OTTAWA -- The Senate is asserting an unprecedented power to expel Don Meredith, a senator who admits to having a sexual relationship with a teenager.

Until Tuesday, it was widely thought there was only a handful of reasons for which a senator could be expelled, including if one was convicted of a major crime or absent for several years. Meredith has not been charged with a crime -- the information released publicly about the inappropriate relationship came from news reports and then an investigation by the Senate ethics officer, who found him an unreliable witness.

The major question for senators was whether they could expel him without him being charged and convicted. Now, the Senate legal team has answered that question with a resounding yes. Senate legal clerk Michel Patrice has advised the Senate ethics committee that the Constitution gives the Senate the power to discipline its members, including to kick out a senator.

Process

Senate rules lay out the process for ethics issues with its members: the ethics officer receives a complaint, investigates it as quickly as possible, and provides a report to the Senate ethics committee, made up of five senators with legal backgrounds.

The committee studies the report -- including hearing from the senator at the heart of the dispute -- and recommends action to the full Senate.

The Senate will hear again from the senator facing discipline, and will then decide what to do.

Punishment

Meredith's lawyer, William Trudell, argued that his client should be suspended for one to two years without pay.

But, given the serious nature of this case, the committee said it only considered two options.

"Given the nature, extent and gravity of the findings made by the Senate Ethics Officer, the committee focused its consideration on two possible sanctions: suspension and expulsion," it said in its report.

"Senator Meredith failed to uphold the highest standards of dignity inherent in the position of senator and acted in a way that reflected adversely on the position of senator and on the institution of the Senate. The only appropriate sanctions under the circumstances are those that would restore the dignity, reputation and integrity of the position of senator and the institution of the Senate."

Can they do that?

The Constitution lays out five reasons for which a senator can be expelled:

Failure to attend for two consecutive sessions -- approximately four years

Allegiance to or citizenship with a foreign power

Bankruptcy

Treason or conviction for an indictable offence

Lack of property and residence qualification (senators must own $4,000 in property in the province in which they are appointed)

The Senate law clerk argues this list is not exhaustive.

"The Senate’s parliamentary privileges include all those that are necessarily inherent to the discharge of its deliberative and legislative functions with dignity and efficiency," the committee summarized from the legal opinion.

"The power to expel one of its members, while an exceptional and severe sanction that should only be exercised in the rarest of cases of serious misconduct, is absolutely necessary for the Senate to perform its parliamentary functions with efficiency and dignity within its constitutional authority," the senators wrote.

"Should the power of the Senate to declare a seat vacant be limited only to the circumstances contemplated in section 31 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the Senate as an institution could easily be discredited by the presence within the chamber of a senator engaged in egregious conduct not listed in section 31."

Next steps

Debate on the Meredith committee report will likely start Wednesday and run for anywhere from five to 15 sitting days.

"As with any other committee report, a report containing your committee's recommended remedial measures and sanctions against a senator may be debated and amended before being disposed of," the committee wrote.

That means the Senate can decide on a different punishment than the one the report recommends, or no punishment at all.

Meredith will also have two more opportunities to address the report: once to the Senate as a whole during the report consideration, and again in a "right of final reply." While his April 4 committee appearance happened behind closed doors, any speech to the Senate will be public.

The committee seems to feel he's got a tough challenge to prove he understands the seriousness of the case.

"The committee is of the opinion that Senator Meredith’s remorse and acceptance of responsibility are at odds with his conduct since the inappropriate relationship became public," it wrote.

"The inquiry report of the Senate Ethics Officer also demonstrated that at no time did he take responsibility for his inappropriate behavior and did not evidence that he realized the impact on Ms. M [the young woman], senators and the institution of the Senate. Senator Meredith, to the contrary, adopted an indifferent attitude towards the process undertaken by the Senate Ethics Officer and towards his responsibility as a senator and to the Senate as an institution."