Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Senator Plett's proposed amendment to Bill C-210, An Act to amend the National Anthem Act (gender).

I cannot support this amendment. It isn't because I necessarily have an issue with the language of the amendment; rather, it's because of the use of the tactic that would in essence kill the bill by sending an amendment back to the House of Commons, where unanimous consent would be required to transfer the sponsorship of Bill C-210 to a new member before the amendment could be considered.

Last year, Conservative members in the House of Commons blocked a motion requiring unanimous consent to transfer sponsorship of Bill C-210 from the sponsor of the bill, the late Honourable Mauril Bélanger, to the Honourable Andrew Leslie, Member of Parliament for Orléans. This action adds certainty to the notion that Senator Plett's amendment, if supported, would have the effect of killing the bill, because the Conservatives in this chamber and in the other place have demonstrated, and the new leader of the Conservative Party, Andrew Scheer, admitted last year while he was Conservative house leader in the House of Commons, that their party is not willing to do anything to support the continuance of consideration of this legislation.

I disagree with my colleague who mentioned last week that he did not believe we should tamper with our national anthem in any artificial manner. This is simply not an artificial change to our national anthem, to a symbol of our national identity. Women's equality is simply not a passing fashion of our modern society, and I would argue that it does indeed shine new light for the future, a future where our national anthem reflects a more inclusive society for now and into the future.

We have heard in this chamber that Canada would not be the first to make its anthem more inclusive. Our efforts have been surpassed by Austria and Switzerland, two countries that have both chosen to progress to gender-neutral language.

It is for these reasons that I encourage and would like to propose to Senator Plett that he withdraw the amendment he has proposed in order that this chamber be given the opportunity to do its job and vote on this bill in a timely fashion. Thank you. Merci. Meegwetch.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett: Would the senator take a question?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Pate, will you accept a question?

Senator Pate: Yes, I will.

Senator Plett: Senator Pate, you started off your speech today with the comment that you could not support this, and you used the word, "tactic." Clearly that has some connotations to it. You can explain what you meant by that if you wish. But my question is this: Are you aware that I had an in-depth conversation with the sponsor of the bill in the Senate, and she wasn't aware of the rule, nor was I, that this would have the effect of killing the bill?

I take exception to the insinuation that somehow I was using a tactic when I presented the amendment. I absolutely know the problems right now, but when I presented the amendment I was ignorant of that particular rule, as was the sponsor of the bill. We had a conversation. She quite frankly said she might be able to support my amendment. This was on a Friday. On a Monday, she called me back, because over the weekend she had found out what the rule was. So before you use the word "tactic," my question is: Did you discuss with Senator Lankin the conversation that we had, and would you like to withdraw the use of the word "tactic"?

Senator Pate: We all learn from education. I'm glad to be advised that you have now learned that that would have the effect of killing the bill. So I am happy to say that if you're willing to withdraw the amendment that clearly it was not a tactic.