Moved second reading of Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.

He said: Honourable senators, I’m back, and perhaps more appropriately, it’s back. A few short months ago, having risen to seek support for Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, I stand again to reacquaint you with the particulars of the same bill in this new Parliament. Indeed, I was tempted to move fifth reading of the bill a few moments ago, but I didn’t want to inspire the Speaker’s ire. The bill is now known as Bill S-2, and I stand to move the bill.

Before moving forward, I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people. I do so in recognition of the remarks of the Governor General who noted, in the recent Speech from the Throne, that this acknowledgement is not merely a symbolic declaration but a real reflection of our history. I can think of no more important bill than the one before us, which speaks to the role of our Parliament as an occasion to follow the advice of the Governor General.

Let me start by saying that the legislation and objectives laid out in Bill S-2 are precisely the same as those we voted on last spring. As you know, the bill did not come to a vote in the other place prior to the calling of the federal election, regrettably. This is an issue I’ll speak a little more about towards the end of my comments.

For the moment, though, I’d like to discuss the need for this bill and to outline its specifics, to both remind those who were here during the spring debate and to provide some detail to new senators sworn in just recently.

As I mentioned in the spring, this legislation would update the Parliament of Canada Act to better reflect the new reality here in the Senate. Those who are new to this place are no doubt familiar with the changes brought about in the aftermath of the 2015 election, given that this is the process that brought you here. Nonetheless, perhaps some history bears repeating to set the context.

Upon the implementation of the new appointment process of independent senators begun in 2016, many of us have spent much time looking for the most effective ways to organize ourselves in pursuit of our duties as reviewers of legislation and practitioners of sober second reflection.

During that period, of course, other senators, many of whom are here today, preferred sitting within established party caucuses. That approach had its organizational merits, of course, not the least of which was its ability to provide support to newcomers and to structure Senate debate. Nonetheless, the system was changing and, speaking for myself, the organizational task was a daunting one. There was no road map, and yet no shortage of advice on how best to go forward.

For example, some suggested that senators sit within regional caucuses for the purposes of establishing committee representation and the sharing of resources. Others wondered whether it might be better to establish affinity groups under which members would come together dependent on a particular issue.

While academics and policy experts debated these issues, senators were being appointed at a fairly regular pace. And one thing most would agree on was that the new members couldn’t function as 105 independent silos. So as more and more colleagues were appointed, senators began coming together in support of each other and subsequently organizing themselves into various groups.

While we’ve often been feeling our way since then — and frankly continue to do so — we have begun to put a new stamp on the institution. These efforts, through much trial and error and also through much goodwill, have led us to where we are today: a very different Senate with five separate groups but still operating in large part on the structure built for a very different time.

The bill we are now debating brings these realities into alignment with new legislation that attempts to treat all senators fairly and which provides this body with increased consultative powers.

To the credit of all senators, the upper chamber has recognized the changes occurring from within and acted upon them. There was a willingness among all members, including those who preferred a two-party arrangement, to make adjustments to the strict rules and procedures of the Senate towards a more modernized approach.

The core premise that all senators are equal led to the sensible review and modification of rules and practices in order to ensure committee seating for new colleagues and for the equitable treatment of all caucuses and groups in the Senate as they came into being. Bill S-2, as did Bill S-4 before it, is a bill that simply catches up to and cements into law many of the practices and sessional orders this chamber has already instituted.

Since 2016, 60 senators have been appointed through the independent, merit-based advisory board process. Also since then, three non-partisan groups have formed in the Senate: the Independent Senators Group, the Canadian Senators Group and the Progressive Senate Group.

As these groups established themselves, the Senate amended its internal rules to accommodate them and to provide them with research funding and committee assignments proportionate to their numbers. Along with the Conservative Party caucus and the Government Representative Office, Bill S-2 reflects a multi-dimensional Senate, and just as the other place provides its leadership in a multi-group chamber under this bill so will the Senate.

The proposed legislation also fulfills a policy commitment to update the act and reflect the Senate’s new, less partisan role. Amending the Parliament of Canada Act is a continuation of the commitment made by the Prime Minister when the establishment of the Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments was announced in December 2015. That was the first step in a process that is now resulting in this legislative change to the act.

Before discussing the substance of the changes, I’d like to take a moment to thank and congratulate all senators, leaders and facilitators, especially Senators Plett, Woo, Cordy and Tannas, whose cooperative spirit has brought us to this point.

Prior to the drafting of Bill S-4 in the last Parliament, comprehensive consultations were held with all leaders, their perspectives were heard and the proposed legislation, then brought forward and now brought forward again, reflects those discussions. The government recognized its responsibility to consult with those who would be most affected by any changes to the act.

In general terms, Bill S-2 would extend official status to the new groups that have formed. It would include a spelled-out role in Senate governance and the appointment processes. Leaders of the groups would receive allowances commensurate with the relative number of seats held by their group in the Senate. More specifically, Bill S-2 would first ensure that the largest group outside the government or opposition caucuses would receive allowances equivalent to those provided to the opposition. The next two largest groups would receive approximately half of the allowances the opposition receives.

These new allowances would begin on July 1, 2022, and will assist the recognized parties or groups to fulfill their role of providing sober second advice.

Secondly, the bill amends the Parliament of Canada Act and makes consequential and related amendments to other acts that allow the leader or facilitator of all recognized parties and groups in the Senate to make membership changes to the Senate Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. This would simply confirm what currently exists.

As well, the bill provides that all leaders are consulted on appointments of the following officers or agents of Parliament: the Senate Ethics Officer, the Auditor General, the Commissioner of Lobbying, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner, the Information Commissioner and the Parliamentary Budget Officer. All leaders’ input would also be required regarding the appointment of senators to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, NSICOP. The appointments of these officers and agents are crucial to the functioning of government and, by extrapolation, the country.

Third, Bill S-2 would amend the Emergencies Act to provide that at least one senator from each group be represented on any parliamentary committee that is formed under this act. Currently, the Emergencies Act requires that a parliamentary review committee of both the House and Senate be established for the purpose of reviewing the government’s exercise of these powers following the declaration of an emergency. Under the current statute, the membership of this committee includes at least one member from each recognized party in the House of Commons and at least one senator from each party in the Senate. The formal recognition of the ISG, PSG and CSG proposed in Bill S-2 would allow each group a seat on this important body.

Finally, Bill S-2 will add the titles of Government Representative in the Senate, Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate and Government Liaison, where appropriate, to reflect the current model of the Government Representative Office. Again, this confirms what is already in practice.

Bill S-2 would also propose to retain leadership allowances for the government and the opposition — five positions each — and provides leadership allowances for the three other largest recognized parties or groups — four positions each.

Because Bill S-2 deals with the Senate’s institutional framework and organizational processes, the government has determined, rightly in my view, that this bill should originate in the Senate and that it should be discussed and debated here first since we are the members most affected by these changes. That was why Bill S-4 started here in the last Parliament.

Now, because of the long-standing conventions of not permitting the Senate to expend public funds, Bill S-2 contains a non-appropriation clause, which would only permit the bill to be brought into force once monies have been appropriated by Parliament. Passing this bill in the Senate and moving it forward to the other place will allow the proper chamber to introduce the legislation necessary to finalize the amendments. This has been a long time in the making. The Senate demand for such legislation began several years ago. I can personally attest to that and have the bruises to prove it. It is in the interest of all senators to move Bill S-2 forward so that it can be sent to the other place as soon as possible. We mustn’t waste the opportunity.

But I would be remiss if I did not take this occasion to address the fact that we find ourselves dealing with this bill after just having done so a few months ago. The last month of the last Parliament we dealt with it, and now the first month of the new Parliament we’re back to dealing with it.

The original Bill S-4 required significant review, discussion, consultation and accommodation amongst all groups within the Senate. In large part, we succeeded in our mission and dispatched Bill S-4 to the other place. We are being given a second chance to do the same with Bill S-2, and this time with the expectation that the Parliament of Canada Act will be studied, put to a vote in the other place, and finally have the act reflected in the reality of the Senate of the 21st century.

It took two parliaments for changes to the act to come forward. It is a reflection of the accommodations we have made over many years. To have worked so hard and pursued our own due diligence and then not to have the bill come forward to the other place was a disappointment to me and, I expect, to many others in this chamber.

I look forward to a respectful review of this legislation in the other place, just as I know that bills coming from the other place will be treated with thoughtfulness and respect by this chamber.

But, colleagues, Bill S-2 is a considerate piece of legislation. It provides for equal treatment of leadership and reinforces the equality afforded to all groups in terms of consultation; something currently occurring in practice but not cemented into law.

Bill S-2 can be considered an evolutionary piece of legislation. It need not be revolutionary to meet our demands. The government is not mandating changes within this legislation. Rather, Bill S-2 can be described as a permissive bill — not a prescriptive one — which, coincidentally, is exactly how we get most things done in this chamber.

Finally, Bill S-2 is not by any means the last word on Senate reform or modernization. It is, however, the legislative change that we need to move forward and address other practices within the competence of the chamber itself that will advance further modernization. This bill reflects what we are, and it doesn’t preclude any further changes to reflect what Canadians want the Senate to be in the future. Thank you.

Senator Harder, would you take a question?

Delighted; I almost miss it.

That’s what I’m here for.

Senator Harder, last spring you were the sponsor of Bill S-4, which was, I understand, identical to Bill S-2. The Trudeau government pressed to get that bill passed very quickly through the Senate so that the House of Commons had a considerable time to pass it prior to adjourning for the summer, when they prorogued and called the election. Yet despite Bill S-4 passing the Senate with weeks available before the House of Commons adjourning, the Trudeau government not only didn’t call it for a vote, it didn’t even call that particular so-called priority legislation for first reading or any debate in the House of Commons. Senator Harder, why not? And how can senators know that your new Bill S-2 will not once again be ignored by the Trudeau government in the House of Commons after they try to rush it through the Senate?

Yours is a very relevant question and one that I sought to answer in my comments. It was a disappointment to me, and I am sure, hopefully, to most senators, that the other place did not deal with this legislation. It arrived in the other chamber, albeit in May, but we have seen other bills dealt with in that time frame, so it wasn’t an improbable mission. But you will also know that in a minority government in the other place, there were discussions amongst leaders, and all of the partners necessary to pass a piece of legislation were not onside to advance this bill in a fashion which would see it get to Royal Assent. I regret that, but that’s politics and the reality we’re facing.

The good news is the same bill is being reintroduced within a month of the election to demonstrate to the other chamber, I hope, not only the will of this chamber but the commitment of the Government of Canada to get this done.

Senator Harder, the Trudeau government has introduced this new Bill S-2 as an identical bill to Bill S-4. The government did have several months to re-evaluate its legislation and make any needed changes. I note that terms undefined in the Parliament of Canada Act and in 150 years of history, like “liaison” and “facilitator” — positions that will, under this very bill, receive taxpayer funded remuneration — are still undefined in this new Bill S-2. Why hasn’t the Trudeau government used some sober second thought and provided a definition for these still new terms in the Parliament of Canada amendment act?

That was the same question you asked, as I recall, when I gave my speech on Bill S-4. The Government of Canada, in drafting the bill, made the decision, not the omission, to leave the definition of those officers to the Senate itself and its practices. Remember, it’s permissive. It doesn’t obviate the future possibility of a return to old nomenclature. It simply adds to the nomenclature available for this chamber.

Would Senator Harder take another question?

Yes.

Thank you. I was struck by your language when you talked about equal treatment, and I wonder — as someone who is inhabiting a new identity here in the Senate as an unaffiliated independent senator — if you could provide any assurance about the impact of this bill on unaffiliated independent senators.

The Parliament of Canada Act provides no framework for the treatment of unaffiliated senators or, frankly, independent members of Parliament. That is done in the normal practices of each chamber as it deals with, for example, membership on committees. What the bill is intended to deal with is the framework of parties, groups, caucuses and organizational responsibilities that each chamber faces, and this is an opportunity for the Senate to be modernized with the experience of the last now almost six years.

Can you assure me that this bill will not in any way dilute the equal treatment of unaffiliated senators?

Senator, I see no way in which this bill does that. Yes, I can give that assurance. This bill does not address that issue, and therefore the framework for dealing with unaffiliated senators remains what it is.

Certainly.

Senator, the government would not be proceeding at the time and at the urgency that it is if it was not assured in its mind and discussions that there is a window of opportunity to get this legislation done. I think it would be foolish for me to pretend that there are — our commitments that I can reference, but let’s have Committee of the Whole, have the minister here, and hear how they expect to move forward. My hope is that we get it to the other chamber before Christmas, because that too adds more momentum of expectation on delivery and it’s early in the Parliament, so it’s not as though the government’s agenda on other legislation prevents the normal discussion in a minority Parliament as to how to advance and conclude legislation.

Moved second reading of Bill S-202, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate).

She said: Honourable senators, I speak from the unceded territory of the Algonquin and as a Manitoban, as from the territory for the as-yet-unfulfilled Treaty 1, the traditional lands of the Anishinaabe, Ojibway, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dene and Dakota and the homeland of the Métis.

Senators, I rise today to speak at second reading to Bill S-202, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate). This is the fourth iteration of this bill, first introduced in May 2016 by our former colleague Senator Wilfred Moore. Passed unanimously by this chamber twice, it unfortunately died on the Order Paper twice in the other place, despite having all-party support prior to the dissolution of Parliament last June 2021.

It would be wonderful to have it passed in both houses and become law before I retire from this chamber in 18 months. Bill S-202 would create the position of a visual artist laureate, a position which would be similar to that of the Parliamentary Poet Laureate; complementary yet working in different mediums. Like the poet laureate, the visual artist laureate would be an officer of the Library of Parliament, which provides for independence from Parliament like the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

If passed, this bill provides that the Speakers of the Senate and the House of Commons shall select the artist laureate from a list of three names that reflect Canada’s diversity, provided by a committee chaired by the Parliamentary Librarian. The committee would include the Librarian and Archivist of Canada, Canada’s Commissioner of Official Languages, the CEO of the Canada Council for the Arts, the director of the National Gallery of Canada and the chair of the Royal Canadian Academy of Arts or their designates.

The visual artist laureate would serve the Speakers of both chambers for a term not exceeding two years. As I have already mentioned, their mandate would be to promote the arts in Canada by producing or causing to be produced artistic creations. At the request of either Speaker, he or she could produce artistic creations for use in Parliament or on occasions of state. The visual artist laureate could also sponsor artistic events and give advice to the Parliamentary Librarian regarding the Library’s collection and acquisitions to enrich the Library’s cultural holdings. Either the Speaker or the Parliamentary Librarian could ask the visual artist laureate to perform other related duties.

As I have already mentioned in this chamber, the visual artist laureate would definitely portray Canada’s diversity, no matter the medium used — painting, print-making, sculpture, design, video, film, art installation, photography or other. Any artist appointed to the position of visual artist laureate would consider it an honour to serve as an ambassador for the arts and creative works in the Parliamentary precinct. Indeed, the term “laureate” denotes the honour for distinction in a particular field.

This portrayal of our diversity and our need to understand each other — whether on a federal, provincial, territorial or cultural level — is paramount, especially now as we move forward as a country. Artists have always depicted or discussed contemporary issues in their work and drawn attention to critical concerns. It is clear, for instance, that understanding each other will play a key role in reconciliation, for which cultural understanding is essential.

For instance, Alberta artist Joane Cardinal-Schubert’s 1990s installation The Lesson provided a clairvoyant and clarion call to understanding the redress which predated the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Faye Heavyshield’s 1985 work Sisters — long before the national inquiry was established — drew attention to the need for sisters to support each other, a truly poignant universal statement with the tragedy of murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls. For years, Jane Ash Poitras’s paintings have presented her poignant insights into the unmarked graves at residential schools, while Robert Houle has documented many issues around colonization in our collective treaties. Isn’t it time that the work of our two houses become part of these visual conversations? I feel the same regarding environmental and climate change concerns, which artists like Don Proch have been highlighting in their work for decades.

We all heard Senator Ataullahjan’s poignant statement last week depicting the situation in Afghanistan. The ustad burying his rabab, the symbolic burying of the cultural expression of the Afghan people. She said:

For me, the burying of the rabab is a significant act. The strings of the rabab pull at the heartstrings of everyone for that region. For me, it signifies the burying of the heart and the soul of Afghanistan.

I repeat that here because culture is a cornerstone of who we are, and without the arts our unique voices go unheard, and I believe those visual voices should carry our parliamentary messages and work.

Colleagues, I could go on with examples to prove that Canada does indeed have many excellent artists who give voice to the various perspectives regarding societal issues, but I won’t. We have seen — even in the small installations in this chamber of Indigenous work, the new presentation of Inuit art and our two iterations of honouring Canada’s Black artists — that visual expression does make a difference and creates new understandings. I think our work and theirs would indeed be strengthened by the work and the presence of a parliamentary visual artist laureate as it has with our Parliamentary Poets Laureate.

In previous speeches I have highlighted the value of our artistic sector to the Canadian economy and there are compelling economic statistics from Canada’s cultural industries. Statistics Canada publishes the Canadian Culture Satellite Account, which for instance, found that the GDP of cultural industries in 2017 was $58.9 billion or $1,611 per capita, equalling 2.8% of national GDP.

According to the most recent Statistics Canada and Hill Strategies report, between 2010 and 2017, the GDP of culture products increased by 16%. The number of jobs in that period related to culture products increased by 7%. In 2017, there were indeed 715,400 jobs directly related to cultural industries, or 3.8% of all jobs in the country.

Of course, the pandemic has dealt a serious blow to our economy and the arts and culture sector. The federal government has recognized this. The most recent budget provides funding for this sector, as it will be one of the last to recover from the pandemic.

According to Hill Strategies’ research, the total value of goods and services in the culture sector decreased by 10% between 2019 and 2020. Between 2019 and 2020, 55% of organizations and businesses in the arts, entertainment and recreation experienced a revenue drop of at least 30%. Organizations have outright closed to the tune of 8% since 2019. The 594,000 employment and self-employed positions in the culture sector in 2020 represented the lowest job total since 2010. The performing arts and festivals have been hardest hit, losing 52% of sales and 36% of jobs between 2019 and 2020.

As I mentioned in debate in the last Parliament, through the pandemic, I’ve spoken to over 600 artists and they have been telling me that passing this bill, even though there will only be one visual artist laureate every two years, would be an important welcome vote of moral support for our artists in these dark times. Artists working in other disciplines — musicians, writers and actors — have also echoed those sentiments in my meetings and conversations with them. I can assure you that parliamentary support for this will be extremely well received.

Honourable colleagues, the arts are a universal language that we all speak. The arts break down barriers and help us understand one another. I like to think that as we look back on our nation’s history, we are reminded of the many great artists who have represented Canada through multiple visual media and the rich tapestry of the many peoples and cultures that inhabit this place.

Our story is and has been told by many visual artists who see this land through a myriad of viewpoints and lenses. Each contributes to the vision of Canada. The same is true of the visual artist laureate.

So it is with these thoughts in mind that I thank you all for your support for the arts and culture sector in Canada and ask once again for that same support in making this legislation a reality, hopefully within my remaining time in this chamber. I hope we can help the restart of the arts in this country by moving this bill forward quickly to the other place, recognizing that twice already we have passed it unanimously, and it was so close to being voted on in the other place before the election call. Thank you.

Senator Cormier, do you have a question?

Honourable senators, I want to thank the honourable senator for her determination, her patience and her engagement toward this very important bill for artists in Canada.

Thank you for all the work you’re doing for arts and culture for Canada. Your dedication is an inspiration for all of us. Just for more certainty, I want to ask about the definition of videography. Does it include all digital technologies? You know how young creators today use digital technologies in different ways. I want to make sure, when you talk about that, that it’s included. Thank you.

Thank you for your question, Senator Cormier. Absolutely. We don’t know what media artists will be using in the coming years, and that’s why I said, “and others.” But this is looking at the creative visual expressions of what we on Parliament Hill, in this chamber or in the House of Commons, undertake. As you say, I think it’s really important. This is one of the fields of creators among us that really do speak an international language. I think it would heighten the work that our parliamentarians are doing. That’s what I’m hearing from members of Parliament, from colleagues in this chamber and from artists, and that’s why I was so excited to hear from so many artists that even this one small gesture will be heartfelt and positively taken by all.