National Anthem Act

Honourable colleagues, I rise today to speak on bill C-210 An Act to amend the National Anthem Act.  A country’s national anthem is arguably one of the most important aspects of a country's history and a symbol of its patriotism. Here in Canada, O Canada is a composition that evokes and praises our history, traditions and struggles.

I will speak a little further about the nature, origins and history that is our national anthem in a few moments. But first I want to talk to you a little about tradition. Tradition is the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation.

That’s important to me. And it’s important to most Canadians. It’s something that has been fought for, and fought over, and something that has passed the test of time and yes, colleagues, the test of politics and political flavour as well. No matter how hard the winds of change blow they cannot move the traditions that we stand on. Because we have passed them from generation to generation.

Traditions are important because they remind us who are and where we have come from. They are the foundation under our feet in this chamber which opens and closes each session with the same traditions. They are the art and culture and very fabric of our country. We can change a lot of things about ourselves, but we cannot change our traditions, because then we would lose something. A vital part of ourselves.

In this new era of new political correctness some have decided that they would change our traditions, like our national anthem. Because they want to retell our story. They want to rewrite our history as a country and as a people. For the sake of what they believe, they are willing to take away a piece of our past, a piece of our traditions - but they are not the majority of Canadians.

Their voices cannot be allowed to overshadow the choirs of Canadians who have sung O Canada in both official languages for a long time.  What the changes proposed in this legislation, and changes to our national anthem will do is to place a mark on our traditions. A mark that will alter our tradition and re-write our story in a manner that suits a political viewpoint.

To me that is a dangerous precedent, and I hope you will agree. I spoke earlier about traditions as a part of our art and culture as a country. When you look around the Senate chamber you can see the traditions that we have maintained. Ones that have been passed from generation to generation. All around us are not just symbols, but the embodiment of our democracy and democratic traditions.

Above us in the set of murals around this room is a collection of art that is known collectively as The War Paintings. When the Parliament Buildings were being rebuilt after the fire of 1916 these works were commissioned and then displayed to pay homage to the sacrifice of Canadian troops during the Great War. They were rededicated to the Senate chamber in 1998 as “a measure of devotion to a valiant fight to preserve peace and justice.”

All of these paintings are scenes from the First World War and no one in this chamber would ever dream of asking that they be removed because they reference war. Or that they would be altered. Because they are part of our history. Our traditions. The one entitled On Leave was painted by British artist Clare Atwood and it depicts a war canteen at a YMCA in one of London’s railway stations.

I would point out that there are no female soldiers in this painting and that the only woman in view is serving at the canteen. Would a politically correct purist request this painting taken down, and airbrushed to include female soldiers and perhaps some First Nations soldiers as well. Because they would want us to show their version of history, even if it meant altering an artist’s portrayal of what they exactly saw in London in those awful war days. Our anthem is such a portrayal.

On the subject of traditions, I would like to remind colleagues that we have a long series of parliamentary rules, procedures and traditions. One of those is the ability for any member of the other House of our Parliament to bring forward his or her suggestions for changes to our laws and legislation. This process is known as a Private Member’s Bill. That is exactly what happened to get this bill in front of us today.

Bill C-210 is a Private Member’s Bill. It is not the law of the land and it is not the policy of the government, the opposition, or even here where we are obligated to give consideration to private member’s bills. As such, it is open to our individual debate and individual opinion to make a judgement on whether or not this suggestion should move forward and become the law of the land - something that should be mandated to all Canadians. There are no party lines in this debate, we have only our conscience as our guide.

As many of you know, the late Mauril Belanger, Member of Parliament for Ottawa-Vanier, put forward this suggestion, this Private Member’s Bill, and it received the necessary preliminary approvals from the other place to bring it before us. We all acknowledge the hard work that Mauril Belanger did within Parliament and his community.

We will all miss Mauril Belanger. But I would remind my colleagues that his death is not reason enough to pass this suggestion and move it closer to enactment, as some have suggested. In fact, that is probably the worst reason to pass legislation or to make government and public policy.

We do not have a practice or tradition of naming legislation after people or honouring them in this way.  In this country, we name parks and put up plaques and build statues for people who have earned our respect. We do not honour Mauril Belanger by passing this legislation and we do not dishonour his memory by turning it down in favour of our sacred traditions. We need to make good decisions in this chamber by examining the facts and judging each case on its merit.

In the case of this legislation I would submit to you that the proponents of this change have not made any solid argument to sway me to that side of the question.  The change that this proposed legislation offers is neither sought nor required in order to make our country more free, more equal or more fair. The change is minimal, that is true, but you simply cannot minimize a change to a long-held tradition like our revered national anthem.

O Canada is a musical composition that draws at our hearts and brings us together. At hockey games and on the international stage we rejoice in singing along with our family, friends and neighbours.  It is part of our fabric as a nation that invokes and praises all of our other history and traditions. What Canadian would not have a deep sense of pride upon hearing our anthem 14 times when our own senator Petitclerc won gold at the Olympics in Atlanta, Sydney, Athens and Beijing? Or senator Greene-Raine in the 1968 Olympics in Grenoble. This is the anthem we know. This is the anthem that is our tradition.

The French lyrics for O Canada were written in 1880 by Adolphe-Basile Routhier and the music was composed by Calixa Lavallée. Many English versions followed, with the most popular one written by Robert Stanley Weir in 1908. Both versions were adopted as the official national anthem in 1980. Since this adoption, many attempts to change the lyrics were made, and none have succeeded.

Even though both songs use the same melody, their lyrics present different messages. For instance, the French version mentions religion (la croix) and conflict (l’épée) and the English version makes allusion to freedom and patriotism. All symbols are honourable aspects of our history.

Honourable senators, Bill C-210 seeks to change the English version. It is not the actual proposed change that is worrisome but it is the underlying reasons and motivation that serve as the impetus for this change that are troubling.

Changing the words to “in all of us command” is a token of appeasement that is a slippery slope which can inspire other demands for change. We are essentially tossing away an important piece of our history and tradition all in the name of political correctness.

To take it to the extreme- which is what political correctness does- if we are to be politically correct, why do it in a partial manner–why not be thorough?  For instance, the line “Our home and native land!”  Canada is home to all of its residents, but it would be incorrect to keep the word “our” in front of “native land”. Should that term only apply to those born in Canada? No- it is inclusive for all Canadians. Or perhaps to take it to a further politically correct extreme, should “native land” only apply to our First Nations? The cultures of Europe, Asia and Africa are not native to Canada. It is their native land not ours. Wouldn’t this be a much more accurate reflection of our reality? That is what politically correctness does.

The line God keep our land glorious and free might be problematic for many.  When the anthem was first penned, Canada looked quite different than it does today. As I mentioned earlier, French lyrics for O Canada were written in 1880 by Monsieur Routhier.  In 1880 it safe to say that the Roman Catholics were a dominant presence in Lower- Canada. Although Roman Catholics are still very present today in Canada, there are a myriad of other religions and non-religions that should also be recognized if we are to be so politically correct. Millions of Canadians are atheist, agnostic or humanists. What of them? – why should we not give politically correct consideration to them? Are they not representative of what Canada is today?  Why should we not make that change? Are our First Nations and Canadians of all other religions or non-religions less deserving of this politically correct treatment?

Let me also talk about my own experiences in my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Ode to Newfoundland is the official provincial anthem of Newfoundland and Labrador. Composed by Governor Sir Cavendish Boyle in 1902, it was chosen as the province’s official national anthem in May 1904. In 1949 when our province joined Canada, we adopted the Canadian national anthem, and I can tell you that we proudly sing it at all official functions.

But we have also maintained the Ode to Newfoundland, and in 1980, Newfoundland and Labrador re-adopted the Ode as our official provincial anthem - the first province to do so. If you are fortunate to come to my province, you will certainly hear us sing that proudly as well.

The reason I raise the Ode to Newfoundland is to tell you without hesitation that the people of my home province would never tolerate changing the words of what many believe is their sacred duty to uphold. Not all of the words to the Ode are politically correct. In each of the refrains you will find the word God repeated several times. But, I have never heard anyone seriously suggest that that particular word be removed. And if they did, it would be quickly shot down. If not worse. My honourable colleagues senator Baker, senator Doyle, senator Manning, senator Marshall and Speaker Furey all know the words and how sacred it is in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I know this because the people of my home province, like most Canadians, favour and support maintaining our traditions. As proof of that I offer you the results of a poll taken by VOCM on June 16, 2016. The question of the day was: “Do you think the words of our National Anthem should be changed from “in all they sons command” to “in all of us command?” Almost thirteen thousand Newfoundlanders and Labradorians responded. And a clear majority said to leave it alone – that our traditions are sacred.

With the introduction of Bill C-210, we have decided to tinker with our foundation so that we may appease. So that we can be politically correct. With time our anthem will look different because we have decided to forgo our history and have our anthem read more like a politically correct testimonial rather than a song of patriotism and a representation of our past. 

Honourable colleagues, we need to decide whether we are to have an anthem that contains our proud historical components and is representative of our history, or are we to have an anthem that will undoubtly be only the first step to blanching it with political correctness. A vote for bill C-210 would most definitely be reflective of the latter.

I want to leave you with a quote.  And a wish.

First the quote:

“Canadians can be radical, but they must be radical in their own peculiar way, and that way must be in harmony with our national traditions and ideals.”

That quote colleagues, is from Agnes MacPhail, the first woman elected to the Canadian Parliament.

My wish is that you stand with me in this chamber and that you stand up to support our anthem and our traditions. Political correctness may be the passing fashion of today, but what will sustain us and our country is the foundation of our traditions.

When the call for the vote on this Bill comes to the floor of the Senate I hope that you will follow your heart and your conscience. There is a proverb that says “To change and to change for the better are two different things.” Bill C-210 will not change our anthem or our country for the better.

I thank you.