Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: Honourable senators, I rise today to pay tribute to a great Quebecer, an exceptional man who left his mark both on Quebec and the entire country. We are deeply saddened by the recent passing of the Honourable Jean Lapointe.

Above all, I want to express my deepest condolences to his family, his fans and all those from whom he commanded — and will continue to command — admiration and respect. During his maiden speech in the Senate, the Honourable Jean Lapointe shared his views on tributes like the one we are paying him today. He said, and I quote:

I humbly offer a suggestion that would no doubt reduce the time spent on the interminably long tributes occasioned by deaths, retirements, or celebrations of famous people.

I realize that on such occasions some of our colleagues use the opportunity to speak more about themselves. My suggestion is therefore as follows. In the event of a death, or when tributes are made to living persons, I suggest that both Senate leaders make a short speech to mark the occasion.

The good old times.

There may be exceptional circumstances, where people acknowledge that a colleague was a very close personal friend of the departed, and I can accept this.

As you can see, he was very diplomatic.

I’ll be brief, dear colleagues, in order to respect his wishes and in honour of his courage to speak to the Senate at the first opportunity made available to him about a matter of general interest. I’ll be brief, but I hope nevertheless to do justice to a man with such a brilliant and rich career.

Jean Lapointe was an artist of a thousand talents, a singer-songwriter, humourist and comedian, and throughout his professional life he was generous with his talent and his accomplishments, in this place and elsewhere.

The great success of his duo Les Jérolas earned him two invitations to “The Ed Sullivan Show,” in 1963 and 1967, which was a first for a Quebec duo. They made an appearance even before the Beatles on that prestigious American show, in addition to appearing twice at the Olympia in Paris, the ultimate venue at the time for francophone artists.

As a senator, Jean Lapointe dedicated himself primarily to defending the interests of people grappling with a gambling or substance addiction. This cause that he championed was a major theme throughout his personal and professional life.

He embodied a model of courage that required you to never deny, to get back up again and again, to succeed and to give back. His legacy will remain in our collective memory and live on through La Maison Jean Lapointe, which he established and which continues to help the vulnerable.

It is thanks to him that many people now find the strength to ask for help and receive the help they need. For this, as well as the artistic and compassionate legacy he leaves behind, my message to him is, “Bravo, Honourable Jean Lapointe.”

[English]

Hon. Scott Tannas: Honourable senators, I rise to pay tribute to the late Jean Lapointe, a senator from Saurel, Quebec. He was an actor, singer, comedian and philanthropist before later becoming a senator. He was a true artist in every sense of the word.

He began his career in the arts playing characters in Quebec cabarets in the fifties, and became half of the comedic group Les Jérolas until 1974. He was also a movie and TV star with 36 acting credits, including playing Maurice Duplessis in a TV miniseries in 1978, showing that he was clearly destined to be in politics later in life. As a singer-songwriter, he recorded 18 albums, and wrote and performed some classic music known to an entire generation of young, school-aged francophones across Canada.

Throughout his life, Jean Lapointe battled personal demons with addiction. In 1982, an addiction treatment centre in Montreal was renamed La Maison Jean Lapointe for which he was a board member. To support the centre, the Jean Lapointe Foundation was founded, and today supports youth centres in Montreal and Trois-Rivières. These centres have treated over 38,000 individuals with addictions.

He was named to the Senate in 2001 and sat in this place until 2010. His personal background dominated his work in the Senate, where he introduced numerous bills to limit the location of video lottery terminals — which are highly addictive to some — to locations where gambling already occurs such as casinos and racetracks.

Senator Lapointe was an Officer of the Order of Canada. His passing is a loss for Quebec, for the arts community and for francophones across Canada.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Patricia Bovey: Honourable senators, I am one very proud Canadian, and that pride swelled in me in Sharm el-Sheikh during COP 27.

For the first time at a COP, Canada had a pavilion — due to a request for one having been made a number of times. Our pavilion was a huge success — and, I might add, when all was said and done, it came in under budget.

Its design, programming, staff, energy and humanism contributed to it being a COP hub — not only for Canadians, but for those from other countries as well. The featured Canadian images around the outside became photo op spots — the logo on its wall was a feature point, and the wooden Canada pins made here in Ottawa were coveted.

More importantly, during the two weeks, the staff organized and presented 86 panel discussions with speakers from across Canada of all ages and many disciplines. Topics included each of the issues the Egyptian presidency designated for special days, and other topics of particular relevance to Canada: our climate concerns, research and actions. The presentations were excellent.

I was particularly proud of the contributions made by Canada’s Indigenous representatives. From the pavilion’s opening — featuring Inuit, First Nations and Métis leaders, and a song by the internationally acclaimed drummer, dancer and politician Peter Irniq — to its closing, Canada’s role at COP was strong and recognized.

The honesty and hope expressed articulately by so many speakers was inspiring, and the challenges put out were key. I was particularly encouraged and excited by the Indigenous youth who took part. Colleagues, with their understanding of the precariousness of the world around us, their knowledge of nature and centuries-old Indigenous partnering with nature, their commitment to sustainability and their constructive ways to turn the tide of climate devastation, I have hope. I do have hope for the future.

My concern is how we get to that future. How do we come together here at home, and globally, to renew the land, water and air? Can we really come together as partners from our various fields of endeavour and livelihoods to make that change soon enough? The youth thought so, and they have ideas that are not only worth listening to, but also worth acting upon.

In the midst of the pride I felt for our pavilion, the presentations and the voices of all our presenters, there were other aspects of COP, and its debates and deliberations, which I will speak about at another time.

For now, I start with big congratulations to everyone who planned, participated in and had any hand in the delivery of its programming, and those who spoke on the panels; they all moved the needle. Thank you.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Honourable colleagues, last week I used this time as an opportunity to bring some levity to the chamber and share the story of some Quebec cows in search of freedom.

However, today I have a much more serious message. I want to talk about human beings in search of freedom, for they are trapped in forced labour and child labour around the world. This Friday, December 2, is the International Day for the Abolition of Slavery. It is estimated that 50 million people are victims of modern slavery. This is 10 million more than in 2016. However, it is worth noting that Canada is making progress.

Yesterday, after years of stalling, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development completed its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-211, An Act to enact the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act. It should pass third reading shortly. This will be the culmination of nearly four years of work, in close collaboration with MP John McKay and the All Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking.

I’d also like to salute someone who’s with us in the Senate today, Stephen Pike, a lawyer and expert on governance issues who helped me examine Bill S-211. The Senate voted unanimously to ensure that companies operating in Canada do their part and are transparent about the risk that their supply chains have a captive labour force. That is a starting point.

Modern slavery is a complex problem. These violations of human rights originate in the poverty and vulnerability of one side, and the wealth and power of the other. As Senator Jaffer stated, a current example is the construction and renovation of eight soccer stadiums in Qatar, where fans are currently watching World Cup matches.

Over the pasts 12 years, hundreds of thousands of Nepali went to work at these construction sites. Known as good, cheap workers, they were assigned the most dangerous jobs according to an investigation by the newspaper Le Monde.

Many of these workers had to borrow large sums at exorbitant rates to obtain the necessary papers. They’re mostly working to repay the debt incurred to be able to work. It is the vicious circle of forced labour. Many Nepalese returned home injured or in caskets. Without any compensation, they have left their debts to their families.

In 2020, under pressure from the International Labour Organization, Qatar imposed the adoption of a minimum wage and allowed migrants to change jobs. These reforms were more than necessary.

All these stories were disturbing, of course, but not enough for a boycott. When the lights are up and the matches start, all that is forgotten. Unfortunately, and despite our legislative progress, these migrations of desperate humans, looking to feed their family, could be on the rise because of climate change and the conflicts it fuels.

For wealthy countries like Canada, we need to look reality in the face and show some integrity. I hope we will make the right choice. Thank you.

Hon. senators: Hear, hear.

[English]

Hon. Stan Kutcher: Honourable senators, I rise to bring attention to a group of young people across Canada whose work will provide the scientific discoveries of today and tomorrow, and improve the health and well-being of our grandchildren and their grandchildren.

They belong to a loose affiliation of individuals who spend much of their time working — and working extremely hard. These are the young people who are deeply engaged in scientific research. They are our hope for a much brighter tomorrow.

Yet, they toil in relative obscurity, and their remuneration for the foundational work they do falls well below what we call the “poverty line.” They are also the members of Support Our Science. Some of them are in the gallery today.

Support Our Science has one goal: to increase graduate student and post-doctoral funding in Canada. It represents tens of thousands of graduate students and post-doctoral scholars advocating for an increase in funding for those who are on the front line of innovation and transformative research. They are advocating for a living wage so that the next generation of researchers will not need to live in poverty. Yes, you heard that correctly.

These young people — actually, not all so young, aged between 22 and 42 — who are doing the research that will lead to life-saving treatments, better health and well-being for all Canadians, are often living hand-to-mouth.

In Canada, graduate student Tri-Council-awarded scholarships have not increased since 2003. The average salary for a Master of Science candidate is $19,000 and PhD, $21,000.

According to Support Our Science, the majority of these federally funded graduate and post-doctoral scholarships amount to less than the minimum wage, forcing some of the brightest minds in Canada to barely get by or to leave the country in order to seek better-funded positions abroad. This is unacceptable.

Support Our Science has two primary requests of the federal government, which has the authority and responsibility for the Tri-Councils. First, increase the value of graduate scholarships and post-doctoral fellowships by 48% to match inflation since 2003 and index it to the Consumer Price Index.

Secondly, increase by 50% the number of graduate scholarships and post-doctoral fellowships awarded by the Tri‑Council; this is essential for building our science research capacity.

Such modest investment made now will support the next generation of leaders in science and research and will help Canada to be better equipped to tackle the challenges of today and tomorrow.

We have noted that the acronym for Support Our Science is SOS. We know what that acronym means. Please join me in showing our appreciation to Support Our Science for supporting our science. Thank you, wela’lioq.

Hon. Percy E. Downe: Honourable senators, I would be remiss if I did not rise to support this bill, given the role Lebanese immigrants have played in Prince Edward Island.

The first Lebanese immigrants arrived in my province in 1880. They were mostly peddlers who went door to door in rural Prince Edward Island, from farm to farm, often with packs on their backs. The tradition in the days was, because their farms were so remote and isolated, they would stay at the last farm overnight. The family would speak to them as best they could as the immigrants learned English, but they always explained they were coming to Canada as a land of opportunity to escape the oppression of the Turkish regime in their country at the time.

Those immigrants eventually got carts. Then in the 1940s and 1950s, corner grocery stores. Their second generation, like many immigrants to Canada, became professionals, doctors, lawyers, business people and community leaders in many aspects. I had the opportunity to work with one of those leaders, a former premier, Joseph Ghiz — Joseph Atallah Ghiz, I should say, given the bill we’re talking about. When I was active in partisan politics, Joe was the leader of the Liberal Party. We were in opposition. We were very concerned there was subtle racism. Would Islanders vote for a person of Lebanese descent, notwithstanding that Joe Ghiz had a master’s of law from Harvard, was a well-established, successful lawyer on Prince Edward Island and well-known at the time?

We were so concerned about this subtle racism that we conducted a public opinion poll, and we were very pleased. The results of Islanders’ impressions of the Lebanese community were that they were hard workers, conscientious, family oriented, did not draw any social assistance or welfare, contributed to the community and were great neighbours and friends. After we saw that poll, we realized that the racism was restricted to a very small minority. It was there, unfortunately, but it was not anywhere in the majority. When the election came up, Joe Ghiz became the first Canadian premier of non-European descent elected in Canada. We were delighted that the poll and the reality were one and the same.

I mention Premier Joseph Ghiz because his son later became premier, Robert Ghiz. We’ve had many mayors of Lebanese descent and many community leaders. I fully support this bill. The contribution of the Lebanese population of Prince Edward Island has been outstanding. We are the province we are today because of their involvement and leadership, and this bill will recognize that. Thank you, colleagues.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the eighth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (Bill S-210, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material, with an amendment and observations), presented in the Senate on November 15, 2022.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. Safeguarding Canada’s electoral system and our institutions is a vital, non-partisan issue that the government takes very seriously. It is understood that the Prime Minister is regularly briefed on security concerns: That’s the job of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has also said that he did not receive briefings on specific candidates or the allegations that particular candidates may have been funded illegally. In that regard, that is his statement.

With regard to the issue, nonetheless, security officials have been asked to follow up on the reports. As confirmed by Minister Mendicino, the government is going to cooperate with the parliamentary committee when it comes to the disclosure of allegations that have been addressed by an independent body. In that regard, it’s worth noting that there have been independent findings that the elections both in 2019 and in 2021 were fair.

Senator Plett: We can see exactly how seriously the Prime Minister took it. He says one thing when he’s talking about what he raised with President Xi and another when he is asked here in Canada about when he was briefed. He’s taking it so seriously that he’s telling us two different things.

Leader, in just a few short weeks, the story has changed many times. The reports told us that the Prime Minister had been briefed. Now he is saying he hadn’t been. It is entirely possible that these reports could have been wrong. If that were the case, why didn’t anyone in the apparatus of government say that before now? Are we supposed to believe, government leader, that the Prime Minister raised an issue with the Chinese president that he now claims he had never been briefed on, or did he confront President Xi based on a news article?

Senator Gold, this type of incoherence is unacceptable on the question of the integrity of our democratic process. Is your government being intentionally incoherent to avoid having to answer the question outright?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question, senator.

With regard to the Roxham Road issue, as I’ve said many times in this chamber, the government has implemented the structures, institutions and processes required to meet the humanitarian and basic needs of those who show up there in accordance with our international obligations.

The Government of Canada is working closely with the United States government to implement measures and ensure that our border remains safe in both directions.

Hon. Clément Gignac: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Since last spring, we’ve watched the spectacular collapse in the value of several crypto-currencies, including the famous bitcoin, a type of investment recommended at the start of the year by influencers, sports celebrities and even certain political leaders. In the past few weeks, electronic platforms such as FTX and financial intermediaries such as Celsius and BlockFi declared bankruptcy because of poor financial management and even fraud and wrongdoing resulting in financial losses for millions of people.

Senator Gold, it would be unrealistic to think that this issue only affects U.S. citizens. A study released last month by the Ontario Securities Commission indicates that almost 13% of Canadians and up to 25% of young adults between the ages of 25 and 44 have investments in digital assets.

My question, Senator Gold, is the following. While the U.S. Senate is in favour of stricter regulations for digital platforms and crypto-currency financial intermediaries, what does the federal government plan on doing in this file to better regulate this new sector and especially to protect the Canadian public?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. The government knows that it’s important to understand the benefits and risks of digital currency and electronic payments, especially in the context of Canada’s financial system. Over the past few months, in Canada and around the world, we’ve seen first-hand the risks associated with the impact that unregulated crypto-currency can have on our economies and our democracies. Globally, we’ve seen dark forces, such as Russian oligarchs, use crypto-currency to get around economic sanctions and fund a brutal war in Ukraine. Nationally, we’ve seen the role played by crypto assets in illegal activities, such as the so-called “Freedom Convoy.” That’s why the government is soon launching a legislative review of the financial sector focused on the digitization of currency and maintaining stability and security in the financial sector.

I’m told that the first phase of the review will be on digital currencies, including stable crypto assets and crypto-currencies. Also, the government continues to communicate with institutions and international partners about the possible repercussions of digital currency on the global financial system.

[English]

Hon. Jim Quinn: My question is for Senator Gold. Senator Gold, in 2017, Parliament passed the escalator tax on alcohol products, marking the first time parliamentarians do not have a vote on the annual increase of the excise tax on beer, wine and spirits. Instead, the increase is tied to inflation effective April 1 of every year.

Senator Gold, I applaud the federal government’s initiatives to ease the significant inflationary pressures on Canadians and Canadian businesses. However, with inflation likely being in excess of an average of at least 6%, if not more, the automatic escalator tax will seriously impact the competitiveness of Canadian business. In 2017, I don’t believe that departmental officials and the government expected or planned for the effects of inflation on this escalator clause. This tax ripple through the supply chain will lead to jobs at risk, which I’m also certain will have been an unintended consequence. Why not place a 2% floor on this tax while accruing regional revenue to the federal government, and while giving government initiatives an opportunity to lower inflation without adding fuel to the inflationary fire?

And will the government commit to not imposing an automatic escalator excise tax for 2023?

Hon. Judith G. Seidman: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Senator Gold, over the past four years, I have asked questions of the government about Canadian drug shortages. On December 2018, I asked about a Canada-wide shortage of the antidepressant Wellbutrin. In February 2020, I asked about a shortage of tamoxifen, a drug used as part of hormone therapy to treat breast cancer. In June 2020, I asked about shortages of thyroid drugs, inhalers, blood pressure medication and glaucoma eye drops.

On November 4, CTV reported a shortage in Canada of pediatric amoxicillin, the antibiotic most commonly used for bacterial infections such as those of the ear and chest. Some Canadian manufacturers are saying they won’t have any supply available until January 2023.

Senator Gold, what action is the Government of Canada taking to ensure that our supply of important medicines is sustainable and reliable?

Senator Seidman: Senator Gold, Canada imports roughly 70% of its finished prescription drug supply, and about 90% of the components used in drugs that are manufactured here come from abroad.

Professor Joel Lexchin, renowned pharmaceutical policy expert at the School of Health Policy & Management at York University in Toronto, has suggested that Canada could produce a small number of critical drugs that are most likely to run out domestically through a Crown corporation or some other subsidized vehicle. This could secure the supply of those 20 to 50 critical drugs and also build capacity to pivot should we face another crisis like COVID-19.

Senator Gold, is the federal government exploring new ways of addressing this ongoing problem?

Senator Gold: Well, the Government of Canada is always exploring ways to ensure that it’s fulfilling its responsibilities and obligations to Canadians in this regard. I’ll make inquiries about this particular issue and the recommendation of the researcher that you mentioned, and I will report back when I get an answer.

[Translation]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Your question and the issue you raise are both extremely important and serious. Access to information is fundamental in a democracy. Moreover, the Government of Canada recognizes that there are long delays in many areas and in many departments when it comes to requests for information. There are many reasons for that, but they have nothing to do with your reference to Passport Canada. We need to recruit and retain staff. Efforts are under way and are continuing. Progress is clearly being made. That said, there’s a lot of work to be done. The Government of Canada is committed to continuing to make the necessary efforts to respond to requests as quickly as possible.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak in support of Motion No. 81. I would like to thank Senator Verner for having the courage to speak truth to incidents of sexual violence in the Senate workplace. This is not a race issue. This is not a religious issue. This is an issue of violence against employees, and specifically against women, in the Senate.

I would like to acknowledge the survivors for persevering for over 10 years, living trauma-inflicted lives because of inadequacies within our workspace. I would like to apologize that you had to go into survival mode for so long. The fact that the trauma you endured took place publicly and in a space like the Senate is unconscionable.

As senators, we cannot continue to be complicit by remaining silent, nor should we be empowered in our silence through procedural tools like parliamentary privilege, for it is this exact privilege that allowed the first critical report on this issue, the 2016 Quintet report, to remain hidden from the public eye.

I understand that, due to a pending court case, we cannot address all of these issues. However, we must acknowledge that we can address some of these issues, including the matter before us, through Motion No. 81. The court process is entirely separate and parallel from what is occurring in the Senate. This ability to act is afforded to us as adjudicators of our own matters.

Honourable senators, the courts are not addressing the issue of removing the title “Honourable.” The Senate is not foraying into any judicial processes or procedures. As the CBC article on October 6, 2022, stated, Don Meredith was charged by the Ottawa Police Service with three counts of sexual assault and one count of criminal harassment. As we can see, there is an inherent difference in what the court is examining as opposed to the motion before us today.

As many of the senators sitting in the chamber today were not appointed at the time of these egregious acts, including myself, I would like to further highlight some of the activities of Don Meredith. The same CBC article from October 6 brings these issues to light when it states:

Six former Senate employees and a parliamentary constable also have alleged Meredith acted inappropriately toward them while he was serving in the upper house.

The alleged behaviour included unwanted kissing and exposure of his penis, along with yelling and aggressive behaviour in the office.

Honourable senators, it has long been accepted that senators enjoy the privilege of being masters in their own house. With this inherent and recognized privilege comes “disciplinary authority over its members.” These powers are vested in us through section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and section 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act. You will remember that I had raised this with my motion to expel a senator.

In Parliamentary Privilege, the Canadian Constitution and the Courts, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal argued that:

. . . it is unthinkable that Parliament would seek to deny its employees the benefit of labour and human rights protections which Parliament itself has imposed on every other federal employer.

In the matter of privilege, an interim report of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament from 2015 stated that collective rights of the Senate and the House of Commons exist to sanction or discipline for breach of their privileges and for contempt.

Furthermore, in the 2015 report of the Rules Committee entitled A Matter of Privilege: A Discussion Paper on Canadian Parliamentary Privilege in the 21st Century, the committee wrote:

. . . it is for Parliament, not the courts, to determine whether in a particular case the exercise of the privilege is necessary or appropriate. In other words, within categories of privilege, Parliament is the judge of the occasion and manner of its exercise and such exercise is not reviewable by the courts.

Is an exercise of these rights appropriate in this case? I say that there was a breach of both privilege and ethics when Don Meredith exhibited forms of violence in the workplace — violence that has been verified. The Senate must do the right thing and remove the title “Honourable” from Don Meredith. Passing this motion would call on the Prime Minister to begin, in earnest, that process by advising the Governor General to render this ultimate decision.

The critical point is that the Senate will be seen as employing sober second thought, standing up for what is right and supporting our co-workers in their extended fight for justice by voting to remove the title “Honourable” from Don Meredith.

I would like to further quote from the CBC article from October 6 on this matter, which states:

The granting of titles such as “honourable” is a royal prerogative in the hands of the Governor General, who generally acts on the advice of the prime minister of the day.

The article goes on to quote former senator Serge Joyal, who said:

It cannot be done out of fury, anger, vindication or in extreme situations because we happen not to like one person in particular. . . .

Colleagues, we are heeding this advice and are not making this move out of fury. Rather, we are doing it in support and solidarity with our co-workers who have been terribly impacted by Don Meredith.

When it is used as a title for senators, the title “honourable” indicates eminence or distinction. It is a term to denote a person worthy of honour, one who is honest, moral, ethical and principled. It doesn’t belong in the same context as sexual and institutional violence, a form of domestic violence in the workplace.

Do we not have a responsibility to make Canada, and our very institution, a better and safer place for all, not just for us privileged senators? Don’t we have a unique responsibility of serving the public interest as senators with the need to uphold the dignity, honour and integrity of our office and Parliament?

We have a unique role as appointed — not elected — legislators. Our privileges are qualified by our obligations, including those relating to decorum and ethics. As senators, we need to refrain from acting in ways that could reflect adversely on the position of senator or on the institution of the Senate, especially in respect of violence and harassment.

The importance of public perception and public confidence cannot be overstated. We have seen how negative perceptions about a senator’s conduct can harm public confidence in individual senators. Every single one of us in this chamber gets shed in the same harsh light.

I, for one, resent having the despicable behaviour of Don Meredith held up against the work that I do. As senators, we understand the importance of maintaining the highest standards of dignity, both in regard to the integrity of the office and relating to public confidence.

Honourable senators, we have heard the hurt and harm done to our co-workers by the personal conduct of Don Meredith over an extended period of time and his refusal to take responsibility for his actions. There is no place for sexual violence within the institution of Parliament. Only by accepting responsibility that this has gone on too long and by making this long overdue reparation will we be able to move forward toward modernization.

Taking away the title “honourable” sends a message to our institution, an institution where Don Meredith held a senatorial position for too long in light of his shocking actions. It would send a message to all senators that, as part of modernization, we need to review the Senate’s own functioning as an institution and how behaviour like his is explicitly unacceptable in 2022.

Colleagues, this motion represents a step toward restoring connections, accountability, truth, trust and transparency between senators and their employees, and between men and women. This is the least we can offer our co-workers by acknowledging the complicated effects of prolonged and repeated abuse by the allegedly honourable Don Meredith. After 10 years of stagnation, it is time this is done.

In passing this motion, we support the survivors, and turn this into a positive event that can be used as a springboard for change in our collective behaviour and decorum. It would make the Senate a better place. We cannot continue to allow the survivors to be stuck in time, targets of this unresolved trauma. These incidents have been aired and should never be forgotten lest they happen again. If the title is retained, we cannot move forward as an institution.

Meredith ran away in cowardice before he could be expelled. Let us belatedly take the just action of removing the title “honourable” so that his ownership of that title does not continue to taint us all.

We can no longer protect senators at the expense of our staff, who are rendered vulnerable, just because senators are viewed as the apex of this institution. This unilateral protection is unbalanced, and should not be in place today. Staff need protection. They do not need to be told, as has occurred in the past, that they cannot be helped because staff come and go but senators are forever. There is no place in this institution for such thinking.

Colleagues, this place let our employees down. Our employees didn’t let us down. It has been 10 years, and we’re still talking about it. The time to act is now.

I would like to request that a standing vote take place on this motion. Let’s do the honourable thing, and do justice for our co-workers. Thank you, kinanâskomitin.