and the verdict is unequivocal that Senator Don Meredith be expelled from the Senate, and his seat declared vacant.  The move would be unprecedented if it happens in Canadian history we have never before had to expel a senator, though we've come close on a couple of different occasions.  In any previous instance, the senator in question had enough of a modicum of shame left in them to resign rather than face the indignity of expulsion (and to no doubt preserve their pension while they were at it), but thus far, we have yet to see a sufficient level of contrition or indeed shame from Meredith.  When he and his lawyer finish digesting the committee's report, along with the Senate Law Clerk's legal opinion on the validity of the order, he may feel differently, and the precedent will remain stillborn.  We shall see.

The make-up of the committee should be an indication of the seriousness by which the Senate takes these matters of the five members, three are former judges, one is a lawyer who helped to draft the 1982 Constitution, and the final a former premier of the Northwest Territories who also has a legal background (though he recused himself for the consideration of this report to prevent the appearance of a conflict or partiality, and thus it was considered by only four senators).  Regardless, the fact that you have a group of this calibre not only study the Ethics Officer's report, but who also took into consideration the Senate Law Clerk's opinion with regard to the constitutionality of an expulsion order is also significant and shouldn't be overlooked.

The other thing that bears mentioning is that while the pundit class bemoaned the length of time this process took, it cannot be understated just how important it was that they adhered to due process in the most rigorous fashion possible.  One of the biggest problems with the suspension of senators Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau was that it was done in haste on the orders of the PMO in order to get then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper off the media hot seat, and could have caused the Senate a lot of problems if any of those three decided to pursue their cases in any particular way not to mention, it meant that they had a certain amount of sympathy from within the Chamber because their peers became disgusted with the way they were treated and the lack of the adherence to the laws of natural justice, rather than just remain angry about the allegations of misspending and breach of trust that got those senators into hot water in the first place.

In the time since the committee's report was tabled, we have seen a number of legal opinions that dispute the Law Clerk's considered opinion with regard to the constitutionality of an expulsion order, and they are coming from some pretty credible voices, including the former House of Commons Law Clerk.  According to some, because ethics considerations aren't included in the enumerated reasons within the Constitution for removing a Senator reasons which include bankruptcy or conviction of serious criminality that the reasons cited by the Committee and the Clerk are invalid.  The Clerk's opinion is that there are places where those enumerated lists aren't exhaustive, but more importantly, that this order falls within the realm of parliamentary privilege, which includes the precedents of MPs having been expelled from the House of Commons in both Canada and the UK.

While I'm not a lawyer by any means, my tendency would be to go with the privilege argument because of the broader consequence that has with regard to the nature of our institutions.  Parliament is self-governing, and as a parliamentary chamber, it's important that the Senate have the necessary tools to do just that govern itself, which includes policing the behaviour of its own members.  Parliamentary privileges are the means by which they can govern themselves without the interference of the courts, and this is precisely why they need to have that latitude that a strict adherence to enumerated sections of the Constitution don't allow.

The fact that there is a very high bar to remove senators is an important constitutional consideration, because these are people entrusted with the power to push back against a sitting prime minister with a majority mandate.  They need to have sufficient institutional independence to be able to do that without fear of being fired for speaking truth to power.  That high bar shouldn't mean that it gives licence for senators to abuse their positions so long as they remain within the enumerated constitutional lines either, and that's why the ability for them to have the tools to police themselves is so important.

The committee also recognized that they have to be held to a higher standard than simply not having committed serious criminality.  One section of their report stands out:

Because senators are appointed, and not elected, the public imposes on the Senate and senators a considerable degree of responsibility and faith that senators will do the right thing.  The public needs to be able to believe that senators will protect the interests not only of the many regions of the country, but that all senators will also protect the weak, the voiceless and the vulnerable from the personal and parochial interests of the powerful.  While the public would undoubtedly be willing to accept that senators are only human, they would still expect senators to be the best persons that senators could be.  It is a remarkably challenging undertaking that senators must be willing to accept.  To fail to uphold this undertaking is to damage that faith and trust.

If they are to have the public trust trust that has been damaged after years of poor conduct from a handful of their members (thanks in no small part to the negligent appointment process of the last Prime Minister, who regarded the Chamber with a certain degree of contempt), they need to have that ability to ensure that they can hold themselves to account, not unlike how judges hold themselves to account by means of the Canadian Judicial Council.

The need to keep parliament self-governing cannot be understated with respect to keeping our system of Responsible Government intact, and it is under threat.  A clear and present danger to that is the Auditor General's insistence that the Senate be subject to the oversight of an outside body a suggestion that offends the very notion of parliament being self-governing.  It's the same with the NDP's demands that a whole new bureaucracy be created to oversee the House of Commons in lieu of the Board of Internal Economy.  It matters that our parliamentarians govern their own affairs, lest we simply decide that Responsible Government was a failed experiment and turn affairs back over to the Queen.  It's in this same vein that it matters that the Senate be able to exercise its ability to govern itself, and expel one of its own who has abused his position.