Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 9th, 2022

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

The model of the bill is one of symbols and emblems, because of what we saw transpire a couple of weeks ago on Parliament Hill, with the symbols of the Confederate flag and the symbols of the Nazi swastika. It's absolutely reprehensible.

I agree with Ms. Lewis that blackface is an absolutely reprehensible practice and action. When she raised it, I looked quickly for the issue of banning blackface. What I see are references to theatre productions, television networks and the Paris opera, all of which have considered bans on blackface. That is important.

It's different from the intent of the bill that I brought forward, which is banning these symbols and emblems that we saw so despicably displayed on Parliament Hill just two weeks ago.

What Ms. Lewis presents is extraordinarily important and valuable. It's a different approach. We're talking about a different category of reprehensible actions, compared to the emblems and symbols that are represented by the swastika and the Confederate flag.

I certainly would like to take some time to look into this a bit more. Of course, Ms. Lewis has the opportunity to bring forward a motion like this when we're talking about actions that are banned in theatre, in opera, on television networks or in movies. That seems to be the extent to which the banning of blackface has taken place. It is a reprehensible practice that should be banned, and is banned in live theatre, in opera and on television.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Mr. Housefather, was your question answered?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I don't think Mr. Julian really had the answer to my question.

I think we both recognize that it's very important and a horrible practice. The question is whether it is a symbol or emblem related to something that Parliament can end or limit the display of. I'm not 100% sure. I don't have that knowledge. That's why I didn't put it in the original draft of the motion.

Right now it says “such as”. May I make a friendly suggestion to everybody that we undertake a study on the history and current display of hate symbols and emblems and take out the words “such as the swastika and Confederate flag”? Anyone could then raise whatever hate symbols or emblems they want with witnesses in the context of the study. We could have more time to think about what those may be. I don't know whether that's a symbol or an emblem.

Would that be a solution that is acceptable to everybody? These are just two examples of what they might be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Lewis.

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

The fact that we are contemplating this for educational purposes is very important. It's clear that many people don't understand the historical legacy of blackface. It was perpetuated in the theatre to mock and to put Black people in their place, and that is a place of bondage and slavery.

Just as somebody would come to a parade and fly a flag for intimidation, the theatre was a place of mockery. People went to degrade other human beings and to make them subhuman.

The fact that we're even contemplating it is deeply hurtful to me. It's enlightening and promising because I see a future in understanding that we are going down a path where we will look into just how hurtful these symbols are.

Thank you. I agree with your amendment.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Would everybody consider it a friendly amendment that we simply say “hate symbols and emblems in Canada” and not give the examples? Then when we question the historians or the witnesses we bring, anybody can talk about any symbols or emblems they wish.

I think I see heads nodding. If that's okay, Madam Chair, I hope that would be considered a friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes. I think Ms. Lewis said she liked the amendment.

Are you withdrawing your amendment, Ms. Lewis?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Then we will go back to this new motion, which is a subamendment to the amendment.

Since you're withdrawing it yourself, I think maybe we can consider Mr. Housefather's subamendment and not vote on an amendment that has been withdrawn, if that's okay with everyone.

Mr. Coteau and then Mr. Julian.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I think it has been resolved. I'm fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Julian.

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

I think that is an appropriate solution.

I would just like the revised motion to be reread.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Peter, I'm going to try to do it including your amendments, if that's okay.

We're going to remove also the amendment that added Nazi before swastika because we're not having that word in there anymore.

I could read it in French afterwards, if you wish.

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

Thank you, Ms. Lewis, for your suggestions, and Mr. Julian and Mr. Champoux for your help in getting this done.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

If you wish, I could read it again.

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

Dispense.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Great. Thank you. That's good.

The motion is now passed. Again, it is “at least one meeting”. I may want to add a caveat that, you know, this is not going to be one meeting, if we're going to be looking at this from the broadest symbol of hate perspective that we're doing now.

I may want to ask if somebody wanted to make an amendment.

Well, it says “at least one meeting”. I'd like you to think about it so that the next time we get together, you can decide whether you're going to want more than one meeting.

Thank you very much. You all worked so well as a committee. I'm so proud of you.

The meeting is adjourned.