The Senate
Motion to Call Upon the Prime Minister to Advise the Governor General to Revoke the Honorific Style and Title of “Honourable” from Former Senator Don Meredith--Debate Adjourned
October 18, 2022
Pursuant to notice of October 17, 2022, moved:
That, in light of the reports of the Senate Ethics Officer dated March 9, 2017, and June 28, 2019, concerning the breaches by former Senator Don Meredith of the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators as well as the statement made in the Senate on June 25, 2020, by the chair of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration expressing regrets to the victims of Mr. Meredith’s misconduct, the Senate call upon the Prime Minister to advise Her Excellency the Governor General to take the necessary steps to revoke the honorific style and title of “Honourable” from former senator Don Meredith.
She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to move that the Senate call upon the Prime Minister to ask Her Excellency the Governor General to take the necessary steps to revoke the honorific title of “Honourable” from former senator Don Meredith.
You will recall that I moved a similar motion in February 2020. That motion died on the Order Paper a few months later when Parliament was prorogued.
You will also recall that during that period, our institution undertook a very important process to right the wrongs and address the suffering that Don Meredith’s victims went through and are still going through today. An important step was taken on June 25, 2020, when the Honourable Sabi Marwah, who chaired the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, made a solemn and historic statement in this chamber expressing regret to the victims on behalf of all senators and the Senate institution as a whole. It was the “honourable” thing to do.
Other steps have been taken in that regard. For example, financial compensation has been paid to the victims. With an eye on the future, we adopted a new Senate policy on the prevention of harassment and violence and developed required training for senators and employees. That said, I firmly believe that we must take one last step to complete this process of reparation, and that is what I am suggesting we do with the motion I have moved today.
Honourable senators, I realize that this is an extraordinary process that has never been attempted since this Parliament was established in 1867. However, it concerns circumstances that are equally extraordinary in the long history of our institution.
We are all privileged to sit in this chamber and be referred to as “honourable” for ceremonial and protocol purposes. Section 6 of the Table of Titles to be used in Canada states that we are entitled to the style of “Honourable” for life. This table is part of the protocol directives used by Canadian Heritage to facilitate the organization of special events to which various federal or provincial political figures are invited.
This leads me to ask the following question: What is honour? What does it take for a person to be truly described as “honourable” without an official title? The Canadian Oxford Dictionary defines honour simply and accurately as “high respect; glory; credit, reputation, good name.” In a parliamentary context, that same dictionary defines honourable as “a title indicating eminence or distinction.”
These characteristics are an indirect part of our commission of appointment, which was signed by the Governor General of Canada on the recommendation of the Prime Minister because of the “especial trust and confidence” they manifested in each of us.
We are therefore deemed “honourable” for the duration of our term. We also have the privilege of retaining this title for the rest of our lives, after we retire or resign from the Senate. That allows us to attend state functions or funerals alongside sitting senators.
Honourable senators, we also understand that this title carries with it significant responsibilities and obligations. For example, section 7.1 of The Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators states that we must conduct ourselves in a manner that upholds the highest standards of dignity and refrain from acting in a way that could reflect adversely on the position of senator or the institution of the Senate. Section 7.2 states that we must perform our parliamentary duties with dignity, honour and integrity.
Honourable senators, in two reports, one published on March 9, 2017, and the other on June 28, 2019, the Senate Ethics Officer found that former senator Don Meredith had breached sections 7.1 and 7.2 of our code. There is no need to repeat the damning findings of these two reports. However, we must all ask ourselves a very serious question: How can a former senator connected to these events retain the title “Honourable?” Do we really want to run into him at state functions or see him still using his title in the public domain?
Colleagues, October 15 marked the fifth anniversary of the #MeToo movement, which brought the thoughts and discussions that I initiated in February 2020 back to the fore. Some of you, including Senator Miville-Dechêne, who seconded my motion, recently encouraged me to once again move forward with this, now that we are back to business as usual in the Senate. I thank them for that.
This motion also responds to a desire expressed by some victims in private conversations they had with me and other colleagues. This highly symbolic measure is important for them. In that context, we have no choice but to call upon the Prime Minister to ask the Governor General to take the necessary steps to revoke the honorific style and title of “Honourable” from former senator Don Meredith.
Let’s not forget that, in our constitutional system, only the Prime Minister can recommend that the Governor General appoint a senator and thereby grant them the title of “Honourable” associated with that position. He is therefore the only person in Canada who has the authority to recommend that the Governor General use her prerogative to revoke that title from Don Meredith.
As a result, I ask for your support to speak with one voice in this chamber to immediately send a clear message to the Prime Minister. This decision will show our determination to take the last step in this unfortunate affair that tarnished all of our reputations.
Thank you for the consideration you will give to this motion, and I hope I may count on your support.
Honourable colleagues, today I rise to briefly speak in support of Senator Josée Verner’s motion. It is understood that this motion and today’s debate have nothing to do with any proceedings before any court.
I rise as a senator of course, but also as a woman. I am certain that my male colleagues in this chamber share my indignation, our indignation. However, on this, the fifth anniversary of the #MeToo movement, the issues before us clearly resonate with women in particular.
The issue we are debating today has to do only with the revocation of the title “Honourable” from former Senator Meredith. I would like to remind you of two things that are not open to debate.
The first are Don Meredith’s actions that led to the scandal, the investigation and his resignation from the Senate. The whole thing is described in detail in the two reports from the Office of the Senate Ethics Officer. What we find there is disgusting. It reads like a playbook for tyrants and abusers who are convinced that they are above the law. We must not allow the passage of time to erase the serious and repugnant nature of those actions. We owe the victims at least that much.
The other thing that I think is indisputable is that Don Meredith has already lost his honour, outside this chamber at least. His actions have made him persona non grata in the eyes of the public. He has sullied his name and the Senate’s image.
Nevertheless, Don Meredith still has the title “Honourable”. This inconsistency is embarrassing and ridiculous. The Senate does not have the power to revoke this title. It can only urge the government to ask the Governor General to do so.
Generally speaking, I don’t like titles that people get because of their position. Interestingly, Quebec did away with parliamentary titles in 1960. That is my preference too. Personally, I have never used the title “Honourable,” even though I obviously believe it is important to carry out my duties honourably.
I would add that it is one thing to limit the use of these formulas to parliamentary debate, where they can help to keep exchanges civil, but I don’t think those titles have a place outside of Parliament.
That goes double for people who have proven themselves unworthy. The Senate Ethics Officer noted in her report that Don Meredith violated his obligation to, and I quote:
. . . uphold the highest standards of dignity . . . and . . . refrain from acting in a way that could reflect adversely on the position of Senator or the institution of the Senate.
In this case, I think the facts speak for themselves.
The inquiry process was thorough and took four years, which is a long time — too long. Now we can finally put this matter to rest symbolically and close the book on an episode that damaged our institution’s reputation.
I urge you, colleagues, to bring the matter to a vote now. Thank you.
Would Senator Miville-Dechêne take a question?
Of course.
Senator, I would like to begin by thanking and congratulating you and Senator Verner on your initiative, which I believe is worthwhile.
In her speech, Senator Verner talked about an “extraordinary process” that has never been attempted in the history of the Senate, which is true. However, because this is true, and notwithstanding the nobility of the cause and the strong desire that I myself may have to see this course of action against our former colleague happen quickly, I nevertheless believe that there is no reason to shut out senators who wish to contribute to the debate on this issue this evening and who would perhaps like to ensure the constitutionality of the motion being moved.
I don’t see any reason to deny them this opportunity, so why the rush to call for the vote immediately?
Senator Verner and I have had that discussion. As you know, this was Senator Verner’s initiative, but of course I immediately agreed to second it. This is a difficult debate. It’s a debate that we don’t want to prolong, given the nature of the facts that have tarnished all of our reputations. The idea was to keep debate short and avoid adjourning debate so that there is no break. This has been dragging on and hurting us for a long time. The idea of having a short debate where we all agree is obviously an idea that I support.
However, I understand what you’re saying. I have a feeling, given that this story has been affecting us for a long time, that the senators have made up their minds. After all, is it so hard to agree that Senator Meredith does not deserve the title “Honourable?” It makes complete sense. The two reports that I have reread are devastating, and they were produced by our Senate Ethics Officer as a result of our internal mechanisms, so I feel that the issue is relatively simple.
I consulted people before drafting this text to make sure it avoided any potential legal pitfalls. Are there constitutional issues? I’m sure Senator Verner had this motion drafted by a trained law clerk. I am no legal expert, but on the face of it I see no constitutional problem. That’s my point of view.
Once again, I’m not saying I’m opposed to the objective, but, given senators’ right to express their opinion on such an important issue and given our responsibility to ensure that the motion is constitutional, I move adjournment of the debate in my name.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
I hear a “no.” All those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”
All those opposed will please say “nay.”
In my opinion, the “yeas” have it.
I see two senators rising. Do we have agreement on a bell?
The vote will take place at 9:37 p.m. Call in the senators.
