Pursuant to notice of December 10, 2019, 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, 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 Meredith.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to propose that 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 Meredith.

This is an extraordinary procedure, which has not been seen since this Parliament was established in 1867. However, it concerns circumstances that are just as extraordinary in the long history of our institution.

Honourable colleagues, I need hardly remind you that we are all privileged to sit in this chamber and enjoy the style and title of “honourable” for ceremonial and protocol purposes.

What is honour? How can a person really be described as “honourable” beyond an official title?

The Canadian Oxford Dictionary defines honour simply and accurately as, and I quote, “high respect; glory; credit, reputation, good name”.

In a parliamentary context, that same dictionary defines honourable as, and I quote, “a title indicating eminence or distinction.”

Honourable senators, 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, and I quote, “especial trust and confidence” they manifested in each of us.

From then on, we are styled “honourable” for the duration of our time in the Senate. We also have the privilege of retaining the title, with its attendant ceremonial benefits and honours, until the end of our days, even after we retire or resign from the Senate.

We also understand that with the title come important responsibilities and obligations.

To wit, section 7.1 of the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators states that our conduct must uphold the highest standards of dignity and that we must 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.

That brings me to former senator Don Meredith’s “honourable” title.

The former Senate ethics officer published an initial report on March 9, 2017, in which she found that Don Meredith had violated sections 7.1 and 7.2 of the code by engaging in an inappropriate relationship with a teenage girl.

Two years late, the current ethics officer released a second report on June 28, 2019, the Legault report, in which he showed that Mr. Meredith had once again violated the code, primarily because he had engaged in conduct that amounted to psychological harassment, sexual harassment or both of six former employees in his office and a Senate security constable.

The findings of the Legault report are also shocking, since the former senator repeatedly engaged in behaviour that demeaned, denigrated and humiliated his victims in a work environment described as “poisoned.”

Honourable senators, today I won’t dwell any longer on the observations and conclusions of the Ethics Officer, since I intend to do so very soon, in fact, as part of an inquiry standing on the Order Paper.

I would, however, like to strongly emphasize one point.

Former Senator Meredith exhibited the most despicable behaviour possible in the history of this institution. He did so with impunity, with utter contempt for ethics rules and against the dignity, well-being and rights of his victims.

We all agree that Mr. Meredith does not deserve our respect or consideration. Far from being honourable, this is all rather despicable.

His actions continue to profoundly affect the lives of his victims, who have been left to fend for themselves by our institution, according to reports. They also profoundly undermined the Senate and our reputation as a responsible, fair employer among our employees and Canadians.

It is inconceivable that a former senator linked to these events could maintain his “honourable” title, even though he resigned from the Senate on May 9, 2017.

What prompted us to move this motion today?

This is a wish that was expressed by some of the victims in private conversations with me, Senator Saint-Germain and other colleagues in this chamber. This highly symbolic measure is important to them, as I indicated during a phone conversation in July with our former colleague Senator Joyal. I would remind you that when the Senate standing committee on ethics tabled its sixth report on July 29, 2019, following its review of the Legault report, it did not suggest that this chamber impose any sanctions.

I will read an excerpt from page 3 of the report:

. . . the permanently suspended nature of the committee’s consideration of the inquiry report means that the committee will make no such recommendation in this case.

We understand that the committee did not have the necessary authority to do anything at all in the wake of Senator Meredith’s resignation, in terms of either sanctions or other observations intended for all honourable senators. That same committee released its seventh report two weeks later on August 12, 2019, recommending amendments to our code of ethics. It also included a section on substantive issues requiring a more in-depth review by senators. One of those issues is on page 45 of the report and concerns the possibility of adding the expulsion of a senator or financial penalties to the list of sanctions that may be recommended under our code of ethics. The committee, however, does not seem to have taken the opportunity to also propose a procedure for removing the title of “honourable” in extraordinary cases, like the one we are discussing today.

For all these reasons, I don’t think we should ask for the advice of the Standing Senate Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest before we vote. I don’t see how that would add anything new. All senators were tarnished by Don Meredith’s actions. I think this decision must be made by all senators. We have an important decision to make, and this decision will show how determined we are to condemn the actions of former Senator Meredith. It will also serve as a serious warning that the kind of behaviour he has been accused of can have repercussions long after we leave this chamber. We have everything we need to debate this topic now, as set out in my motion. We must look beyond our privileges and reflect on what is the most honourable decision we can make in this case, which has been dragging on for far too long. We owe it to the victims and to our employees. Thank you for your consideration of my motion, and I hope I can count on your support. Thank you.

Are you saying that you want your motion to be seconded by Senator Saint-Germain?

Yes.

I’m sorry that I said it was Senator Tannas. The table will make that change.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?