Article content continued

Photo by Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press

So all right, by not holding that vote of caucus — the vote on whether caucus should have the power to vote on the other matters — the Liberals clearly broke the law. Does that mean they broke the law last Tuesday? That’s not so clear. Chong argues that the Reform Act, even with the caucus opt-in proviso, brought these questions within the ambit of the written law, effectively wiping the slate clean of whatever conventions had previously applied.

Unless a caucus actually votes to opt out of its provisions — well, it’s not clear they apply even then. But it’s not clear they don’t. In Chong’s words we are in “uncharted territory,” meaning the leader’s power to make such decisions is at least in doubt. (Erin Weir, the NDP MP expelled by his leader last year for failing to read “non-verbal cues” in social situations, has made similar arguments.) If we can’t say Trudeau broke the law, neither can we say he abided by it.

The opposing view is that, unless caucus specifically votes to opt in to a particular provision, it doesn’t apply. Since there is no default rule in the law laying out what happens in the event a caucus fails to opt in — whether because a majority of its members vote to opt out, or because they don’t vote at all — nothing happens: the status quo rules.

Who’s right? Ordinarily, the matter would be decided by the courts, or some other adjudicator. In this case, there doesn’t seem to be any. The courts are extremely loath to intervene in any matter to do with the internal workings of Parliament, while the Speaker of the House, who does have some authority in Parliament, has declined to rule in similar situations — rightly or wrongly — on the grounds that it is not his role to interpret statutes.

This is highly unsatisfactory. Even if no laws were broken in the present exercise of the leader’s power, they plainly were with regard to the broader question of whether the leader should have that power at all. And yet, absent any penalty for non-compliance in the legislation, and absent any authority to enforce it, party and leader are free to ignore the law as they please.

Which, considering the whole controversy that led to the expulsions was over the leader’s failure to respect the rule of law, is more than a little ironic.