Lori Turnbull is an Associate Professor in the School of Public Policy and Administration at Carleton University.

Two weeks ago, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau announced his decision to remove two Members of Parliament from his party's caucus, effective immediately, on account of allegations of "serious personal misconduct." His response to the accusations sparked a range of reactions. Some have supported his decision to sever ties with the accused right away, conceding that he had little choice in the face of the allegations, while others have criticized him for contributing to the "re-victimization" of the complainants by publicizing their allegations – though not their names.

Whether or not one agrees with his decision, it was Mr. Trudeau's prerogative as party leader to remove the accused MPs from caucus. He was under no obligation to seek consensus among his Liberal caucus members to support or legitimize his action. But here's an interesting counterfactual: if Conservative MP Michael Chong's proposed Reform Act had been law in its original form when the accusations came forward, Mr. Trudeau could not have acted alone. The decision to remove the MPs – or not – would have to have been made by caucus.

Story continues below advertisement

Mr. Chong's original bill would require that decisions to remove members from caucus be put to a vote of the caucus itself. For the two accused Liberal MPs, it would have meant that all of the MPs in the party – not just the leader – would have had the opportunity and the right to weigh in on their current status within the party and, ultimately, their political future. Mr. Trudeau would have had to bring the issue to a caucus meeting and let his fellow Liberal MPs decide whether their two accused colleagues could continue to sit among them. Mr. Trudeau would have had one vote, just like everyone else.

Mr. Chong's bill is aimed at equalizing the power relationship between party leaders and caucuses, which, at present, is understood to be weighted too heavily in favour of leaders. The Reform Act has been modified from its original version such that, if it becomes law, parties would not necessarily have to accept Mr. Chong's original rule to give caucuses the power to remove caucus members but, instead, would require caucuses to vote on internal procedures such as the removal of caucus members following each general election. Although caucuses could choose to keep the rules as they are – in favour of very powerful leaders – at least they would have to consider these matters on a regular basis, which at the very least provides opportunities for meaningful debate, reflection and perhaps change.

Mr. Chong's ideas have received much attention and quite a bit of public support, so it is worth considering how the events of the last two weeks might have transpired differently had Mr. Chong's original bill been in place. How would caucus have voted? If they had voted to keep the members in caucus, even temporarily, would that have spurred allegations of a partisan cover up? Would the caucus deliberations on the matter have resulted in the details of the allegations becoming public, including the complainants' names? How would Mr. Trudeau have been held to account for his handling of the matter as party leader, when the caucus at large rather than Mr. Trudeau himself would have made the decision about the accused members' status within the party?

The discourse around Mr. Chong's bill seems to suggest that when he put this idea to paper, his primary concern was with a leader who might expel a "rogue" MP who had failed to toe the party line, rather than with a leader who removed caucus members due to accusations of serious personal wrongdoing. But regardless of Mr. Chong's original motivations, his bill would have applied here and would have made it impossible for Mr. Trudeau to respond as he did.

It is entirely possible that caucus would have come to the same conclusion that Mr. Trudeau has on his own: that the nature of the accusations was such that the two MPs would be expelled immediately. But it is also possible that caucus members might have been slower to act for a variety of reasons, one being the lack of a public and/or more formalized complaint.

It is tempting sometimes to think that the internal rules and processes of Parliament – including the procedures covered by Mr. Chong's Reform Act – are not terribly exciting and ultimately do not make much difference. But they do. Mr. Chong's bill proposes a very different way of doing things on Parliament Hill. It is still before the House of Commons and could very well pass in its modified form. The events of the last two weeks demonstrate the relevance of Mr. Chong's proposals. Even if not the stuff of "high politics," internal caucus rules can have a significant effect on individual members and the relationships between them.