National Anthem Act

Honourable senators, I rise today to support Bill C-210, which would replace the words "true patriot love in all thy sons command" with "true patriot love in all of us command" in the English version of Canada's national anthem.

First of all, I would like to say that I have learned a few things from the very enlightening speeches given in this chamber by some of you over the past few months. I will also say that I have carefully read what has been written about this bill and that the arguments put forward by both sides are quite valid and pertinent. With that in mind, I will make my arguments as a young senator who, above all, admires the rigour of the arguments expressed and the conviction of those who expressed them.

In your statements, you spoke movingly and with conviction on many subjects: respect for our heritage and history, diversity and inclusiveness, equality between men and women, respect for artists and their work, the power of our symbols, respect for language and grammar, and our country's development and our ability to adapt as a result.

I found all of these topics to be thought-provoking, and I would like to share some of my thoughts with you today in what I consider to be my maiden speech in this august chamber.

In order to clarify my position on this bill, allow me first of all, honourable colleagues, to tell you what I felt and thought on November 15, 2016, when I had the privilege of entering this place for the first time as a senator.

On that day, I felt a great pride and a clear sense of responsibility associated with this new office. With each step, I felt the presence of the honourable Acadian senators who had preceded me, especially that of Pascal Poirier, writer, lawyer, man of the theatre and president of the Société Nationale de l'Assomption, who exactly 132 years ago this month became the first Acadian to sit in the Senate of Canada. He was a senator for 17,732 days, a little over 48 years, making him to this day the longest sitting senator. I am obviously very proud of his commitment to our country, but I can assure you that my term of office will be shorter.

On entering this chamber, I also had the strong sense that I was representing all the generations of men and women who came before me, of whom I am a humble descendant. I am the son of Livin, Adolphe, Michel, Charles, Thomas, Jean, Jean-Baptiste, Alexis, Thomas and Robert Cormier, master carpenter from Louisbourg. I am also the son of Anita, Louisa, Marguerite, Marie-Marcelline, Marie-Françoise, Agathe, Anne and Marguerite.

I'm not going through my family history to convince you that I'm a noble descendant of Louis XIV — I obviously don't have the right hair for the job — but to emphasize how important heritage and history is to Acadians. I was taught to respect the past from an early age. Like my nine brothers and sisters, I probably knew I was Acadian before I knew my own name.

That's how much my parents respected our culture and heritage. It was as if the deportation of our people in the 18th century meant that we must always call to mind the generations that came before us so that we could re-weave the tapestry of our history, reaffirm our common cultural identity and demonstration our connection to this land.

I completely understand the concerns some of you have expressed over respect for heritage and history, and I am expressing mine. That said, the French writer Anatole France said:

History is not a science, but an art. One only succeeds in it by the imagination.
Indeed, history is subject to interpretation and our reading of it is not immutable. It grows more refined with the knowledge and awareness that is gained over the generations. The evidence is that historians may have different perspectives of the same historical event. In Canada, have we not unfortunately failed to include some parts of our history in our textbooks? That is why in my eyes the proposed change has nothing to do with revisionism and everything to do with shedding light on the rich contribution that all Canadians have made to our history.

As I took my first steps into this chamber, I also carried a song in my heart, the national anthem of Acadia. Indeed, honourable colleagues, notwithstanding the respect the Acadian people had and continue to have for our country, the first Acadian leaders gave the political and cultural space that we call Acadia the first official symbols of its identity.

At the Acadian National Convention of 1881, the delegates chose August 15, the Feast of the Assumption, as the Acadian national holiday. In 1884 at the second convention, which was held in Prince Edward Island, the "birthplace of Confederation," they chose a flag, a motto, an insignia, and a national anthem, inspired by the social, cultural, and religious context of the time. The song that was chosen is a Latin Catholic hymn dedicated to the Virgin Mary: Ave Maris Stella.

This symbol has been changed over the years to keep it relevant as Acadian society has developed, and to make it meaningful to all generations. Some parts have been left in Latin, while French lyrics were introduced. Despite the resistance of some of my fellow Acadians, this version has become the standard, and I'm always moved when I hear young Acadians and newcomers sing the anthem proudly. The anthem remains a fundamental part of our collective identity because of these changes, and it inspires us to celebrate our past and carry Acadia into the future.

On entering this chamber that afternoon in November 2016, I was filled with a myriad of thoughts and deep emotions, as you all were, I imagine, when you were called here. I had a smile on my face to mask the anxiety I feel on such occasions when I am overcome by doubt. I questioned whether I would be accepted in this new environment and whether I would find my place as a poly-minority citizen: minority francophone living within the anglophone majority in Canada; minority francophone living outside the francophone majority in Quebec; minority because I have been living with a partner of the same sex for 33 years; minority in this chamber because I am not affiliated with a political party; and, why not, a minority because I am a bald man surrounded by such fine heads of hair.

What struck me most as I entered this chamber was the cultural plurality of this place and how it reflects the diversity of our country, something which is not quite so manifest in the homogenous francophone population that I come from and never really made its way into the everyday lives of my fellow citizens in the Acadian peninsula.

I agree that this diversity involves a great deal of openness and compromise. But isn't that one of the things Canada is banking on? To those people who feel there is an excessive use of the notion of inclusiveness due to political correctness, I say I will agree, if all we do is pay lip service to inclusiveness and diversity, without rooting them in our common cultural references, our symbols, laws and actions.

In addition to the cultural diversity in this place, I was also pleased and reassured to see the high number of women here. Those who make up 52 per cent of the population in Canada are still not fully represented in this place, but the Senate is moving toward greater gender balance and that is reassuring in terms of the future of democracy and our country.

Throughout Canada's history, many women have contributed to the development of our society. All of us have women in our communities who transform our daily lives and contribute to our individual and collective well-being with their actions, whether small or large. They are artists, social workers — I pay tribute to them today — businesswomen, doctors, professors, scientists, politicians and senators. They are our sisters, wives, grandmothers, mothers, aunts, nieces and friends. Would it not be legitimate for such an important segment of the Canadian population to fully identify with all our collective symbols?

Among the many statements about Bill C-210, I was delighted to read remarks by one of our honourable senators who spoke knowledgeably and passionately about respecting artists and their work. Although Canada has important legislation on copyright and the status of artists, Canadian creators face many challenges when it comes to respect for their work.

We all remember the Robinson case, the legal saga of Quebec author and animator Claude Robinson and the audiovisual production house Cinar, which began in 1996 when Claude Robinson accused the producers of plagiarizing his animated series Robinson Curiosité. The owners of Cinar had used his concept in a similar work entitled Robinson Sucroé. A long series of suits and legal battles in the courts followed, in an effort to recognize Claude Robinson's copyright. He spent more than 18 years of his life battling for justice. The Supreme Court of Canada finally ruled in his favour in 2013.

Respect for intellectual property is absolutely non-negotiable, and the same must be true for the integrity of creative works. That is why this chamber will need to pay close attention to the review of the Copyright Act this coming fall.

Having said that, the work in question in Bill C-210 is today in the public domain and does not have the same requirements. Section 6 of Part I of the Copyright Act states the following:

6 The term for which copyright shall subsist shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by this Act, be the life of the author, the remainder of the calendar year in which the author dies, and a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year.
After that, the work is in the public domain and can be used by anyone without authorization or payment of royalties. As the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development stipulates, in Canada we can even modify a work without authorization.

That is confirmed by the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, or SOCAN, a collective that handles the Canadian performing rights of more than 100,000 authors, composers, and editors.

In light of this information, we have to recognize that Bill C-210 in no way disrespects the integrity of Robert Stanley Weir's work, especially since it proposes reverting back to the original version of the piece, which used the words "of us".

"Us" and "nous" are words that resonate strongly in each official language. Their meaning today is so profound that this is, without a doubt, the reason why I will vote in favour of this bill.

Knowing, as we all know, the issues that are currently bombarding our country and the world, I don't think that changing two words in our national anthem is a top priority for our fellow citizens right now. However, I firmly and sincerely believe that the issue of "us," of our coexistence, is at the root of our current and future challenges.

To quote Anatole France, "Men more often feud over words. They are most willing to kill and to die for words." Some people on our planet know this all too well and use words as weapons to divide, instil fear, build walls between nations, and justify wars and conflicts.

Just a few days ago, we witnessed yet another act of unthinkable violence on the Westminster Bridge and in the British Parliament. Is that not another clear example of the pervasive desire in western society to tear things apart, to divide? Allow me to offer our most sincere condolences to the families affected, to our parliamentary colleagues, and to the people of England.

Honourable colleagues, I recognize there are many arguments for keeping our national anthem the way it has been since 1980. But Canada is not the country it was in the 1980s. Of course, it still has two official languages that we must continually reaffirm, without detracting from the other languages spoken in this country, whether by indigenous peoples or other communities. But the Canada that is approaching its one hundred and fiftieth anniversary has been irreversibly and forever changed.

I believe we would be making a mistake, honourable senators, if we did not include cultural strategies in our laws and actions that strengthen our common cultural references and collective identity. This requires us to sometimes have the courage to make changes to some of our symbols so that they become even stronger, more meaningful, and more engaging.

To those who say that this change would open the door to other changes, I say that you are undoubtedly right. That said, we cannot foresee what future generations will want to do, but we can certainly take action in our time, knowing that our children and grandchildren will have the wisdom to make their own choices.

Therefore, given the challenges facing our society to unite Canadians around a common vision, given Canada's desire to be a leader in equality and inclusiveness, and given the oversights and omissions that rob our collective history of some of its richness, whether it be the contribution by women, First Nations or minorities to our country's growth, I believe that, collectively, we need the "us" proposed in this bill.

Let us say so in our national anthem as the author did originally. Let us sing this slightly altered anthem with the conviction that it will resonate even more with Canadians of any background and gender, and let us be proud of the leadership and vision that we, honourable senators, can demonstrate by passing this bill.

I am certainly not trying to speak on behalf of Robert Stanley Weir, but given his original lyrics and his desire to stay relevant, and given that he himself adapted his lyrics to reflect the major political and social changes of his time, I think he would be pleased today if the word "us" reappeared in the lyrics that he wrote with such love for his fellow citizens.

I think this would also be the case for the sponsor of the bill, the late Mauril Bélanger, to whom I pay tribute with a great deal of emotion and gratitude.

Honourable senators, I sincerely thank you for allowing me to express my opinion, and I leave you with this quote attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."