As the end of the fall sitting in Parliament approaches, the drama in the Senate is not abating as Independent senator Mary Jane McCallum has introduced a motion to have Senator Lynn Beyak expelled from the Chamber for her ongoing racism. There is a bit of procedural legitimacy to this: there hadn’t been a formal determination on whether or not to fully reinstate Beyak after her suspension order expired, and the debate on that was not concluded when prorogation happened. What is at play, however, is that the Senate’s ethics and conflict of interest committee had recommended that Beyak’s suspension be lifted because she did finally complete proper anti-racism training, removed the offending racist letters from her website and offered a more sincere apology to the institution. Senator Murray Sinclair publicly stated that he was willing to give her another chance at redemption. McCallum, it seems, is not.

This is going to be a very tricky to pull off, however – and would be a historic first. Normally when a senator gets into a lot of ethical trouble, they will resign so that they can preserve some sense of honour (along with their pension). Beyak, however, is unlikely to do the honourable thing, and will more than likely turn herself into some kind of free speech martyr, which is where much of the danger in McCallum’s approach lies. If this is handled ham-fistedly – as in “she’s a racist and shouldn’t be a senator” – then she is likely going to find a lot of defenders coming out of the woodwork from all sides, because they will feel that she has been a) denied procedural fairness, and b) will set a terrible precedent because as soon as one person can be expelled for their beliefs, then what belief will be on the chopping block next? Yes, racism is bad – but this is where people will start to look at slippery slopes, especially in this era of “cancel culture.” More to the point, the Ethics Officer said that she did everything that was asked of her, and the committee agreed, so trying to now argue for her suspension without an iron-clad case that she has breached the rules is going to be an uphill battle.

It’s important to remember why Senators have these kinds of protections, which is to preserve institutional independence. The Senate is one line of defence in parliament against a government with a majority of seats in the Commons who can ram through unconstitutional legislation by sheer numbers. The Senate has not only an absolute veto on everything short of constitutional amendments (for which they only have a six-month suspensive veto), but they have security of tenure so that they can’t be replaced should they stand in the way of a government trying to do something like pass an unconstitutional bill. The flip-side is that it makes problematic senators much harder to get rid of, which is generally why prime ministers should be very careful about who they appoint (which Stephen Harper very obviously was not). Yes, they can discipline their own – that comes with parliamentary privilege – but I have my doubts about McCallum’s case here. She is going to have do more than just call this institutional racism.

Good reads:

• Justin Trudeau told First Nations chiefs that a bill to make First Nations policing an essential service is in the works.
• Public health officials are warning that even when vaccines start rolling out, we won’t be able to relax public health measures for months.
• Our ambassador to China says that the two Michaels are physically and mentally well as they approach two years in captivity because of hostage diplomacy.
• The Canadian Forces are investigating after one of their members spoke at an anti-masking rally in Toronto, and urged his fellow soldiers not to distribute vaccine.
• The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that the Trans Mountain expansion is still profitable, but delays could eat into its value, as could future shifts in oil markets.
• Erin O’Toole says his party is prepared to filibuster on the assisted dying bill – though the government can invoke time allocation or closure with Bloc support.
• Conservative MP John Brassard made remarks about George Soros while Chrystia Freeland was speaking, and then denied he said anything anti-Semitic.
• Jason Kenney imposed tougher restrictions on Alberta as cases continue to spike, but refuses to take any responsibility for letting things get this bad.
• Edmonton is not only a COVID hotspot, it also has an ongoing syphilis outbreak.
• Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column looks at the Order Paper to determine the possibility that the Commons will rise for the year before the end of the week.
• Economist Trevor Tombe walks through the proposed changes to the federal fiscal stabilization fund, and how that affects provinces like Alberta.
• Susan Delacourt wonders about how political leaders and MPs will present themselves for vaccination, and who will insist on early shots and who will wait.
• Paul Wells offers some well-deserved snark about Michael Sabia’s appointment, and wonders if he can do any of the things he’s supposed to under this government.
• For The Line, I took exception to Ken Boessenkool’s sudden worries about populists in the conservative ranks when he was one of the architects of nurturing them.
• My column looks at the worrying trend of parliamentary committees being abused to conduct partisan witch-hunts which are hurting innocent bystanders.

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.