Debates of June 2nd, 2023

Alleged Breach of Privilege at Committee

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will try not to be more than a few minutes, but I did want to contribute to the question of privilege that was raised by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I took him to have raised three separate questions of privilege, and it may be that he wants to subdivide those a bit more. I do not know, but I am going to respond to what I think were the three major themes of his intervention.

One had to do with his ability to move subamendments; another had to do with a vote that was taken on a particular clause that was at issue at committee; and the final one was about drafting for report stage amendments.

With respect to his ability to move subamendments, I think it is important for the Speaker to know the following as this question of privilege is deliberated. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan did mention that the committee had adopted a programming motion by unanimous consent. It was very clear that there was to be no debate during the votes after 4:30 this past Monday. That means that no member was able to get the floor to move a subamendment, so I think it was pretty clear by the terms of the motion. It should not have been a surprise to the member that there would not have been the ability to move subamendments. I think that was foreseen by all members of the committee when they agreed to that programming motion.

I would also say that there was, in fact, time to move subamendments, which I think is an important thing to consider with this question of privilege. The committee met last week for about 10 hours to consider clause by clause. During that time, Conservative members of the committee chose to filibuster on a motion they had presented, and that ate up all the time we had to discuss the amendments that had already been presented according to the deadline or to move subamendments to those amendments.

That was a choice by members, and the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan substituted in on the committee to be part of that filibuster at one point. There had been warnings. I intervened at the committee to say that we were risking losing the time we had, not only to debate amendments, but also to move subamendments, so I would say, in this respect, the member's question of privilege is a bit like a member who tied themselves to a chair in their own home and then claimed they were physically obstructed from getting to the House of Commons. It may be true, but it is superficially true, and I do not think it is really a matter of concern for the House. I would note also, as the member did, that he submitted his amendments, to the extent he did, after the deadline.

On the report stage amendments, he said that he was not aware that the bill would be called for debate today until it was announced in the Thursday question. However, I would say that members should know, and perhaps the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan does not know, in which case that would be tragic and he should be informed, members can contact drafters and ask to have amendments drafted well in advance of the bill being called for debate. All of us who were following the progress of that bill at committee knew that it had passed out of committee on Tuesday night. We knew that it had been reported to the House on Wednesday. There was nothing stopping that particular member from contacting drafters earlier in the process to ensure he had those amendments drafted and ready to go for when the bill was ultimately called.

Of course, we knew that, with a bill being reported back to the House from committee on a Wednesday, the first day eligible for debate would be a Friday, so I respectfully submit that the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan knew, or ought to have known, that the bill could be called Friday and had ample opportunity to prepare his amendments.

In respect of the missed vote on a clause at committee, there was certainly a lot of disorder in the room going on at that time. I think if we were to go check the video, we would find that the proximate cause of that disorder was the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan when he opened his microphone, took an electronic device and held it to the microphone. He was playing question period into the microphone. One of the reasons that caused so much disorder was, as we know and as we have been told many times, this causes harm to the interpreters. We are not to hold electronic devices playing sound of any kind to the microphone because it hurts people and it is a workplace safety and health issue for the interpreters.

There was no reason for the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to do that. He could have made his point in many other ways, ones that were not damaging to the people who support our work in the House of Commons. The chair asked him to stop. He would not stop, and disorder ensued. I will not belabour that point any further.

All that is to say that this was part of what was going on, so there is a reasonable question as to whether the Chair ought to have tried to call a vote in the midst of that level of disorder.

However, I would note, and I think it is important for the Speaker to know when deliberating on this question of privilege, that when the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan raised this as a question of privilege at the committee level, the committee agreed, by unanimous consent, to go back and redo the vote on that clause, ensuring that everyone knew we were voting on that particular clause and that they were paying attention during the vote to ensure that all those votes were cast.

Those are things that I think are really important for the Speaker to note while deliberating on these points of order. I think the member is referring to certain things that if they had played out some other way might have been quite serious, but the committee was very willing to entertain the legitimate concerns the member raised. I think that is evidenced by our providing unanimous consent to go back to the vote and I think it is evidenced by the programming motion that is at issue in all of this having been agreed to by unanimous consent after being negotiated between Liberals and Conservatives and then being presented to the committee.

I think those are all things that really ought to be taken into account, and I suspect they may be things that the member himself may want to contemplate for future instances.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Thank you very much. I think I have enough information before me on both sides and I will certainly come back to the House with a decision.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

The House resumed from March 31 consideration of the motion that Bill S-202, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Parliament of Canada Act

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour and a privilege to rise today to speak to Bill S-202. I want to begin by acknowledging the importance of the arts and culture in Canadian life. While the motivation for this bill may be admirable, I do question, at a time when one in five Canadians is skipping meals, when we see record-high food bank usage, when we see Canadians struggling to make their rent and mortgage payments, why the government would use a Senate public bill to advance such a matter.

That said, I am pleased to rise and speak to various issues related to Bill S-202, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act regarding a parliamentary visual artist laureate. I must admit that I personally am not much of an artist. I am not an expert on the art world. I am one of those people who know when art looks good or what I think looks good, although many people will not agree with my perspective. Certainly, I do not have many original artworks hanging in my home. Those I do have that are originals were created by some of the cutest constituents in my riding, aged seven, nine and five.

However, I do appreciate the art that our world creates and, certainly, in my riding, as in so many ridings across the country, there are many opportunities to see those great works of art at the local level, in places like Minto or Stratford, whether it is the Gallery Stratford or the weekly Art in the Park enterprises in Stratford.

Bill S-202 proposes to create the position of a parliamentary visual artist laureate, who, according to the bill, will be “an officer of the Library of Parliament.” This bill follows a similar formula that was used over 20 years ago to create the parliamentary poet laureate.

It is important to recognize that here on Parliament Hill, we do indeed have an impressive collection of visual art. Many of us who were privileged enough to be able to sit in the original Centre Block, and certainly some of us miss that historic building, will know some of the work that was included in that building. After it was rebuilt, on February 3, 1916, many visual artworks were included in it. It had many great paintings and sculptures, many of which were carved in the interior Centre Block stone itself.

What many might not know is that much of the stone in Centre Block was deliberately left unmarked upon construction so that future art could be carved into the building over the decades. The art on Parliament Hill was sculpted as our country was sculpted.

What is more, outside this very chamber are the portraits of many former Speakers of the House of Commons and the portraits of 21 of the 22 former prime ministers. I am personally quite fond of the painting of Canada's ninth prime minister, Blanshard Township-born Arthur Meighen, the right hon. member who was perhaps the greatest orator that this House has ever seen.

It was, in fact, Canadian historian Arthur Milnes, when he was doing work on a project on Arthur Meighen, who discovered a serious blunder related to that portrait. While the portrait had been displayed on Parliament Hill since it was painted by Ernest Fosbery in 1948, it had never been officially unveiled or dedicated. Fortunately, that oversight was corrected when then prime minister Stephen Harper, then Speaker Peter Milliken, former prime minister Joe Clark and then senator Michael Meighen rectified the situation and held an official portrait unveiling in February 2011.

As a side note, I would note that this past Tuesday evening, I had the great privilege of speaking with our former Senate colleague, Michael Meighen, at the opening night of the Stratford Festival's 2023 season. It gives me the opportunity to highlight former senator Meighen and the Meighen family for their strong support of the Stratford Festival and, in particular, the Meighen Forum, which makes such contributions to thoughtful reflection on the arts and culture in Canada.

Back to the Meighen portrait, it was displayed in Centre Block with the other prime ministerial portraits until they were moved here in 2018. While it is unfortunate that the formal portrait unveiling did not occur while Arthur Meighen was still alive, perhaps having a parliamentary visual artist at the time may have rectified that situation.

I did mention that the portraits of 21 of our 22 former prime ministers are hung on these walls. The one that is missing is our former prime minister Stephen Harper, who is yet to have his own portrait unveiled. I know all members are looking forward to the day when we unveil his portrait as one of Canada's great leaders of this century.

Another great work of art that hangs within the parliamentary precinct is entitled The Ghosts of Vimy Ridge. It was painted in 1928 by William Longstaff. This magnificent work shows a dark sky over the Vimy Ridge memorial in France. The description of the painting from the House of Commons says:

On Easter Sunday, 1917, Canadian soldiers launched a bloody, victorious attack on the German-held Vimy Ridge. This battle is considered a defining moment for Canada coming into its own as a young country.

In William Longstaff’s oil painting, The Ghosts of Vimy Ridge, the spectres of almost 3,600 fallen Canadian soldiers trod back to camp, through shell-pocked ground and darkness, guided by light from below that illuminates Walter Allward’s massive Canadian monument.

Longstaff, an Australian, sold the painting to Captain John Arthur Dewer, of the Dewer distillery family, who presented it to Canadian Prime Minister R.B. Bennett in 1931.

This painting used to hang in the railway committee room of Centre Block, where the opposition parties held their caucus meetings. However, since the closure of that building, it has been moved to the main floor of the Wellington Building, a building in which I am pleased to have an office. I am able to pass by that painting each day on my way to work. It reminds us of the bravery and sacrifice of so many Canadian soldiers who helped make this country what it is today.

Recognizing that the bill is likely to pass, I would encourage the first holder of this position to prioritize the creation of more paintings and artworks to honour the Canadian soldiers who gave their lives in other battles, including at Normandy, in the Korean War, in more recent peacekeeping missions and, certainly, in the war in Afghanistan. I would note that, about two months ago, I learned of a great painting in Cambridge, Ontario, that honours the lives of the 159 Canadians who died in Afghanistan. This painting needs a new home, and I think it would be appropriate that such a painting be displayed here on Parliament Hill.

Before I wrap up, I want to highlight one visual artist from my riding, Horatio Walker. Born in Listowel in 1858, Horatio Walker was primarily a self-taught artist, and he soon became known for his beautiful paintings depicting rural life in Canada. He was elected to the Royal Academy of Canada in 1918, and he became its president in 1925. However, his works have never been displayed here on Parliament Hill, nor have I found a record of any of his paintings displayed within the precinct.

Part of the mandate for the parliamentary visual artist laureate, as provided in Bill S-202, is to “give advice to the Parliamentary Librarian regarding the collection of the Library and acquisitions to enrich the Library’s cultural holdings”. If this position is created, I hope that the first parliamentary visual artist laureate will take the initiative and ensure that at least one of Horatio Walker's great paintings, which depict the spirit and beauty of life in rural Canada, will be displayed here on Parliament Hill for all Canadians who come here to view and reflect upon. I know for a fact that just a kilometre from here, a few of his paintings are sitting in storage at the National Gallery, where they are not being viewed by anyone. It would be wonderful if just one of them came to Parliament Hill, so that they could be seen by so many.

As well, indigenous art has often been undervalued and unseen in Canada's history. I am hopeful that, if this bill were to pass before this Parliament dissolves, a future visual artist laureate would make a concerted effort to ensure the work of indigenous artists are made well represented within this place. Certainly, as shadow minister for Canadian heritage, my office was in contact with a gentleman in New Brunswick who is looking for a home for several pieces of indigenous art from the great Christian Morrisseau. Thus far, he has found little receptiveness to placing them here. I would hope that the new parliamentary visual artist laureate would find a way to make that happen.

To conclude, Canada is home to so much great art, as well as so much great culture, that we ought to celebrate it and share it with all Canadians.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am rising in support of Bill S-202. It is a two-page document. It is very straightforward.

It basically asks the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons to select the parliamentary visual artist laureate. It would ensure that the person would hold office for a term not exceeding two years. It would ensure that their mandate would be to promote the arts and culture in Canada, and I will come back to that in a moment, because it is for that reason that I am supportive and the NDP is supportive of this bill.

The visual artist laureate would produce artistic creations, sponsor artistic events, give advice to the parliamentary librarian and perform other related duties. Therefore, the visual artist laureate could play an important role in fostering the arts. This is important; there is no doubt, and I will come back to why this is important in just a moment.

Because it is a brief bill, it is important to comment on what we do in this place. The reality is that private members' legislation can make a huge difference in people's lives. I am going to talk about two bills that have performed that, really responding to the needs of people in a way that is fundamentally important. I am not suggesting the visual arts laureate is not responding to some need. It does help to foster the arts sector, and for that reason we support it.

Last night I was at a vigil on Parliament Hill, just a few steps from this place. Moms Stop the Harm had a vigil for members of their families who had passed away due to the toxic drug supply in this country. It was a profoundly moving event as we listened to each of the families step forward to speak about how toxic drugs had had an impact on their family and about the devastating loss of their loved one. Members will recall that the member for Courtenay—Alberni brought forward Bill C-216, a health-based response to substance use. This bill would have helped those families immeasurably, right across the length and breadth of our country.

This bill on the visual arts laureate will pass easily. I have no doubt that members of all parties will support it, and the visual laureate will be put into place. It is a good thing. I am not suggesting it is a bad thing. It will make a difference in fostering the arts, and, for a number of reasons, that is important.

However, the reality is that Bill C-216, which would have saved people's lives, was defeated in the House, with Conservatives and Liberals voting against it. The Moms Stop the Harm family members who have lost a loved one lament the fact that in this place we are willing to vote for legislation that is sometimes symbolic and sometimes positive symbolism, and that sometimes makes a difference, but we are unwilling to take the courageous step of adopting legislation that would literally save people's lives.

I experienced the same thing in presenting as a private member's bill the Canada pharmacare act. Members will recall that two years ago we had a vote in this place on that. There is no doubt that universal pharmacare saves people's lives. Every single country that has universal health care has universal pharmacare. In Canada, the Canadian Nurses Association tells us that hundreds of Canadians die every year because they do not have the financial resources to pay for the medication that will keep them in life. There is no doubt that a private member's bill putting the foundation in place for universal pharmacare would have made an enormous difference in people's lives, yet, again, Conservatives and Liberals in this place voted that down.

We have a symbolic piece of legislation, a private member's bill that we do not oppose, to establish a visual artist laureate. It will be adopted by all members of Parliament voting together. We will vote unanimously, perhaps, to put in place a visual artist laureate, but what about universal pharmacare? What about putting in place health care measures that would actually save people's lives and provide support to those who have addictions and are struggling with substance use?

This is what I find difficult: It is that while we can reach unanimity around things that do not necessarily make a difference in people's lives, time and time again, as a House, as members of Parliament, a majority of us vote against the essential measures that would actually make a difference.

With that caveat, I would like to return to Bill S-202 and what I hope will come out of this.

The reality is that the arts sector in Canada has been a major motor of the economy. I would particularly like to shout out, as the member of Parliament for New Westminster—Burnaby, to the Arts Council of New Westminster and the Burnaby Arts Council for the work they do each and every day to foster the arts and to foster community togetherness in our communities.

The two communities I represent have very strong artistic sectors, and it is the volunteer work that folks have been doing over years that has led to that. We have been very fortunate in the communities I represent.

However, with COVID we have seen how the arts sector has been hard hit, right across the country, with a 25% decrease in employment levels in arts, entertainment and recreation. In many cases, we are seeing a one-third loss or a 50% loss of gate receipts for festivals and for performing arts, so there is no doubt that the arts sector particularly suffered through COVID and has not been fully revived.

For that reason, it makes sense to ensure that a parliamentary visual artist laureate position is put in place and that the laureate immediately starts to work to help publicize the arts sector, to help make a difference in the arts sector, and in a sense to help to revive the arts sector.

I believe fundamentally that we need to contribute to the arts sector and make that difference right across the country, and the member for Nunavut just agreed with me. The member for Nunavut is a huge supporter of the arts. As we know, Nunavut is a major engine of the arts but is not receiving the support from the federal government that I think other parts of the country should be receiving.

The federal government needs to step up far beyond the issue of putting in place the parliamentary visual artist laureate. There is also the restoration of funding that needs to take place right across the country, I would suggest in New Westminster—Burnaby, Nunavut, North Island—Powell River, Nanaimo—Ladysmith and South Okanagan—West Kootenay, as well as right across the country. I have colleagues who represent very vibrant arts sectors in those communities. In fact, I have been to every one of them. It is amazing what the arts sector does in every one of those communities—shepherded and supported by strong members of Parliament, I would add.

The reality is that the federal government has not been there since COVID. There was support that the NDP forced through during COVID to ensure that much of the arts sector that was hard hit by COVID made it through, but now the federal government is stepping back and saying that they are on their own.

There is the exception, in that we will have a parliamentary visual artist laureate, but that is only a small step in what is actually needed to provide supports to the performing arts and the festivals of arts and culture right across this country.

This is fundamentally important. It goes far beyond the private member's bill. We are sometimes called upon to speak to private member's bills that are symbolic; in some cases they are symbolic, but they have added elements. In this case, there is a symbolism that does provide for other elements, the promotion of the arts on Parliament Hill. Hopefully it will make a difference in the federal government's response to the artistic sector, because ultimately, the federal government needs to step up and go beyond this private member's bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City for his right of reply

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to close our current debate on the matter of Bill S-202 at second reading, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and to establish a parliamentary visual artist laureate for the parliamentary library.

I would first like to address a couple of comments raised in my colleagues' comments today.

The Conservative member spoke about why this is important when we have issues such as people relying on food banks. I would like to point out, as I did in my first speech in the House, that the arts and artists were very negatively impacted during COVID. As just mentioned, many have not fully recovered yet. It is important to bring attention to the arts and the importance of the arts. They were there for us during COVID, even though their revenues suffered tremendously. That is one of the reasons this position is so important.

We also heard from our NDP colleague about other competing priorities, like pharma care. That is the issue we have with the arts. The arts are often competing against other priorities and they often lose. That is a concern. That is why I think this position, this role, is so important to Canadians and the arts community.

I would like to take a moment to express my gratitude to former senator Patricia Bovey, who has championed this bill every step of the way. Her passion and appreciation for the arts have laid the foundation for our debate, and it is thanks to her that this bill has come to fruition. We owe her our profound appreciation for her invaluable effort and years of service in the Senate.

The bill presented before us today is one that recognizes and embraces the immense value of art in our country. We are surrounded by culture, beauty and a myriad of visual arts. Our art is a reflection of our Canadian identity and the Canadian soul. It unifies us in our endless appreciation and brings us together in admiration of the many artists who have dedicated countless hours to creating captivating works for our eyes.

I would also like to take a moment to thank Senator Wilfred Moore, who first introduced this legislation back in 2016. Although his bill was not able to pass before the dissolution of Parliament, he was the first legislator to introduce the idea of a parliamentary visual artist laureate.

I would like to express my gratitude for the kind words spoken by my colleagues as we have debated this bill. It has been frequently stated that art is universal, transcending barriers of language and ideology. It pleases me to witness the truth of this sentiment and that art has touched all of our lives in some shape or form. It communicates ideas and our experiences from every corner of life.

The Canadian painter Emily Carr once said, “Pictures should be inspired by nature, but made in the soul of the artist; it is the soul of the individual that counts.” It is a profound statement that encapsulates the essence of art and its ability to externalize the depths of an artist's emotions. Through the establishment of this office, we can bring those words to life within the House of Commons. We can give a voice to the soul of our country through its visual creations.

Ms. Carr, like too many other talented artists, was not widely recognized for most of her life. At the time, her artistic approach was neither appreciated nor understood. She suffered the fate of countless individuals who waited years to witness the full recognition of their work, if received at all. It will be the duty of the parliamentary visual artist laureate to seek out that talent, give them a platform and ensure that our artists receive the respect they deserve as soon as possible, not posthumously.

With the passage of this bill and the establishment of this office, we will honour the works, events and exhibitions of Canadian artists everywhere. The creation of a parliamentary visual artist laureate sends a message to the rest of the country and the world: Art is a universal language that knows no boundaries.

Canada respects and celebrates this language, embracing the diverse cultural values within our country. From the Pacific coast to the Québécois to the countless indigenous communities and so many others, we want to dedicate an office that ensures their work does not go unnoticed. We value their immense talent and the contributions they have made to our country. I urge my colleagues to join me in showing our appreciation.

An office such as the one proposed by this bill would serve as an opportunity for many young artists. Its establishment would provide a platform for young up-and-coming artists to gain exposure and support for their craft. It would foster an environment where new talent can proudly showcase their work and achievements to a broader audience. By doing so, we take another step toward fostering a vibrant, thriving artistic community right here at home.

The parliamentary visual artist laureate would serve as a champion of artistic expression and advocate for its recognition within the country. Collaborating alongside the Speaker and members of Parliament, their insight would be an invaluable resource as we consider the profound influences of culture and art on policy.

The passage of Bill S-202 and the establishment of this office symbolize our commitment to celebrating the transformative power of art. By creating this position, we honour our cultural heritage and pave the way for future generations of artists to thrive. I implore all my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, on division. I look forward to seeing my bill through to its successful conclusion.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 7, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

It being 2:20 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:20 p.m.)