Hon. Serge Joyal:

Honourable senators, I would like to preface my remarks this afternoon by saying that the subject I am about to discuss in no way diminishes my respect and appreciation for Her Excellency, the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean.

Her Excellency is in no way responsible for the events described in the motion.

Like all honourable senators on both sides of the chamber, three weeks ago I read in the newspaper that historical artifacts, works of art of Canadian content and other artifacts that were used by members of the Royal Family on their visit to Canada have been offered online, on the website of the Department of Public Works, and sold for a fraction of the price. Some of them did not even belong to Canada. In fact, they were on loan from Buckingham Palace.

I was appalled, and I felt uncomfortable. I thought that after 142 years of Confederation, Canada had come to an age where it has learned, and developed policies, to manage its heritage. Among the items offered on the Internet, the three silver baskets that were sold for $520 bore a dedication. I want to read it because honourable senators will realize how embarrassing this situation is.

Those three silver baskets bore the following dedication:

Presented to His Royal Highness, the Duke of York, on the occasion of His Royal Highness's wedding with Her Royal Highness, the Princess May by

And following, as Senator Grafstein would say, is a Who's Who of British nobility. I will quote the names:

Dowager Duchess of Marlborough; Duchess of Marlborough; Anne, Duchess of Roxburghe; Lord and Lady Randolph Churchill; Viscount and Lady Dorgenna Curzon —

— another famous family;

— Lord and Lady Wimborne; Lord and Lady Doranzi; Mr. and Lady Fanny Marjoy Banks; Mr. and Lady Sarah Wilson.

In other words, anyone who has been at Rideau Hall and has read those names cannot but conclude that they are faced with something of historical importance. If they have a little more knowledge, they will understand that if it was for the marriage of the Duke of York and Princess May, the Duke of York is George V, who became king in 1910. They will understand that they hold something in their hand of significance. How can one put that basket online for sale? It is not as though it was a plate with no inscription. In that case, they could say they never would have guessed that it belonged to this or that person. However, those inscriptions appear on those baskets. I did not send the police to read the dedication; it appeared online.

When I realized the situation with those artifacts, the first question that would come to anyone's mind is: Who is responsible for managing the content of Rideau Hall? Who manages to keep the registry or the inventory up to date? Who pronounces when something is surplus? Who decides if something should be sold or offered to another Canadian museum, such as the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts or the Royal Ontario Museum? In this country, we do not lack museums where those artifacts related to our history could be offered on a permanent loan. That situation happens on a regular basis in all museums.

I was more intrigued by the fact that no one could answer the question of who is responsible for the state rooms of Rideau Hall. We learned that some of those objects were on display previously in Rideau Hall.

In fact, it was a porcelain tea set decorated by a Maritime artist from Halifax, Alice Hagen, with the coat of arms of the Allied Forces of the First World War. This is not the kind of tea service one can find anywhere on the market. It was decorated by a Canadian artist and displayed in Rideau Hall at the request of the chief curator of the Nova Scotia museum. I saw that tea set myself in a china cabinet in the dining room when the late Jeanne Sauvé was Governor General. When I realized it was also offered for sale, I asked who was in charge. Who pronounced that an artifact has no historical merit? Those artifacts were on display in the state rooms. The three silver baskets were used in Her Majesty's rooms when she visited and stayed at Rideau Hall. Those are the state rooms of Rideau Hall. They are the rooms where official functions take place.

What are the official functions at Rideau Hall, honourable senators? The first is the swearing in of ministers. That happens in one of the state rooms. It is an official function of the Governor General. The presentation of credential letters from ambassadors is an official function at Rideau Hall. The granting of the national Orders of Canada and Orders of Merit take place in the state rooms at Rideau Hall. The rooms that Her Majesty occupies when she visits Canada and stays at Rideau Hall are state rooms because they are related to official functions.

I said to myself: Who is responsible for the content of those state rooms? I am not talking about the private headquarters. Many of us have gone abroad, and we all know there are state rooms and private headquarters for those who occupy an official function. In those private headquarters, I can understand that an occupant might want to bring personal belongings, souvenirs and rearrange the display the way he or she wishes for the benefit of his or her own comfort. I can understand that. However, we are talking here about state rooms.

Like many honourable senators, I have visited the White House. Senator Grafstein has often visited Washington. D.C., as has Senator Segal. When one visits the White House, one is handed the books about portraiture and artifacts in the White House. There is a large book about everything in the White House. It is not for a president, newly sworn in, to decide that he is more inspired by Abraham Lincoln, as President Obama is — and I refer to the reception of our respected Speaker — or less by George Washington, and more by Calvin Coolidge or Bill Clinton and less by John F. Kennedy and change everything inside the state rooms. It is not up to the President of the United States of America to decide what is in the state rooms of the White House.

My personal discomfort came when one day I was watching a ceremony in the ballroom, one of the state rooms, and I noticed that the portrait of Her Majesty was no longer there. It was a large painting by Norval Morrisseau. I personally value Norval Morrisseau. I have purchased Norval Morrisseau paintings for many years and have incited my friends to buy Norval Morrisseau paintings. What I found puzzling is that now the state ceremony takes place in front of the Norval Morrisseau painting and we turn our backs to the portrait of Her Majesty. We are the only country in the Commonwealth with Her Majesty as head of state where we turn our back to Her Majesty for an official ceremony.

At the Citadel, the formal official residence of our Governor General, in the main reception room — a magnificent room that was rebuilt following a fire — there is not a single portrait of Her Majesty. It is as though we Canadians are shy to recognize that we are a constitutional monarchy after 240 years.

Honourable senators, put your hand in your pocket. The loonie is inscribed with the portrait of Her Majesty. Put your hand in the other pocket. If you have a $20 bill, you will see the portrait of Her Majesty. You are not shy to use that money daily, and sometimes on multiple occasions, for purchases. However, when it comes to the official functions of our country, we are shy about them taking place in front of a portrait of Her Majesty.

Let me remind honourable senators of something of which I am very proud. As we enter the Senate foyer, we see the portrait of Her Majesty. Does it prevent you from exercising your constitutional duty as a senator? Does it embarrass you? Does it change your mindset about your Canadian identity? Are we less Canadian because we in the Senate, fortunately, have a history that has been added to through generations instead of having one generation subtracted from another? We see all those portraits and understand that Canada has become the respected nation around the world it is because we have been able to build one generation after the other from the contribution of each person we have had as head of state in Canada. We have never been prevented from being more Canadian because of that.

I said to myself: It is time that we do like other adult nations do in relation to official state functions; that is, entrust to an authority independent from the occupants of the day, probably linked to the National Capital Commission, the ability to decide the content of the state rooms and how they should be changed. If there is something that is no longer considered needed for the time being, there should be a proper policy of offering those objects and artifacts either to other official residences or to other Canadian museums. That is the way an adult nation deals with those aspects of its heritage.

Honourable senators will understand that when we in the Senate swear true allegiance to Her Majesty — many of us did that some years ago and some have done it recently — we have a constitutional duty to uphold the Constitution of Canada. What does the Constitution of Canada say? Section 9 states:

The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

The executive power in Canada is not vested in the cabinet; it is vested in the Queen. The legislative power in Canada is exercised by Her Majesty with, of course, the advice and consent of the Senate. That is what section 91 states. What does section 91 read?

It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada . . .

It is Her Majesty who enacts legislation under our advice. This is the system. This is the way it has worked for 142 years. We have managed a level of freedom and respect for Canada around the world that has everything to do with our system. We should be proud of our system, but we always feel some discomfort and are, to a point, sometimes disrespectful because we do not recognize that and we do not live as an adult nation with a system that has given us a level of freedom that is incomparable worldwide.

Honourable senators, I put this motion forward for your consideration because I thought that we in this chamber were adult enough. We walk through this foyer and see the portrait of Her Majesty each day, and I do not think it would embarrass any other visitors to see the portrait of Her Majesty in the right place in any of the official residences.

It is up to us to decide this and to make a recommendation. Those in authority will decide how to act upon that recommendation and be in sync with what we want to do in this country, which is to uphold rule of law as it has always protected us.

Please click here to read the full text of this debate

Recent Statements from Liberal Senators