Senator Miville-Dechêne: Of course.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: 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.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: 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.

[English]

I urge you, colleagues, to bring the matter to a vote now. Thank you.

[Translation]