Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 9th, 2022

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much.

Perhaps I'll open this up a little more but maybe stick with Mr. Rubinoff to start out.

Do you think the pandemic has transformed the theatre industry moving forward or is it too early to tell?

[Michael Rubinoff]

We're still waiting. It's transformed in that we're having these discussions. We want to see as we move forward if we are actually going to have those tangible supports for that transformation.

We're at an incredible moment. In this conversation and talking to all of you, being heard is giving us so much hope. If we can transform that into action and programs, you are going to see that transformation.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much.

I'll ask Mr. Stacey the same question. Do you see a transformation in the live theatre industry?

[Boomer Stacey]

There's absolutely a transformation, some positive and some negative. It will remain to be seen what stays with us. I know in the very beginning of the pandemic we talked about this being an opportunity to change for the positive in our sector. We're still at the place where we're extremely worried about losing members of our sector, so there's still a huge potential for us to come out of this in a much worse place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank all of the witnesses for coming, spending the time and giving us very clear, concise directions that we could look at when writing a report and maybe getting some recommendations.

I will suspend the meeting for two minutes so that the witnesses can leave and we can get to committee business. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We'll go quickly to the Housefather notice of motion. I would like us to discuss it and see whether we support this motion or not.

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on the history of and current display of hate symbols and emblems such as the swastika and the Confederate flag in Canada and consider what actions Parliament may take to end or limit the display of such hate symbols and emblems; that the study should be at least one meeting; and that the committee report its findings to the House.

Now I will open this up to discussion. Please raise your hand.

I see Mr. Housefather's hand up.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to just explain to the committee why I think this study is important. First of all, all of us, on all sides in the House, condemn these symbols. This is not a partisan study or partisan issue. It's one where I believe we need to educate Canadians on what these symbols actually mean.

Over the last little while, my office has received numbers of emails from people arguing that the swastika and the Confederate flag are not hate symbols. What we need to have, I believe, is a historian come in and explain in front of us and to Canadians what these symbols have historically meant. Then I'd like to also suggest that organizations representing the Black community and the Jewish community be invited to also give their take on the meaning of these symbols and how they harm the community.

This is not the long study that will be done when the great legislation that Mr. Julian is proposing comes before the House. Then there'll be a lot of discussion about whether freedom of expression in section 2 is breached and whether section 1 saves it. I'm looking at this as being an, as we say in French, étude préalable, a small study to just basically educate and inform Canadians in a non-partisan way what these symbols mean. It will then set it up for the House to have a larger debate on what actions it can take, including legislation, to potentially deal with the symbols of hate.

I want to assure everybody, again—because there have been a lot of people making comments—that this is not related to the convoy. This is not related to allegations that any member of any party supports these horrible symbols. It's something that I'm hoping we all across party lines can work together on to determine the best way of handling this and educating Canadians through just one meeting on this issue.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Anthony.

Go ahead, Peter.

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

Thanks very much, Madam Chair.

I support this motion, and I'm glad Mr. Housefather moved it forward for the reasons that he mentioned. The confusion over what these symbols mean is something I'm surprised at. I don't think there's a single member of Parliament who doesn't understand the implications, but it's important for public education that we reiterate what these symbols represent.

I would offer a friendly amendment, if Mr. Housefather is open to that. It's to add, after “the swastika and the Confederate flag in Canada and consider what actions Parliament may take,” “including possible legislation”.

I guess I also would suggest that perhaps we say the Nazi swastika, given that in Hinduism a different type of swastika is present, and that would avoid the confusion that sometimes exists on that.

I certainly support the motion and hope that these friendly amendments are acceptable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Peter.

You've moved that amendment, officially, Peter?

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

No, Madam Chair. I've offered it as a friendly amendment. It's up to the mover to accept it or not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Anthony, do you have anything to say?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I'm totally fine with the amendments. I don't think it changes the substance of the motion. I agree on the Nazi swastika to be clearer and certainly one of the things that Parliament may do is possible legislation. I don't think it changes the context of the motion at all.

I appreciate the suggestion. I'm totally fine with it, if others are.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

It's allowable.

We're not going to take a vote on it, since you have agreed to let it change.

Ms. Lewis.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather, for this very important motion. I think it's very worthwhile.

I just want to ask one question and I'm asking it out of deep sincerity. I just want to know how you concluded just to have two symbols and why blackface wasn't included?

I seriously ask it out of the utmost respect for your motion. I think that identifying symbols of hate and educating Canadians about them is very important. These symbols of hate should be condemned.

As a Black person, I also feel that a symbol of hate such as blackface, which is pre- and post-antebellum and was very relevant also in Canadian history, should be added. I'm also requesting a friendly amendment to add that in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Chairman, I certainly condemn blackface. Blackface is abhorrent.

My understanding of what blackface means is the horrendous way in minstrel shows and then following that in film and theatre when white artists covered their face with black paint and pretended to be African Americans or Black Canadians. I don't necessarily understand that to be a symbol or an emblem.

The reason I chose the words that I did was because I looked at Mr. Julian's draft bill. I used the words that were in Mr. Julian's draft bill that is before the House. Those words said, “including” but not limited to. This is not limiting this. I said “such as” the Nazi swastika and the Confederate flag, which I believe is also a symbol of hatred against Blacks. That's why I chose the words.

I couldn't accept the friendly amendment, only because I don't believe that's a symbol or an emblem. But in the context of the questions, Ms. Lewis, that you would ask to the witnesses—and I believe we should have the national Black organizations there—I think questions could certainly be asked to them about what they feel and how blackface makes their members feel. I can only imagine how hurtful it is to all Black Canadians, and all right-thinking Canadians to see that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Lewis, your friendly amendment was not accepted.

Are you moving an amendment for discussion?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Yes, I would love to.

I would love to also say to Mr. Housefather that it is both a symbol and an emblem of hate. It is a symbol of chattel slavery. It predates even the symbol of the Confederate flag, which is really relevant to the south and is a pre- and post-antebellum symbol whereas blackface transcends the entire history of African chattel slavery in North America. It's not just dressing up. It's not just playing theatre. It is a symbol of being in bondage for Black people. It is a mockery and a caricature of the oppression and suffering that we've endured. It's very serious and that's why I proposed it. It is a very hurtful symbol.

I would love for you to consider that, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Lewis, will you say where that amendment should go and be inserted so that we can have people vote on the amendment?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

I don't have it in front of me. It should be inserted after the enumeration of the Confederate flag, Nazi flag, therefore “and blackface”. That's where it should be inserted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

All right.

Is everyone clear on the amendment before we start debating it?

The amendment would say, “That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on the history of and current display of hate symbols such as the Nazi swastika and the Confederate flag in Canada, and blackface, and consider what actions Parliament may take to end or limit the display....”

I'm allowing the amendment, because it is not necessarily changing the intent of the motion.

We can now have a discussion, please.

Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have the impression that we've made a very good start on an extremely interesting discussion. I've just heard Ms. Lewis's arguments in defence of her amendment. I believe that too will be interesting.

Is blackface really a symbol of hate and contempt?

For many years, black makeup was used in the theatre. It was a way to enable a white actor to play a black role. At the time, it was not necessarily considered contemptuous, hateful or disrespectful.

I find this discussion extremely interesting. It's also the kind of discussion we could have as part of our study. But I'm not sure about the relevance of adding blackface to the motion as something that is clearly considered a hate symbol. I'm nevertheless open to the idea of hearing arguments from my colleagues.

I think that we'll be having some extremely sensitive discussions on this subject. We'll all have to be walking on eggshells on occasion because it is certainly sensitive issue.

For the time being, I have reservations about adding the fact that blackface is a hate symbol to the motion. I'd like to hear evidence from people Ms. Lewis could invite to appear, in addition to her own testimony.

I am really looking forward to the discussion we're going to have on this motion, but I still have doubts about the relevance of adding blackface to the wording of the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

Go ahead, Anthony.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

So that I understand, because I based the motion on Mr. Julian's draft bill, I'd like to ask Mr. Julian what he thinks. Does he think it's appropriate to add that? In that case, I would say it's a friendly amendment.

I'd like to understand from Mr. Julian if this corresponds to his draft bill and what he considers a symbol or an emblem to be.