Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Peter Loewen: Honourable members not always honourable

Parliamentarians are called honourable, but only by convention. Recent events reminded us not all MPs earn the title.

Parliamentarians are called honourable, but only by convention. Recent events reminded us not all MPs earn the title.

On a single day, we have seen one MP resign after a criminal conviction and two more expelled from caucus on accusations of misconduct.

These incidents raise questions not only about the honour of our honourable members, but also how we deal with those who dishonour their roles.

First, Conservative Dean Del Mastro resigned his seat after being found guilty of improper election spending. The charges are serious: He personally contributed a large sum of money to his campaign, and he overspent the limit.

His farewell speech lauded the Commons while asserting he committed no wrongs. In resigning, Del Mastro saved his former party the embarrassment of voting on his expulsion. He also saved his parliamentary pension.

All of this was a long time coming, of course. Del Mastro had been removed from caucus soon after being charged. Even casual observers of his trial could have smartly wagered on the outcome. And yet, he was able to leave with a generous pension intact, and with no formal consequence for his former party.

If Del Mastro’s exit could be foreseen, the expulsions of Scott Andrews and Massimo Pacetti dropped like a bombshell. That the two Liberal MPs were accused of personal misconduct by two fellow MPs only increased the shock.

To be sure, this is not the first instance of possible sexual harassment on Parliament Hill and likely won’t be the last. That place is a combination of egos, alcohol, long hours and forced socializing. It is staffed by ambitious young people eager to make their mark and fearful of losing their positions.

The environment invites toxicity. None of this is to excuse sexual harassment; it is only to observe why it is likely so rampant, and why it is likely to continue.

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau behaved decisively on this matter. According to media reports, when these allegations were brought to his attention, he acted quickly to remove two members from his caucus. He also voided their candidacies in next year’s election.

These were not half-measures. The political careers of Andrews and Pacetti are over.

Such action is not without a cost. Trudeau has removed two MPs of long standing, who presumably bring to his thinned caucus important experience. His actions, then, appear honourable. But his actions also forced costs onto others, in particular the complainants who apparently asked that this not be made public.

His unilateral removal of members also raises concerns. Why did Trudeau not consult his caucus? Why is he, rather than local members, deciding on the candidacies of these individuals?

The most important aspects of MP Michael Chong’s Reform Act were the removal of a leader’s power to decide on candidacies, and the right of caucus to decide its memberships. That bill is now so weakened as to be meaningless. But it still highlights the difficulties posed by Trudeau’s actions.

Two members of Parliament, selected by local party members and elected by thousands of citizens, are now relegated to a back corner of the Commons. Their constituents cannot count on effective representation for the next year.

If Andrews and Pacetti did engage in sexual harassment, then they deserve no place in our Parliament.

But other members and the public who elect them also deserve something. We need clearer rules about how dishonourable behaviour should be punished. MPs, likewise, deserve the right of some due process.

It is not entirely obvious what this process would include, but it would surely not allow an MP to abscond with a pension right before suspension; it would make it difficult for leaders to unilaterally determine caucus membership; and it would better respect the requests of aggrieved members.

We cannot count on all MPs to act honourably, but we should think harder about how dishonourable members are punished. And we should ask that those disciplining them do so in a way that honours the House of Commons.

 

Peter Loewen is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Toronto.