There will be a vote today (1 June 2016) on whether to send Bill C-210, an act to amend the National Anthem Act (gender), to the committee stage for eventual passage. It’s not a new idea, changing “thy sons” to “all of us” command. There are no good reasons to oppose the change; all parties in the House of Commons have been in favor of making the change at some point; even the Conservatives made a pledge to “ask Parliament to examine the original gender-neutral English wording of the national anthem.” (in the Speech from the Throne to open the 3rd session of the 40th Parliament)
What is a Member of Parliament to say in opposition when there are no good reasons to be in opposition? At second reading on 31 May 2016 Mr. O’Toole (Durham) claimed that
It is wrong for a country to tread on its heritage and history, even when some of those heritage symbols, songs, and anthems may seem a little dated when looking at it through the lens of 2016. That is really what we have come to with a debate about our national anthem.
One who feels that way might also appreciate the heritage and history of our language. A few short phrases later, Mr. O’Toole proved that to be untrue by saying,
Anthems, symbols, heraldry, and heritage are the connections we have to the past. We can learn now by looking at them, but we should be very reticent to change them, because they are part of our history.If someone is reluctant to make a small change to the anthem, they should also be reluctant to abuse the word “reticent”.
Mr. Kmiec (Calgary Shepard) was
initially going to support this bill. I thought changing and adopting the words “in all of us command” would have returned the wording closer to the 1908 version by Mr. Justice Robert Stanley Weir. I thought that would be the correct thing to do.So why will he be voting “nay” to sending the bill to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage? Because he polled his constituents and they were 87% opposed. Mr. Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan) proposed tacking the question on to the referendum the Conservatives are constantly clamoring for regarding electoral reform.
These appeals to direct democracy are the worst - as a Member of Parliament you are paid very well to occasionally substitute your judgment over a snapshot poll of the whims of your constituents at any given moment. If your only task as a parliamentarian is to stand up for the majority opinion of your riding at the time of any given vote then you might as well have a service animal in your seat.
There are plenty of votes among the 338 to get this bill to committee, and then later on vote three to send it to the Senate. Hopefully a few Conservative members will see fit to vote the right way on this one.