There were two stories last week in the news about senators, and each has a related theme about how one leaves the Chamber for good.  One of those stories was an exit interview with Conservative Senator Raynell Andreychuk as she reaches mandatory retirement, and some of the comments that she made around that.  The other is an investigation by VICE which found that Conservative Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu has allegedly been an active member of some far-right Facebook groups that also harbour conspiracy theorists, white supremacists and Neo-Nazis, which was immediately met by complaints by the likes of outgoing NDP MP Nathan Cullen, who railed that it's almost impossible to fire senators, citing that Boisvenu should be ousted for this allegation.  There is a common thread to both stories that has to do with a fundamental lack of understanding about why the Senate is set up the way that it is.

While Senators can't be expelled for abhorrent views which is why they should be vetted carefully before they're appointed we need to remember why exactly that it's supposed to be nearly impossible to fire senators.  The fact that they have an absolute veto on any legislation (with the exception of a six-month suspensive veto on constitutional amendments) is a powerful tool that the Fathers of Confederation empowered the Senate with in order for it to serve as a check on the House of Commons, where a prime minister with a majority of the seats can ram through just about anything.  The Senate's institutional independence means that they have the power to stop those bills if they feel they're improper, and that they are protected from that very same prime minister removing them and replacing them with more compliant senators if he or she feels that they have stymied said improper bills.  (A prime minister can, if pressed, advise the Queen to appoint an additional four or eight senators if he or she feels there is no other way to pass their legislation, as Brian Mulroney did in order to pass the GST implementation bill).

In his tweet complaining about Boisvenu, Cullen raised the notion about Senator Mike Duffy still being in the Senate despite the abuse of Senate resources and criminal charges (from which he was ultimately acquitted).  The problem with this argument is that Boisvenu, if the allegation is true, hasn't contravened any Senate rules, whereas Duffy did, was suspended without pay and was forced to repay the expenses that Senate administration tracked and which were revealed in the court process.  It also misses the fact that the only reason that Duffy was not expelled is because the Conservative senate leadership at the time, led by then-Senator Marjory LeBreton, overplayed their hand and barrelled ahead with the suspensions without due process because they wanted it out of the news cycle immediately.  Had they allowed the process to continue, with the investigation by Senate administration as well as giving Duffy, and fellow accused Senators Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau, their due process, they very well could have found themselves subject to the same kind of treatment as former Liberal Senator Raymond Lavigne, who did find himself convicted in court and spent time in prison, who resigned before he could face an expulsion hearing.  Expediency undermined the process.

Meanwhile, in her exit interview, Andreychuk advocated for term limits for senators, despite having served a full 26 years in the institution herself.  Andreychuk says that an appointment of eight to 15 years would be enough time for a senator to make a difference and develop some corporate memory, but would also have an "exit strategy."  That particular thinking again doesn't understand why the Senate was established as having a lifetime appointment later shortened to 75 in 1965.

This is another safeguard when it comes to the institutional independence of senators.  With a mandatory retirement at age 75, it essentially ensures that senators aren't looking for post-employment opportunities while they're serving as senators.  If you know that you only have an eight-year term (an absurd number that means that a prime minister with two back-to-back majority election wins could turn over the entire composition of the Chamber) or even fifteen, it means that there will be greater temptation to find that "exit strategy," which could mean sucking up to the government of the day as your end date approaches for some kind of post-Senate appointment, whether it's to a federal tribunal, board of a Crown corporation, or even a diplomatic post.  That compromises their independence and willingness to hold a government to account.  By setting the age at 75, which is mandatory retirement for virtually all federally appointed positions, it essentially eliminates that incentive.

This is also one of the reasons why the appointment system that prime minister Justin Trudeau has put into place has a flaw in its construction by encouraging self-nominations, you are far less likely to be appointing people toward the end of their careers while giving them an opportunity to contribute further to public service.  Instead, we are finding more applicants to be in mid-career, and while accomplished, it changes some of the thinking about the position as a career milestone than an opportunity to do something additional something that has bolstered the big egos that are among the current crop of Independent senators (which is one reason why there are so many organizational challenges among them).  When you appoint more people in mid-career, one has to wonder if "exit strategies" are not much more likely to happen, which could compromise their institutional independence.

None of this is to say that there may yet be consequences if the allegations that Boisvenu has been consorting with far-right activists proves to be true, but it would have to come from within the Senate.  Whether that's his own caucus disciplining him in some capacity, or the Senate deciding to marginalize him as they did with Senator Lynn Beyak, there may yet be action taken, but the important thing to remember is that it can't come from the government.  All the more reason to better vet potential senators, because you can't take back a bad appointment.

Photo Credit: Ottawa Citizen