Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 25 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 23, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill S-3, to amend the National Anthem Act to include all Canadians, met this day at 11:08 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Michael Kirby (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we are here to consider Bill S-3, which is Senator Poy's private member's bill to amend the National Anthem Act. We have a several witnesses this morning, so let us try to use our time efficiently. The Canadian Legion, who was invited to appear, has sent a letter, which at some point I will read into the record.
Our first witness is the sponsor of the bill, Senator Poy.
The Honourable Vivienne Poy: Thank you, Senator Kirby.
Bill S-3 proposes that the English lyrics of the anthem be amended by replacing the words "all thy sons command" with the words "all of us command." No change to the French lyrics is proposed.
This bill is co-sponsored by Senator Tommy Banks, a noted musician from Alberta.
I should like to begin by discussing the history of Bill S-3. I spoke in an inquiry in the Senate in February 2001 in which I pointed out the omission of women and girls in the lyrics "in all thy sons command" in our national anthem. As a result of this inquiry and the unprecedented media attention surrounding it, there was an outpouring of support for amending the national anthem to include women and girls with words that would be more inclusive. I should like to table some of the letters I received from the public in support of an amendment.
Following this, a petition was launched on Parliament Hill by Ms. Frances Wright and Ms. Jeanne d'Arc Sharp, both of whom are here day, and the ad hoc committee of the Famous 5 Foundation in July2001. Since then, 3,026 signatures have been collected on these petitions, which I should like to table here today. Many senators and individuals also expressed their support to me personally.
I will speak to the reasons for the proposed legislation. Despite this unprecedented level of support for an initiative and all the people encouraging me to go forward with legislation, I might not have felt compelled to introduce legislation in the Senate, had it not been for a number of factors.
First, at the time the national anthem was being debated in the House of Commons in 1980, all three House leaders agreed to facilitate the adoption of the bill by limiting the debate during second reading to one speaker for each party and by not proposing any amendments to the English version of the national anthem. This sense of urgency around the passage of the National Anthem Act stemmed from the collective unease about the state of the country's unity as a result of the referendum in Quebec in May of the same year. As such, the federal government felt it was necessary to shore up national symbols that would bind the country together. The act was passed with little input from Canadians. Nevertheless, House leaders recognized that amendments were necessary in the English text and agreed to have amendments dealt with by way of private members' bills that would be referred to a special committee at the following session of Parliament. This procedure was never put in action.
In keeping with this commitment, six private members' bills have been introduced in the other place since 1984 that call for an amendment to the words "in all thy sons command," to make it more inclusive of women. However, none of these bills has ever made it to committee.
Clearly, this amendment should have been made, in keeping with the leaders' commitment in 1980. Now, Bill S-3 is an attempt to ensure that this commitment is fulfilled.
Second, as Senator Beaudoin has so ardently argued in the chamber, this amendment would ensure that the national anthem is in keeping with the principle of equality rights between the sexes, as guaranteed in section 28 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which came into effect in 1982, reflecting the participation of women in Canadian society.
Third, I discovered that, contrary to all available sources, including Canadian Heritage, the original wording of O Canada, in 1908, from the National Archives, did not contain the words "true patriot love in all thy sons command." Instead, in 1908, the words of O Canada read as "True patriot love thou dost in us command." Canadian Heritage has now corrected the information on its Web site. Honourable senators, I should like to table this document, which shows the first copyrighted version of O Canada by sir Robert Stanley Weir.
Fourth, there was a precedent for changing a national song. In Australia, a country similar to Canada, Advance Australia Fair was changed to make it more inclusive. The committee that examined the words of their national song in the early 1980s replaced, "Australian sons let us rejoice " with "Australians all let us rejoice," before it was proclaimed officially as their national anthem in 1984.
Fifth, with regard to Bill S-3, music historians and linguists have been consulted to determine that this amendment to replace the words "in all thy sons command" with "in all of us command" is both musically and linguistically sound.
On the history of Bill S-3, one year after the initial inquiry, in February2002, I introduced and delivered the second reading speech on Bill S-39, but this bill died as a result of prorogation of Parliament. When the present session of Parliament opened, I immediately reintroduced the bill, which is now known as Bill S-3. I thank all the senators who have spoken on both Bills S-3 and S-39, both for and against this amendment. It is important to have a debate on the symbols of our country. I note that the debate has been passionate.
I shall now address the concerns about Bill S-3. Obviously, there are concerns about this amendment because we all have an attachment to our national anthem and thus have strong feelings about it. I hope I can address some of the concerns that have been expressed.
The first concern is that it is not possible to amend the anthem because it is our tradition. However, Sir Robert Stanley Weir amended the song O Canada a number of times. There were many different versions of O Canada in circulation throughout the 20th century. The committee that met to examine the national anthem in 1967 also altered nine words of the anthem. I am proposing to change only two words.
Therefore, the tradition of the national anthem, such as it is, dates back to 1980. Indeed, if one wants to stay with tradition, one should go back to the truly original version of the national anthem of 1908, which contained the word "us" instead of "sons."
The second concern is that this is about political correctness. Well, it is not. There are many words that used to be used that are no longer acceptable in Canadian society. The Canadian Press style guide dictates inclusive language. Even Star Trek has changed its opening to "where no one has gone before." Many churches offer alternative versions in their hymnals that are inclusive of women. The United Church declares, in its guidelines, that inclusive language is important because "language both reflects and shapes our world....the use of inclusive language is thus a justice issue and cannot be dismissed as a passing fashion or a concern of a radical few." The New International Version of the bible has been altered to make its language more inclusive of women. Indeed, if Sir Robert Stanley Weir used inclusive language in the original wording of O Canada, why should we deem the proposed amendment politically correct? Inclusive wording dates back to 1908.
The third concern is that the amendment shows disrespect for men who fought in wars. I am afraid I am thoroughly confused by this argument. Is going to war the only way to show patriotism? This amendment does not take away any recognition for men. It would do that if it were to read "in all thy daughters command." An amendment to the word "us" merely includes all the women who were also involved in the war effort in innumerable ways. What about the women who helped on the home front in the factories, the women pilots who delivered planes to the men in the air force, those who worked as nurses serving in the front lines? I am sure we all know how important women's contributions have been during war.
Mr. Stuart Lindop, a veteran of World War II, passionately argues as follows:
As a veteran, a volunteer, wounded in action liberating Holland, I am very well aware of the tremendous contribution made by women to Canada's war effort in the Armed Forces, in industry, and on the home front. The women who are members of our Canadian Armed Forces must find a certain irony when they sing our national anthem, especially the fourth sentence, "True patriot love in all thy sons command." Women are implicitly excluded from recognition.
Another veteran, Donald Jackson, wrote:
I am in my 80th year and I am a veteran of World War 2. It has bothered me for some time that the words to our national anthem "True patriot love in all thy sons command" would seem to exclude women. I feel that this part of the Anthem should read: "True patriot love in all of us command." A simple change but it would include all Canadians, not just the men of Canada."
The fourth concern is that it will open the anthem to endless changes. It will not. I am not proposing changes to the French version of the national anthem, nor to the reference to God, nor to the word "native." The intent of this bill is simply to update the anthem so that it is more reflective of our society today, as well as inclusive of more than 50 per cent of our population.
Why is this a positive amendment? I should like to table a document with a number of quotes from leading figures in the media, in academia, in women's studies and in government who have voiced their support for this change. If you permit me, I shall read a few quotes from this document. The Honourable Mitchell Sharp, who has a long history with the Government of Canada, wrote:
I write to congratulate you for your decision to introduce legislation that will replace the word "sons" appearing in the national anthem in the phrase "true patriot love in all thy sons command," by a word that has the effect of including both sexes.
Dr.Lorna Marsden, who some of you may remember from her days in the Senate, now president of York University, wrote:
Congratulations on your Bill introduced to change the wording of the National Anthem back to its original non-sexist form — your arguments based on the original 1908 version of the wording are indisputable.
I also received a letter of support from Dr.Robert Birgeneau, president of the University of Toronto, who said:
I congratulate you on taking the initiative in this very important matter of equity in one of the most powerful expressions of our Canadian identity — our national anthem.
Mr.Peter Trueman, well known from his days as a news anchor on Global Television, wrote:
In my view the words "true patriot love in all thy sons command" should be replaced by the words "true patriot love in all of us command."
Women's organizations and women's studies groups also endorse this amendment. The United Church, in keeping with its policy of inclusive language in its hymnals, also passed a motion that supported this amendment.
This amendment is also for future generations of girls and boys studying in school today. It represents a real commitment to equality in the words of our most important song.
Consider Catherine Clark's editorial in The Toronto Star, when, as an impressionable 14 year old, she realized that she was not included in the anthem. I quote:
What struck my young mind that particular Canada Day was the lyric "in all thy sons command," and the fact that our anthem didn't refer to me, or to anyone of my gender.
The YWCA of Canada, which works actively with girls across the country, has written to say that they see a need for change in the anthem to reflect the aspirations of girls.
Consider the school children who sing this anthem. A number of teachers have also taken up the cause. In 1993, Judith Olson, a music teacher in Ontario, launched the O Canada fairness committee after having numerous students wonder about the implicit exclusion in the words "in all thy sons command."
I have received numerous letters from fathers and husbands who feel uncomfortable with the wording of the anthem and asked that it be changed. I represent many Canadian voices in being here today.
A national anthem should belong to its people and should be a way for people to express their pride in their country. It is part of our identity. When, in 1980, the National Anthem Act was passed without consideration of important issues such as the wording "thy sons," Canadians did not have a chance to have their say. As I stated before, the National Anthem Act was passed through the House of Commons and the Senate in one day, on June27, 1980, with the House leaders limiting the debate to one speaker for each party with the promise that all bills proposing amendments such as the words "sons" would be considered by a special committee. Because this never happened, no committee had a chance to hear witnesses from the public to examine the National Anthem Act of 1980. No presenters were invited to appear, and even MPs and senators were limited in their input.
On June27, 1980, the then secretary of state and minister of communications, Francis Fox, who brought the bill forward, acknowledged that "many would like to see the words `sons' and "native land' replaced to better reflect the reality of Canada." He continued:
I believe all members are sympathetic to these concerns. I would therefore like to assure honourable members that in the course of the next session the government would be willing to see the subject matter of private member's bill on this question.
Ed Broadbent, former leader of the NDP stated:
I want to say that in this context that part of the understanding expressed by the minister in introducing the subject today is that a committee will be struck during the next session to deal with some important changes to the wording.
In particular, Ed Broadbent referred to an amendment to the word "sons."
This procedure was never put in place, and so the people's representatives were not permitted to express their misgivings due to the closure of debate. Misgivings were also expressed in the Senate, and the bill only passed under the assumption that a committee would be struck to consider amendments to make it more reflective of Canada.
Since 1980, almost all of the private members' bills suggesting amendments to the anthem have addressed the word "sons." Now we have an anthem that excludes half the school children sitting in classrooms. Its wording contradicts the message that teachers everywhere are proposing— that girls and boys are equal in ability, capacity, and in service to their country. We need to correct this situation for the future of Canada.
Consider the women in our military today who stand proudly ready to fight for Canada and consider the women who supported the war effort so ably in the past. Think of the women athletes who have gained great acclaim in the Olympics and think of the women immigrants who thought they had arrived in a country of equal opportunities.
Honourable senators, when O Canada is played to proud acclaim, it is meant to inspire. Let it inspire all Canadians.
Senator Fairbairn: Thank you, Mr.Chair, and thank you very much, Senator Poy. You have taken a very courageous step in putting this forward. I know that it has been a long process.
There are several things I should like to say before I ask my question. I am glad to see Frances Wright today. We come from a province still very close to its frontier, and we have been brought up by mothers and families that have encouraged us, sometimes even when they really did not want to, to step up and join in equal partnership with all of our colleagues.
This is not a case in my view of political correctness. It is not a case of any kind of prejudice. It is a case of omission.
In my area of southern Alberta, we sing the national anthem non-stop; we love to sing it. I am proud to be an Honorary Colonel of the 18th Air Defence Regiment. When we have medal ceremonies, we sing the national anthem, and I look at the soldiers, men and women, standing in front of me who have come back from Bosnia and are suffering quietly from some of their encounters while doing their jobs. It is difficult to look at those women while singing the words of our anthem.
However, before any of that, I would confess to the committee, and to one and all, that this issue has bothered me since about grade 3. It was during a time of war and I could not understand why we were singing that song. My young schoolmates and I were somehow on the sidelines of our national anthem.
Obviously, I support what you are doing, Senator Poy. You have listed a great number of important people who have responded to your effort positively. I wonder, Senator Poy, have you heard from young people? Have you heard from children in the process of promoting this and getting the message out?
Senator Poy: All the responses that I remember are from parents. The YWCA represents the children, but I do not remember receiving letters from the children, with the exception of parents or adults who have said that the issue has bothered them for a very long time or teachers who have said that children ask why they are not part of this anthem. The teachers communicated that to me on behalf of the children.
Senator Callbeck: Senator, I certainly commend you for bringing forward this proposed legislation. I know it has taken a long time and I thank you for sticking with it. I support it for the obvious reasons that you have mentioned.
With any piece of proposed legislation, there is always a great deal of concern expressed, as there has been with this. You have made reference to those concerns and you have adequately covered them.
I have one thing that I want to ask you about. The title of the proposed legislation is "An act to amend the National Anthem Act to include all Canadians." Some people say that there should be other changes made to that title. For example, "native land" excludes landed immigrants. Other issues have arisen from other wording, as well. I should like to have your comment on that.
Senator Poy: Actually, the public has asked me those questions as well. I have received many other suggestions, but I am not making changes to the other words. You specifically mention "native land." In the existing anthem, the word "native" in the phrase "our home and native land" usually means born here. Many Canadians are born here; immigrants choose Canada as their home. I look at Canada as a home I have chosen, but it is the native land of my children. In that way, it includes everyone. I do not have a problem with that. If it bothers other people, they will need to deal with it.
Senator Callbeck: I have also heard about "God save our land." The word "God" is exclusive to some religions.
Senator Poy: I do not think it is. In response to those people who have asked me to take out that word, I say that God is just a superior being. Everyone has his or her own God, if indeed the individual believes in a superior being. A small percentage of Canadians do not believe in anything, but most of us do. It depends what we call that God. It could be a God for a Muslim, a Hindu or a Christian. "God" to me means "a superior being." I do not have any trouble with that.
Senator Callbeck: Thank you, and congratulations.
Senator Cordy: I should also like to join with my colleagues in congratulating you on the tremendous amount of work that you have done. The documentation that you provided earlier was so detailed that it helped me to make my decision. I am also in support of your bill.
I am a member of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. Like Senator Fairbairn, I have travelled to military bases from the East Coast to the West Coast, and I have made it a point, as the only female on the committee, to seek to talk to female members of the military. The women and the men of our military are doing such an extraordinary job that I do not like to see women excluded when we are singing our national anthem. As a former elementary school teacher, I noted your comments on the fact that teachers are always trying to teach and promote equality of the sexes.
In your comments this morning, I was struck by the knowledge that the National Anthem Act was passed in 1980 and there was a promise of a committee to consider possible amendments at the time. Did you say that such a committee was never struck to look at that?
Senator Poy: That is right. I read through the Debates of the House of Commons, the Debates of the Senate and the history of the passage of the bill. The promise was made, but the moment the bill was passed the promise was dropped.
Subsequently, when MPs proposed private members' bills in the House of Commons, it just never got a chance. That was it. As an historian, I research thoroughly. I always want to get to the bottom of things. That was how we found all these facts of what truly happened and why the national anthem is worded the way it is. In 1980, we rushed to pass the National Anthem Act, in order to show unity in the country. It was only possible because the leaders promised the House of Commons and the Senate that the wording would be amended after; but it never happened.
Now is the time to fulfil that commitment.
Senator Cordy: You spoke to the historical aspect of the anthem. One of the concerns that I had when weighing the bill, although I certainly thought that the premise behind it was excellent, was whether this was an historical document. I wondered whether we would be changing the wording of an historical document. In fact, I discovered that the historical document uses the words that you are proposing.
Senator Poy: Yes, it uses the word "us."
Senator Cordy: It is all-inclusive. The historical document was changed to the word "sons." Thank you for your hard work.
The Chairman: I will ask the next sets of witnesses to come forward as a panel. We will hear from Mr. Kallmann, Ms. Wright, Ms. Sharp and Ms. Laidlaw-Sly.
I would ask the witnesses to make a brief opening statement. At the conclusion of all statement, we will then put questions to you collectively, which is the way we frequently do it. I will begin with Ms. Wright.
Ms. Frances Wright, President, Famous 5 Foundation: The Famous 5 Foundation is thrilled to participate in the restoration of the national anthem. Once again, thank you, honourable senators, for supporting and hosting the Famous 5 on Parliament Hill so that they can inspire others, all of us, to be nation builders. They would not have been here unless some of you had taken a leadership role. Key amongst you was Senator Fairbairn, Senator Poy for her generosity, and people such as yourself, Mr. Chair, and Senator Callbeck.
It is appropriate that we are gathered here today, five days after the 74th anniversary of the Persons case to talk about a word, a symbol — and the power that resides within it to bring us together or to split us apart. By reinstating the initial intent of the lyricist, Judge Stanley Weir, you will allow all of us to commit to the building of Canada simply by singing our anthem.
The Famous 5 Foundation was founded in 1996 to celebrate the seventieth anniversary of the Persons case, and also to recognize and encourage women's leadership, together with the good-hearted men of Canada. At all Famous 5 events, we sing O Canada. In the spring of 1997, an outstanding professor from the University of Calgary by the name of Dr.Betty Donaldson approached us to ask us if we could please change the words of the anthem so that it would include both sons and daughters. We were busy, so we said, "Could we deal with this in a couple of years time?"
Then three years ago, we toured the maquette of your monument across Canada to all provincial legislatures, and even here, and were partnered by the Girl Guides of Canada. After almost every presentation, the girls, or their fathers, came up to us and asked how they said, "How can I be part of the national anthem?" or "How can my daughter be part of the national anthem?" What a sense of patriotism is engendered when we sing O Canada. Luckily for us, Senator Poy said, "Yes, I will be your partner and I will champion this cause." We thank you so much, Senator Poy, and your excellent staff, for bringing to light so many of the pieces that we need today to make this decision.
When our petition was launched in 2001 here on the Hill, we were joined by Jeanne d'Arc Sharp — who will be making a brief presentation as well — and other members of the committee who are with us today. It has been a long process to bring us to where we are today.
Most Canadians believe that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is one of our best national symbols. That is what we are trying to do today, namely, to bring into harmony our entire national symbols, policies and practices.
All Canadians are actually bonded by other symbols, too. One of them is our currency. All Canadians use our currency, do they not? Next October, in the year 2004, the Bank of Canada and the Government of Canada will launch the new $50 bill as part of their fabulous new series entitled "Canadian Journeys," another initiative of the Famous 5 Foundation.
The new $50 bill will pay tribute to nation builders — but to female nation builders. They have produced a booklet, of which I, unfortunately, have just one copy for you today. However, please set aside October 13, 2004, to come to Calgary to celebrate the ways that Canadian women, together with the good-hearted men, have built this country. The issuing of this bill is the first time Canadian women have been honoured in this way. It will cause the girls and the boys and the women and the men to become more involved — to work, to stand on guard for Canada and to have true patriot love.
In January of next year, Parks Canada will convene a small symposium focusing on women's history. They are committed to developing new strategies, new venues and new ways to encourage and celebrate the daughters of Canada, so that both male and female nation builders are appreciated.
Because Canada does not have a pledge of allegiance, our anthem becomes doubly important. We not only praise and respect Canada and the people who have built this magnificent country, but we sing our pledge of allegiance — "O Canada, we stand on guard for thee." We will encourage ourselves and others to be involved in making Canada a better country whenever and wherever any Canadian sings, "True patriot love in all of us command" — new Canadians, old Canadians, young, old, slim, chubby, it does not matter — "in all of us command."
In the spring of 2001, the federal government opened our magnificent national military cemetery. Dominating the cemetery is a grand and glorious official monument — and I believe you have a news clipping of it — that says:
TO THE MEN
AND WOMEN
OF CANADA'S
ARMED FORCES
WHO HAVE SERVED
THEIR NATION
WITH DISTINCTION IN WAR AND IN
PEACE.
Luckily, Canada spends most of our time in peace.
I have received many letters from women who were WDs — Women's Division — of the RCAF or CWACs of the army, or wrens of the navy and, indeed, a number of the women serving today.
Therefore, so that all our national symbols and policies are consistent and in harmony, please revive the anthem. Make it consistent and true to our history, to our international reputation and to our dreams. This you can do by approving Bill S-3. By reclaiming the initial sentiment, the singing of O Canada will position the anthem as the new call to serve our nation for all of us. It will no longer be vague as to who builds Canada, whether one is seven or 70; when we sing O Canada, we will all know very clearly. "True patriot love in all of us command," and all of us thank you.
[Translation]
Ms. Jeanne d'Arc Sharp, Member of the Famous 5 Foundation: Mr. Chairman, greetings to all committee members.
[English]
My congratulations go first to the board of directors of the Famous 5 Foundation, and its president and CEO, Frances Wright. In a document entitled, "Strategic Directions 2000-05," the line under the heading "public awareness" reads as follows: "Implement a plan resulting in the national anthem becoming gender neutral."
Second, my congratulations go to Senator Poy. Senator Poy launched a first inquiry in February 2001, and again in October 2002. Her research uncovered the original 1908 version of O Canada. The words read, "True patriot love thou dost in us command."
When Britain is at war, Canada is at war. There is no distinction, said the prime minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in the House of Commons on January 12, 1910. In early August of 1914, when Britain declared war on Germany, the Duke of Connaught, then Governor General of Canada, spoke of "a great exhibition of genuine patriotism here" — meaning across the Dominion. At that time, His Honour Robert Stanley Weir amended, and then copyrighted, his national song O Canada to read, "True patriot love in all thy sons command." No wonder. From 1914 to 1918, fathers, brothers, sons, were needed on the battlefields by the thousands. Thousands more were needed to replace the heavy casualties.
Although in much smaller numbers, women were there from the beginning: 2,504 nurses in uniform served in the overseas military forces of Canada; 39 of them died in action.
Mr. Chairman, during the years 1914 to 1918, the home front engaged in a tremendous war effort. In addition to sending troops in the first weeks of the war, one cannot forget a law given Royal Assent on September 20, 1917. It was an act to authorize the levying of a war tax on certain incomes. One also remembers the act signed on May 24, 1918, to provide compensation where employees of his Majesty are killed or suffer injuries while performing their duties.
Today, Canadians are still paying income tax, and our male and female soldiers continue to receive compensation for injury or death in a theatre of war. Likewise, for the national anthem, singing "true patriot love in all thy sons command" excludes women, who populate more than 50 per cent of our country, who excel in all fields of endeavour and who serve with gallantry in the military. I have no doubt that in 1908 Judge Weir's intent in writing his first version of O Canada was to include men and women.
I support Bill S-3. Its purpose is to return to the author's original version by reinstating the word "us" in the lyrics of our national anthem. All Canadians will then sing it with greater enthusiasm.
Ms. Catharine Laidlaw-Sly, President, National Council of Women of Canada: The National Council of Women of Canada — NCWC — wishes to thank you for this opportunity to voice our support for Senator Poy's initiative to amend the English words of our national anthem. Further, we wish to commend her for the research that she has done and the information assembled.
It is worth noting, as has been brought out already, that the original words of our national anthem were inclusive. Departing from our printed text, I should like to point out that NCWC was aware of that fact in 1983 when it spent some time discussing the issue over the course of its business in that year.
NCWC was not satisfied in 1980, generally speaking, with the words adopted. They did express their belief that it was the love of our country and a loyalty to it in both good times and bad, feelings that were not exclusive to the men of the country but could be felt by anyone. They had also become sensitive — and this point has already been raised by your questions, Senator Callbeck — to the fact that perhaps "native" was not an appropriate word, given that so many Canadians had chosen Canada as their home.
In 1983, our national council did have a great deal of discussion. To determine exactly what members felt, the council issued a questionnaire. They did not engage a professional. As you can imagine, when you do an amateur job, you get mixed results. The questionnaire listed choices without first asking the overriding question, "Do you want change? If so, what change?" The question about asking for change came at the end of the questionnaire. The result was that 30 per cent felt that there was no need for change; 48 per cent favoured replacing the words "all thy sons" with "all of us" and just over 25 per cent felt that "all thine own" would be a suitable replacement.
It is very striking that over 64 per cent, almost two thirds of the membership that responded, recommended that "native" should be replaced with the word "cherished." I thought that was interesting. I was not aware of that until I received the background notes from that year. A resolution was prepared for consideration at the annual general great meeting, but it would seem there was not sufficient agreement at the time to adopt a policy. I should add that this probably was an emergency resolution. A two third majority is needed in order to pass an emergency resolution. Sadly, the issue was not addressed in another year.
Since then, many of our members have continued to use the words "all of us" in preference to the official text. When we discussed the issue last year, it was pointed out to us that, ever since the first United Nations World Conference on the Status of Women, the importance of ensuring that national institutions and symbols — and we see the national anthem as one of our very most important symbols— are inclusive. We are now aware that it is no longer satisfactory to use the English custom that regards the masculine third person as a collective reference to both females and males. We believe that it tends to perpetuate the word image of the male as the more valuable citizen. Women have struggled too long for equal rights to accept the continued use of the masculine gender as a convenient figure of speech. As well, it is time that our girl children should no longer have to accept this rather lame explanation that "sons" really means daughters too. Logically, it should say so if that is what it means. When the topic is raised now, it would appear that changing "all thy sons" is seen as an important and overdue change.
Also, our member who represents us at the United Nations pointed out that in the Beijing Platform for Action, under the heading "Institutional Mechanisms for the Advancement of Women", article 197 speaks about the need to make changes so that the mechanisms and institutions will act to promote the advancement of women as an integral part of the mainstream and political, economic, social and cultural development.
We feel that "social" and "cultural" are the two words in the act that change the national anthem to make it more inclusive. We recommend strongly that this action be taken.
Last year, our members were pleased to instruct our president to write and express their support for this bill. NCWC wishes to express its hope that the intent will be realized and that members of Parliament will act to remedy this situation.
The Chairman: Finally, we have Helmut Kallmann, a former music historian at the National Library.
Mr. Helmut Kallmann, Former Music Librarian: Honoured senators and honoured guests, I want to give you a quick overview from a mainly musical point of view.
Before O Canada was written in 1880, there were a number of substitute national anthems in Canada that were sung on patriotic occasions— for example, A La Claire Fontaine, Vive la Canadienne and, one especially written song, Sol canadien, terre chérie. In 1867, 13 years before O Canada , we had The Maple Leaf For Ever. I should add that "for ever" is two words. It is usually spelled as one, but it should be two. None of these songs achieved official status, although they were sung on all patriotic occasions.
The origin of O Canada has something to do with Saint-Jean Baptiste celebrations in June. In that particular year, 1880, there was also a national holiday for French Canadians. For that occasion, they decided to have a national song contest.
They felt that Canada was at a stage where a national anthem was needed. The contest began, but they realized that it was already March, the celebration would be in June and that you could not have a contest judged and the winner published in that time. Ernest Gagnon, president of the committee, asked his friend, Calixa Lavallée, 1842 to 1891, to compose the music. Mr. Lavallée was an outstanding and well-recognized musician who had written many dances, musical comedies, marches and piano pieces, some of which had many publishers. He was quite the man to ask for such a tune. Mr. Lavallée set about writing three or four possible tunes and sent them to his friends. The tune we know as O Canada was unanimously selected.
It is interesting that the music came before the words. Gagnon said to Lavallée, "Why do you not write something like O Canada?" Thus, he may have given him the first few notes. After Lavallée wrote the music, they went to Sir Adolphe-Basil Routhier, who wrote the French words that are current today.
The anthem was first performed on June21, 1880, but it was not sung. Rather, it was played by mass military and civilian bands; the first vocal performance took place the following Sunday, I think.
O Canada, in my view and in the view of many other people, is a splendid tune, but not everyone thinks so. There are some people who forever point out that the opening of O Canada reminds one of the march of the priests in the second act of The Magic Flute.
I quote from a letter to the Globe and Mail two years ago:
It is the music that bothers me. There is more than a passing similarity between Calixa Lavallée's melody and the opening to act 2 of Mozart's The Magic Flute. I suppose if you are going to borrow someone else's tune, you may as well take from the best. Come to think of it, Canada is really a second-hand country, so I suppose it is only appropriate that our anthem is slightly used.
I was furious when I read this. It is a rather smart-alecky letter. I wrote a response to The Globe and Mail, but they did not publish it. The point is not that the tune came from Mozart's but that only one or two bars are similar. O Canada is 28 bars in length. Mozart had used the same in one of his earlier operas, and not only Mozart but also 100 years before Mozart Corelli used it in two violin sonatas. Even closer to Lavallée is Sonata for Young People written by Robert Schumann in the 1850s, which is also similar.
The point is that any musician, anyone who can count from one to five, can permute the figures 1-3-5, 3-5-1, 5-3-1. Add 1-3-5 and you would have the last movement of Beethoven's Symphony No. 5. We have 3-5-1 here, and with 5-3-1 we would have the Die Meistersinger Overture by Wagner. It does not take a genius to figure this out.
O Canada became very popular very quickly in the province of Quebec among French-speaking Canadians. However, the only text was French. Around 1901, the Duke of Cornwall and York, later George V, visited Toronto, Ontario. The tune was played without the lyrics but from then on the translation just mushroomed.
The first performance of any currency was by Thomas Bedford Richardson. The choir at Massey Hall also sang it in 1906. In 1908, Sir Stanley Weir wrote the lyrics of the version that we sing today.
There were several contests. Collier's magazine had one that brought in 350 submissions. You can imagine how many good ones there were. Some were attempts at translating the French text, which just did not work, and others were new versions. The Toronto public library, now the Metro Toronto Library, has a script, which I saw years ago, of 25 different printed versions of the text.
This was just before World War I. Since then, there have been numerous publications of the music and numerous recordings in later years. In 1967, the idea was approved that O Canada should be the national anthem but it was adopted as the national anthem only in 1980.
I certainly support Senator Poy's plan for the wording change. I think there is no harm in changing a few words in the lyrics. It is not as though it is a poem by Shelley or Keats or Wordsworth. You can change old-fashioned language anyway, but the national anthem, after all, expresses sentiments and is a means to express sentiments. I do not think the words are sacrosanct. I wholeheartedly support the idea of making the change. If I were a senator, I would vote in favour.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr.Kallmann. Do senators have questions for members of the panel?
Senator Callbeck: I have learned much about the national anthem that I did not know before I came in here.
Did I hear you correctly, Mr. Kallmann, when you said that in 1967 it was approved to be the national anthem but not adopted until 1980?
Mr. Kallman: There is a difference between approval and law-making. I do not know whether it was legislated in 1967. I do not have the text here. It is a fine difference.
Senator Callbeck: Mr.Chair, I want to take the opportunity to commend Frances Wright for the part she played in getting the monument of the Famous 5 on the Hill. I know that she was the major mover. I have never seen a monument that receives so much attention. Each time I walk by the statue, people are there. Generally, someone is in the chair getting his or her picture taken. Thank you very much.
The Chairman: I am in the office frequently over the course of the summer. I have noticed that the other statues basically get ignored. I have never seen a tourist group or groups of people not go to the Famous 5 monument. The people who sit in the chair are always young girls. It is just an interesting observation that that monument has become the focal point of the monuments on the Hill. It is popular beyond what one might have anticipated at the time it was launched.
Ms. Wright: It definitely exceeds what we anticipated. Obviously, the attractiveness of the monument belongs to the artist, Barbara Patterson, another Albertan.
Two years ago, a guard who normally works days but for the past couple of months had worked nights telephoned me. He told me that, during the days, there are people around the monument all the time, but he said that every half hour or so one person or two people come to be with the statue. He said that for the most part they are female, but some are men, too. They come, and they sit. He said that over 50 per cent of them would then cry and heave.
This was surprising to us. The Ottawa committee said that a number of self-help groups visit the statute, as well as sick people, who seek comfort from these Mothers of Confederation. Different people have told me that when they are struggling with a divorce or bankruptcy, they want to be with a group that is nurturing and that gives them the courage to continue.
I thank you all very much for making this possible.
The Chairman: Any other questions?
Senator Fairbairn: I have caught fellows sitting in the chair, too. It is true. It has been like a magnet. We are all very thrilled with that, especially female senators and especially female senators from Alberta who feel rather strongly about this.
Senator Poy, you talk about young people being attracted to the statues. These kinds of changes are not aimed at my generation. They are aimed at a younger generation, which represents women striving and now part, at an equal level, of national life. For them, it makes no sense to be excluded from our national anthem.
I notice, Ms. Wright, that each year a young woman becomes the recipient of the Governor General's Award in Commemoration of the Persons Case. I was wondering whether you might like to comment about how this is another signal to young women that they are equal, if we make this change in Parliament.
Ms. Wright: I return to the point of the symbols including everyone. One of the complaints that we have had is that our monument does not include men. My husband always felt that we should have the husbands circling the Famous 5 because they could not have done what they did without their husbands and the support of their families, too.
However, it is for the young people that our eye is cast because they have a tremendous responsibility of a much more complex world than we are living in today. If they can feel that their contributions are valued and, indeed, expected, they will do this, most powerfully by hearing and by singing "True patriot love in all of us command."
Why is it only when you are 21 that you can think of yourself as an adult and a participant in public life? Why can you not be 13 thinking about how to make this a better world? In a variety of different ways, they are already beginning on the environmental front, child slavery and whatever.
Singing "in all of us command" simply says to each and every one of us that in each and every one of us— in all of us — commandtrue patriot love. Particularly, this will help our young people.
Ms. Laidlaw-Sly: Senator Fairbairn, an issue that is important is the participation of young women in sports. I have now joined the ranks of great-grandmothers, and I am very proud of it. My eight granddaughters have opportunities and are active in ways that were never possible previously. The inclusion of young women in all of these activities, as was pointed out in one of the discussions we had — it is our young women sports teams that have particularly brought glory to Canada. They have a better track record with gold medals— not that winning a gold medal is everything. The participation is important.
We all choke up when we hear O Canada, and we see the accomplishments of our young people, whether it is in the field of sports or in other endeavours. We need to have the symbolism match the reality. The reality is that our women are there.
The Chairman: May I thank the panel very much for their attendance here.
Before I call on our next witness, I shall read into the record a letter I received from Allan Parks, Dominion President, The Royal Canadian Legion.
Thank you very much for the invitation to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology to present our views on Bill S-3, An Act to Amend the National Anthem Act.
As indicated to you earlier by our Dominion Secretary, I regret that neither I nor one of our elected officers can appear before this committee on 23 October as we are presently committed for that date. However, we have previously discussed the proposal and have developed a position on the issue as follows:
The 400,000 men and women of The Royal Canadian Legion do not find the current wording of our National Anthem to be offensive and do not see any reason to amend the wording.
I would appreciate your support in forwarding the position of The Royal Canadian Legion to the committee with our respect.
Sincerely,
Allan Parks
Dominion President
Unfortunately, the Legion could not be here.
Senator Fairbairn: Mr.Chairman, might I just say a word?
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Fairbairn: I want to say to all of you who have come here today, thank you very much. I am leaving not because I want to but there is another great cause taking place on Parliament Hill. It is Literacy Action Day, and people come from all of Canada. I must lead the charge there.
The Chairman: Our final witness this morning is Mr.Rudyard Griffiths, the executive director of the Dominion Institute.
Mr. Rudyard Griffiths, Executive Director, Dominion Institute: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is very much an honour for the institute to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
As a charity dedicated to promoting knowledge of Canada's history and informed dialogue on public policy issues, the Dominion Institute acknowledges the historic role the Senate has played, and continues to play, in nurturing Canada's democratic traditions and culture.
By way of background, the work of the institute consists of conducting regular public opinion research into Canadians' knowledge of their history and operating free educational programs for high schools nationwide. In terms of our research, committee members might be familiar with our annual Canada Day quiz, as well as surveys that we conduct around Remembrance Day.
For teachers, we operate national speakers' bureaus of veterans and immigrant community leaders. In the last year, these bureaus have harnessed the enthusiasm of some 1,500 volunteers across Canada and have provided almost a quarter of a million youths with the opportunity to learn first-hand about our shared history and our shared citizenship from outstanding Canadians living in their communities.
You have asked me to share some of our thoughts on Bill S-3 and its proposed change to our national anthem. I do this with great pleasure.
The last thing I want to do with my limited time is provide you with a history lesson. I expect all of you are very much aware of the anthem, its creation, and the interesting piece of Canadian history that is the story of our anthem.
I will, however, begin with one quick aside before I get to the body of my remarks. In 2001, with the Ipsos-Reid group, we polled Canadians on their knowledge of the national anthem. To our distress, 37 per cent of respondents were not able to recite the lyrics of the anthem beyond the words, "O Canada, our home and native land." Clearly, much more work needs to be done in our schools, and in our popular culture, to ensure that the anthem remains as a touchstone of belonging for all Canadians. I encourage the Senate's work on Bill S-3 as part of making the anthem relevant today to Canadians.
The anthem is an official symbol of this country and warrants, as I said, serious and ongoing attention. Like many other national symbols — the maple leaf, for example — it is open to interpretation and revision. This is a healthy process. It is a process that ensures that our national symbols remain relevant to Canadians by being reflective of the values of our country.
For us at the institute, the litmus tests for changing a national anthem are those of relevance and the expression of common values. The questions for us to answer were as follows: "Does the anthem, as it is currently worded, still have relevance to Canadians?" Is it expressive of our collective values? Is the change to "of us" vital not only to capturing the spirit of Canadian society, but also a society that we know, moving into 21st century with an understanding and a self-perception, being a vibrant multicultural democracy?"
I would venture that the anthem, as it is currently written, is more than capable of meeting the tests of cultural relevancy and the expression of our common values.
In my remaining time, let me briefly explain why. The words "thy sons" appeared in the evolving text — and I stress evolving text — of the anthem in the run up to the Great War, a conflict where over 60,000 Canadians gave their lives. The horrific cost that Canada paid for its participation in World War I saw the words, "thy sons," take on even greater meaning and relevance in the 1920s and 1930s, as the country mourned its war dead.
Between 1945 and 1949, a million Canadians volunteered to fight for Canada and the values of freedom and democracy. At first, ill-prepared in the World War II, we quickly came to play a pivotal role in the defeat of fascism. With this victory, yet again Canada paid a horrible price in the lives of its citizens.
Today, in 2003, less than six World War I veterans still walk among us. We are, indeed, fortunate to have over 280,000 World War II veterans to honour; but according to Veterans Affairs Canada and the latest census information, in the next year some 30,000 of these heroes will pass on.
As a younger Canadian, this makes me very conscious that as a nation comprised largely of generations who, fortunately, have never known war, we alone will shoulder the very solemn burden of remembrance — that pledge that we all make as citizens at cenotaphs in our communities across Canada each November 11, never to forget. Here, I think the words "thy sons" are of the utmost relevance to contemporary Canada.
With more public education and better public education in our schools, the words "thy sons" can function as a powerful reminder to Canadians of the heroism and sacrifice of the 100,000 of our fellow citizens who died in the last century for the Canadian values of freedom, democracy and the respect for the rule of law.
In conclusion, we believe that the change to "of us" is motivated by the very best of intentions. It is also, as I said, promoting a very important debate and conversation around the anthem. The existing words, though, remain of acute relevance to Canadian society as a means to honour our remaining veterans and remind ourselves all too soon that in their absence the burdens of remembering Canada's proud military heritage will fall to us alone.
As to whether or not the existing wording is reflective of our common values — the second test that I set — we would argue that "thy sons" is evocative of the very best in Canadian beliefs. It reflects our steadfast commitment to defend freedom and democracy, not just of our fellow citizens, but of the peoples of the world over, who share with us the common bond of our humanity.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to contribute our perspective to your deliberations. I commend this committee for raising important issues about the nature and purpose of national symbols such as our anthem. Canada can only be better for this debate. I look forward to your questions.
The Chairman: I wish to ask a point of clarification. You said that the Dominion Institute would apply two tests, the test of relevancy and the test of whether any change reflected Canadian values. I believe you really said two things: First, that the proposed change continues to reflect Canadian values, but that you would prefer that the change not be made because of the attachment that Canadian veterans — particularly World War II veterans — have to the existing words. That is to say, you are not opposed to the change in the sense that it does not meet the relevancy test or it fails to meet your values test. You are opposed to it on the grounds that it moves attention away from the veterans of the World War II.
Mr. Griffiths: I would say that, yes, part of what we need to do for a specific period of time is acknowledge that there are 280,000 World War II veterans who live among us, and that they have a strong connection with "thy sons" and what it evokes for them. Equally important for the foreseeable future, there is also a responsibility for younger Canadians such as myself to continue on with that solemn pledge never to forget, to remember. These words, in the context of much more public education on our anthem, which is needed, could be what teachers would call a valuable teaching opportunity. It could be a way of reminding ourselves of our military history, our military heritage and the values of freedom and democracy, and the respect for rule of law that is intimately bound up with that heritage.
The Chairman: Your concern is tied to losing the heritage link, as opposed to disagreeing that the change reflects Canadian values, is that right?
Mr. Griffiths: Right. The change is also reflective of other important Canadian values. Again, the litmus test, we say, when you are making an important change to a national symbol, is this: Does the existing wording or the component of that symbol still have relevance for Canadians? In this case, I think it does. Also, is it still reflective and expressive of important Canadian values — maybe different ones, but still other important Canadian values — and I think that is the case.
Senator Cook: Thank you for your presentation. Help me to understand your reasoning. You are referring to the period of time of WWII and the veterans that came back from that war; am I correct?
Mr. Griffiths: I am starting with the Great War, and moving forward from that time. The degree to which there are only six World War I veterans among us goes to my second point — namely, how do we, as a society, prepare ourselves to assume the burdens of remembrance in the absence of our veterans as symbols of living history who can remind us most powerfully of this component of the Canadian story?
Senator Cook: I speak from my own personal experience. I am a Newfoundlander. I was not a Canadian at the time of the Great War, but I was a child and I can remember. I can remember my dad going and coming back, but I also remember my aunts going. If you are talking from the perspective of remembering — from this point I can remember people going, my family going — the women in my childhood went to war, as well as my dad. Some came back and some did not. If you are talking about moving into remembering for not my children but my grandchildren, I think we have accomplished that. I do not see how changing at this point in time applies, because that happened as we evolved as a nation, when women went to war during that time. If that is your focus, I am trying to understand that perspective. It is a comment more than a question.
The Chairman: Anyone else have questions for Mr.Griffiths?
Thank you for appearing here.
Senators, I am now in your hands. What is your pleasure in terms of responding to the bill?
Senator Callbeck: Pass it.
The Chairman: My sense is that we are looking for a motion that would allow the committee to report the bill back to the Senate unamended. Is that right?
Senator Callbeck: Yes. I so move, Mr. Chair.
Senator Robertson: Excuse me, Mr. Chair, with our diverse societies now, has anyone talked about the other problem?
The Chairman: Yes, we discussed that.
Senator Robertson: I am sorry, I was late.
The Chairman: I know you had an Internal Economy meeting. A discussion was held.
Senator Poy said in her opening comments that this was designed to deal centrally with this issue. In her view, there are mixed views on whether other changes are required. One possible change is related to "native land" and one related to, as you put it, the "God" issue.
This bill focuses solely on this question and certainly leaves open the prospect that, down the road, should someone wish to introduce a private member's bill to deal with other changes, one could do that.
I take it that Senator Callbeck has moved that we report the bill back to the Senate this afternoon without amendment. Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: I will do that this afternoon.
I wish to thank everyone who attended here for taking the time to do so. Senator Poy, thank you for being here.
The committee adjourned.