Due Process, Please

"This is a case of political expediency ... (and) what shouldn't be done in Canada: to send your political irritants into exile with a wave of the parliamentary hand.
"I would call that pre-trial sentencing, something we're opposed to in this country. It happens in places like Iran or the old Soviet Union.
"The notion that you'd have the same wording for all three ... I understand the politics of that, I get it ... the notion of fairness and due process, I think, is very important.
"There are several senators on both sides who expressed concern. This is one of those times when the Senate as an institution is tested. It's one of those times that a free vote makes sense.
"This is about individuals trying to make sense of what's right."
Conservative Senator Hugh Segal

Much as Canadians cannot help but deplore what most certainly appears to have been very egregious instances of trusted government appointees in the Senate of Canada making free with the public purse, it seems now that the Conservative contingent in the Senate are making haste to put the scandal behind them by resorting to a fix that appears to flout the appearance of fair justice.

The simple fact being that the three Conservative Senate members accused, but not found guilty in a court of law, are to be summarily dismissed.

While it's very true that the optics involved in free-wheeling spending on the public purse and seemingly underhanded financial charges which appear not strictly illegal but controversially negative and unethical in character relating to the Senate affairs expense claims and spending of Senators Pamela Wallin, Mike Duffy and Patrick Brazeau who are expected to meet responsible standards yet appear not to have done so, for all three to be presumed guilty of charges not yet proved legally seems rather presumptuous.

Discharging them from the Senate because of presumed violation of the Senate's rules may seem like a quick and easy fix to rid the Senate of their irritatingly-bad-newsy presence, but judging them guilty on the basis of evidence not yet tested in a court of law might very well violate the Senate's own rules of a presumption of innocence before proven otherwise. So the Senate is not exactly preparing to wrap itself in righteous glory over this tactic.

"These are motions ... that (are) actually establishing the sentence of wrongdoing", commented Senator Hugh Segal in an interview, citing "members of the elected caucus", who seem troubled about "what these proceedings mean for them" should a Member of Parliament be discovered to have irregularities in their expense claims, or face charges of any type of wrongdoing, without due process of law being discharged.

No court documents have yet been filed in these cases. The investigating RCMP has looked at allegations of misspending related to housing expense claims, and travel and incidental expense claims, and has conducted interviews, but the matters are not yet close to being completed to the point of court proceedings. Suspensions for all three from the Senate may seem like a swift and easy solution to the aura of distrust now hampering Senate business, but it appears unseemly and certainly unjust in its haste.