Bill C-210 (Historical)

An Act to amend the National Anthem Act (gender)

This enactment amends the National Anthem Act to substitute the words “of us” for the words “thy sons” in the English version of the national anthem, thus making it gender neutral.

National Anthem Act

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, speaking to the private member's bill, I think all members in the House are thinking of the member in question, our friend, the member for Ottawa—Vanier, who has brought this issue to the national consciousness on a couple of occasions, and cannot participate in a debate that he has helped to create. However, regardless of what side of the debate one is on or the issues raised in it, every member of this place, of Parliament, and here in the nation's capital, hold our colleague and friend in tremendously high regard. Our thoughts are with him in this debate.

I think of my short time as minister of veterans affairs. During the election, we had Victory over Japan Day, Victory in the Pacific, and the 70th anniversary of that important milestone. There is tradition that when an important commemoration event happens during an election, the minister will do the event but will invite other parties to be represented. I spent a day with my friend, the MP for Ottawa—Vanier, who was then a candidate. I fully expected him just to come to the cenotaph and do a speech after I did, meet with a few of the veterans, and then go back to his campaigning. He spent the entire day, right through to the dinner, thanking our veterans. We had Battle of Hong Kong veterans who had been prisoners of war, in ill health, and in their nineties. We had other veterans from the Pacific theatre. The member spent the entire day with them. He did not go back.

I think of that moment often, because at the end of the day he said he was really tired in the campaign, that it was wearing him down. Months later, when he shared his news with the House, I thought back to that moment and how he was probably not feeling his best but did not sacrifice a minute away from thanking our veterans. I will cherish that memory with my friend from Ottawa—Vanier.

Starting out with that remembrance of my friend, what is special about this place is that we can be friends and not necessarily agree on the debate he has brought here. However, as a parliamentarian, he has raised this issue. What I think is best served by the debate today is the fact that we are showing that Canada is not the country of 1880, when O Canada was first composed by an order of the lieutenant governor of Quebec for Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. Anyone who follows that national celebration in Quebec might find some irony in the fact that our national anthem had its origin as a song for Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day in Quebec.

These national songs, symbols, and issues are rooted in the time of our early country. When we look at some of them now, we can be very proud of the country that the men and women who built this place created. Therefore, while the words and the passions and the emotions of our early years as a young confederation can be looked back to, we should also respect the symbol's heritage heraldry from that time. That is why we bring to the debate that all members of the chamber promote fully the inclusion of all Canadians and the wonderful opportunity that our country represents. Our country is as free as it is because of equality between men and women.

There is irony, in that when the song was composed it was at a time when women could not sit in this place, yet a century later we are debating whether the words chosen at that time should be changed. That in itself highlights the fact that we have come a long way as a country. We still have a tremendous way to go, particularly with equality on corporate boards and on a number of issues that our past government looked at and the present government is looking at as well.

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.

We are not debating composing that anthem today. We are celebrating the country that chose this anthem generations ago. It is much like the mace I am staring at. It is not a weapon that is used on the field of battle today, but when the first parliaments were formed in Britain, it was a symbol that the weapon was being placed on the table and that sides could debate in a democracy.

Do we discard our ties to the past, or do we learn by looking back at them? That is essentially the debate my friend from Ottawa—Vanier has brought to us. We look at how we would craft a national anthem today. Whether in French or English, they were both written as a young country emerged a few years past 1812, before the Great War. Both the French and English versions of O Canada are deeply military in symbolism, whether it is sword, stand on guard, or true patriot love. These stir emotions, and they were meant to in a young country.

As someone who joined the Canadian Armed Forces at age 18, I heard that anthem played at my ceremony and my oath to Her Majesty the Queen, which some may feel is old fashioned. These are the ties I have to the same institution of the Canadian Armed Forces as my grandfather and, indeed, many of our great-grandfathers had.

As we approach the 100th anniversary of the battle of Vimy Ridge, we should look back and recognize that our country has come a long way. What is interesting is that, when I took my oath to join the Canadian Armed Forces, I stood proudly alongside some tremendous female leaders who were leaving their high schools across the country and stepping up to serve their country.

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. It is critical for us to learn from that history, but changing things to suit today, with respect to some of the early symbols of this country, is not a way we can show we have evolved.

We show we evolve by looking back and saying that at that time women did not have the vote. Thankfully, that has changed. Our country has modernized, but we still have the tie to these important rallying points for an early and young country that was emerging to the north of its great southern rival.

In our debate here today, all MPs certainly want all Canadians to feel a part of the Canadian story, the celebration that is represented by our national anthem, by our flag, by the military colours of units, by badges, and by crests. These all have origins in the early days of our nation, but we should not substitute them in each generation. We should look back and see how our society might have changed.

This is a good debate if we can look at it from that perspective, if we can look back and say we take pride in our anthem and all it represents. We take pride in the symbols in this Parliament, in this very chamber; for example, our coats of arms. Countries do not change or alter these without considerable need for consideration.

In this case, we have a situation where, if we start parsing lines of songs, we are not showing respect for the tradition and the heritage we have inherited. This in no way suggests that sticking to a historic root of a song means that one is not in favour of equality. I worry when people make that argument.

I know that, listening to my constituents, as many of my colleagues have, and certainly considering the origins of the song, we can stay with it.

However, I thank my friend from Ottawa—Vanier for bringing this to the floor of the House.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-210, an act to amend the National Anthem Act, particularly as the bill proposes to reword the anthem so that it finally has inclusive language in terms of gender.

This is an important initiative put forward by the member of Parliament for Ottawa—Vanier. Along with members of my party, I want to acknowledge his tireless efforts over time to achieve this historic change.

This a change that we in the NDP are proud to support. I would like to acknowledge that this change was also proposed, over the years, by NDP members of Parliament such as Libby Davies and Svend Robinson.

Like many efforts to achieve equality, we must also acknowledge the push that came from women outside of this place. Without their tireless campaigning and advocacy to make this change to these lyrics, it would not be possible.

It is important to note that this change is symbolic. It is about making a line in the anthem more reflective of the fact that women and men are Canadians. It is about sending a message that we are not sons, but we are people. This is about adopting gender-neutral language, a practice that has been very important over the last few decades. In essence, it would allow us in the House to alter the language in our anthem and in a way catch up to the kind of changes in language we have seen over time.

In fact, during the 1970s, feminists Casey Miller and Kate Swift created a manual called The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing. It served to reform the existing sexist language that was said to exclude and even dehumanize women.

This conversation led to important changes, like changing the words businessman or businesswoman to business person. It led to changing words like chairman or chairwoman to chair or chairperson. Policeman became police officer, stewardess became flight attendant, and the list goes on.

These changes matter. They send a signal to girls and young women that they can aspire to do anything. By changing our language, by moving from what is known as androcentric language and focus, we send a signal that we all share space in this world.

Feminists have argued that male terms contribute to making women invisible, that they obscure women's importance and distract attention from their or our existence. I also want to point out that changing this part of the anthem also means that the language would be inclusive of trans people, or people who identify as gender fluid. Changing the anthem in this way sends a signal that we can all be just as proud to love our country, and we should celebrate that.

However, we should not stop here. The anthem, as well as many of our national symbols, must be an accurate reflection of who we are. The reality is that there is much work to be done.

We know that so many of our symbols are not reflective of our history of nation building, which is premised truly on colonization and the attack on first nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples; that we continue to live and work on unceded territories; that we continue to perpetuate racist attitudes and implement discriminatory policies.

We also know that, in many cases, our national symbols fail to reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of our country, or the fact that many people immigrated to Canada from around the world to help build the country of which we are so proud. We fail to recognize that, while many have come as immigrants and have made Canada their home, others have only been able to come as migrant workers, without access to the rights any citizen would have.

Therefore, much work remains to be done to make sure our national symbols—and symbols they are—are reflective of the kind of reality we all live in this country.

These are important conversations that people are already having on a day-to-day basis. I want to acknowledge the work of many who have taken part in the discussion around reconciliation and what reconciliation ought to mean. Those discussions also involved reforming and reshaping our national symbols.

I want to acknowledge that many activists have been critical of the concept of reconciliation, and recognize that in many cases the narrative around reconciliation, as it is used by some, is used to pacify, in their particular case, indigenous activists who are truly challenging the foundations of our country.

I also want to acknowledge the many who have called for a very critical lens when it comes to discussions around our national symbols, as well as concepts of fairness and justice, and what that might mean for racialized Canadians in particular.

Going back to the notion that today is about symbols, I also want to acknowledge that we in the NDP have made it clear that this is an important step, and changing that one sentence in our anthem is critical. However, it certainly is not enough when we are talking about achieving gender equality in our country.

We are at a historic time. We have a Prime Minister who has identified as being a feminist. We have seen a government appoint a gender-equal cabinet. We have seen some very positive pronouncements when it comes to the recognition that injustices faced by women are injustices that require federal leadership. In particular, I am thinking of the commitment to a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women.

The reality is that in order to make a difference in the lives of women, to make a difference in the daily lives of Canadian women, we need to go far beyond symbolism. We need to move to action. There are many ways in which we need the federal government to act and to take leadership to truly make a difference in the lives of Canadian women.

First and foremost is the area of violence against women. We know that while other kinds of violence have dropped over the last number of years, domestic violence continues to remain stagnant. We know that over the last number of years, in fact, statistics show that women continue to face intimate partner violence at the same rate, consistently, year after year.

We know that violence targeted against women also impacts women differently according to their identity. Sixty-six per cent of all female victims of sexual assault are young women under the age of 24. We know that indigenous women are four times more likely to be targeted in terms of violence than non-indigenous women. We know that 60% of women with a disability experience some form of violence in their lifetimes.

The statistics go on. We know that in order to act on violence against women, there needs to be action at the federal level. I am proud to have worked with our party to propose a comprehensive national action plan to end violence against women, a comprehensive national action plan that we put forward in a motion in the last Parliament. We certainly hope that the Liberal government will not just talk about the need for a comprehensive national action plan, as we have heard, but more importantly, will implement that national action plan to end violence against women.

Another area that demands federal leadership is the area of economic injustice still faced by women. We know that on average Canadian women still only make 72 cents to the male dollar, but when we apply a racialized lens or even an immigrant lens to that reality, the numbers are even more stark. Racialized women who are also immigrants only earn 48.7 cents for every dollar a non-racialized man earns in Canada today.

In terms of violence or economic injustice or the ongoing discrimination that women face on a daily basis, whether it is on our streets, in our schools, in our institutions, we know that the reality is that there needs to be concrete action so that women can truly see a change in their daily reality.

I also want to acknowledge the work that needs to be done in terms of child care and the work that needs to be done in terms of strengthening our social safety net to support women, whether it is in terms of employment insurance, health care, or acknowledging the importance of how a strong social safety net contributes to women's equality.

I will conclude by saying that, yes, while we are proud to support Bill C-210, an act to amend the National Anthem Act, we also ask that the government show leadership in that same vein and commit to concrete actions and concrete support in terms of funding to truly achieve equality for women in our country.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-210, an act to amend the National Anthem Act, which proposes changing the English version of the national anthem to make it gender neutral.

The bill proposes replacing the words “thy sons” with “of us”. The third line, which now reads “true patriot love in all thy sons command” would be replaced by “true patriot love in all of us command”.

First, I would like to thank the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier for introducing this important bill. His dedication to the principle of justice in general and gender equality in particular and his extraordinary courage are a source of inspiration and an example to us all.

The theme of this bill should be of interest to all Canadians, men and women, and I am very proud to talk about it. The hon. member noticed that the national anthem did not correspond to our society and values. His bill seeks to correct that contradiction and change the anthem so that it better reflects Canada's reality. What is more, and I am sure that everyone in the House will agree with me, we want a Canada that gives men and women an equal opportunity to participate in society.

I want to point out that the French and English versions of O Canada are quite different. The verses in the English version are not a literal translation of the French version. That is why Bill C-210 is focused on the English version. The French version is already gender neutral.

The French version of O Canada was written in 1880. The music was composed by Calixa Lavallée, and the words were written by Sir Adolphe-Basile Routhier. The words of the French version have not changed in all this time.

The English version of O Canada was written later. The music is the same as the French version, but the words were written by Justice Robert Stanley Weir, in 1908. Many changes have been made to Mr. Weir's words since 1908.

The first change dates back to 1913, and I would like to make a slight correction to what my hon. colleague from Abitibi said. When Mr. Weir changed the neutral words “true patriot love thou dost in us command”, he replaced them with “true patriot love in all thy sons command”. It is widely acknowledged that this change was made to honour the men who served in the armed forces on the eve of the First World War.

The 1913 version became the official English version of O Canada when the National Anthem Act was adopted in 1980. The words “in all thy sons command” may have reflected the Canada of 1913, but our country has changed considerably over the centuries. Nowadays, women participate in all facets of Canadian life, including our armed forces.

On June 27, 1980, the National Anthem Act was adopted unanimously by the House of Commons and the Senate, and it received royal assent that same day. It is important to note that the parties agreed to limit debate on the National Anthem Act to one representative each because other changes to the lyrics of O Canada would be made through private members' bills.

Prior to that arrangement, the House had considered a number of bills to adopt a national anthem, but all died on the Order Paper. Since 1980, 12 bills have been introduced in Parliament to make the English version of the national anthem gender neutral. All of them sought to change the words “thy sons”.

Despite the fact that all of the bills were rejected or died on the Order Paper, support for the change grew. Last year, a bill identical to Bill C-210 was rejected at second reading by a vote of 144 to 127.

Public support for making the national anthem gender neutral has also increased. A 2015 poll commissioned by the member for Ottawa—Vanier and conducted by Mainstreet Technologies revealed that 58% of Canadians supported the amended wording proposed in Bill C-210. After 34 years and 12 bills, the time has come to return to the neutral meaning of the original 1908 version of the national anthem.

This change to our national anthem is long overdue. In fact, it is 36 years overdue. Its lyrics should have been changed when O Canada became our national anthem in 1980. I think it is appropriate to make this change now, and I hope all members of the House will agree.

The idea of changing a national symbol can spark debate. People are reluctant to give up traditions. However, as I just said, O Canada has only been our official national anthem since 1980.

This year, 2016, marks the 100th anniversary of women's right to vote. Next year we will celebrate the 150th anniversary of Confederation. It would be nice if we stopped excluding women from their national anthem.

Today I call on all members of the House to make up for lost time and support the changes proposed in Bill C-210.

Last November, our government received a lot of attention and support throughout the world when it appointed an equal number of men and women to cabinet. At that time, our Prime Minister expressed his pride in appointing a cabinet that reflects Canada.

The hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier asked the following question: should a national symbol not be reflective of the people it is supposed to represent? I sincerely believe that our 42nd Parliament will answer him with a resounding yes.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member who just spoke was very eloquent on his position. I am glad to be joining this debate. However, when joining a debate at this late an hour, everything that is smart and interesting has already been said, so I will try to add a viewpoint to the debate that I do not think has been shared too often.

I actually conducted a poll in my riding asking my constituents how I should vote. I will provide some of that information to the House and some background as to how I will be voting on this matter.

Other members have mentioned that this is not the first time this has been proposed. There have been 10 attempts since the 1980s to change the second line of the English version of the anthem for both personal and technical reasons. In the previous Parliament, Bill C-624 was debated and considered on this matter. Therefore, successive Parliaments have spent ample time on this over the past few decades debating whether there should be a change to the national anthem.

In 2010, the previous Conservative government proposed this change in its throne speech, no less. When the member for York—Simcoe spoke earlier in the debate, he alluded to the fact that even Weir's grandson had weighed in at that time and opposed a change to the national anthem.

I want to clear up one misconception that I heard earlier today. It has been raised in the public and in the House as well that somehow the Conservative caucus blocked this bill earlier in the month. I do not believe that is true. It was simply following the usual legislative practice, which is rather than adopting a special expedited process, we should have a fulsome debate on this subject. This would allow me an opportunity to rise in the House to speak to this on behalf of my constituents.

I know this will shock many members, but I 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.

As an originalist, I would consider that a reasonable legislative amendment to our national anthem. When I approach all manners of legislation, I look at our Constitution. I am an originalist and I like to stay within the bounds of what our founders intended for us to do both in the Constitution and with the symbols that represent Canada.

Since the bill was first tabled and debated, I have heard loud and clear from my constituents in Calgary Shepard, through a poll I conducted both on my website and promoted online via my Facebook page. They are 87% opposed to this change. Accordingly, I will be voting against this bill, unless more of my constituents vote in this online poll and sway me the other way.

I received hundreds of comments. In emails and phone calls, people explained to me the reasons they thought their local member should vote against this bill. I am attuned to the fact that this is not just a vote that I have to exercise based on what I believe is best, using what I know, and the facts that are laid before me. However, I also represent my constituents and they have been very clear with me that they are opposed to this change.

I am also mindful that a poll was conducted called “Sing 'all of us'” by Mainstreet. It is a 2016 national poll conducted by Mainstreet Research in May. It is true that it found that 62% of Canadians supported this change of wording from “all thy sons command” to “in all of us command”, its original English wording. It was indicated that it was quite possible that a great deal of the 38% that were greatly opposed to this happened to be in my constituency.

I note that in the news release Mainstreet issued, it promoted the notion that Canadians supported a gender-neutral national anthem. However, if we actually look at the questions it put forward in its poll, the script very handily put into the report, it made no such argument and did not put forward questions asking whether there should be a gender-neutral national anthem. Instead, they asked the following two questions, which I will read.

The first question was, “The original English Anthem uses the word US, the current version uses Thy SONS. Which version do you believe is most appropriate?” I actually used a question very similar to this to ask my constituents which version we should use. I took the 1908 version and the current version, put them side by side, and put in big bold text the changes that were going to be made.

The second question that Mainstreet used was, “There is a Private Members Bill in the House of Commons to restore the meaning of the original English Anthem. Do you agree or disagree that we should restore the original meaning and use the words 'in all of us command' instead of the words 'in all thy sons command' in the English O Canada?” Again, I do not see a single mention of gender neutrality being proposed. Those are questions about restoration and returning something to its original meaning in 1908, closer to the true original meaning of the anthem at the time.

Those are questions that ask Canadians whether changing a national symbol back to a previous version would be a good idea, not whether there is sufficient gender neutrality or parity in the language.

As well, the promotional material used by Mainstreet in that poll does not match the questions asked by the firm. It has been used by proponents of this change. This poll has been used oftentimes. Canadians do support it massively, but what Canadians support is retaining our national symbols the way they are and keeping to our traditions as much as possible.

I also disagree with the argument made by many in the House, and outside, that the proposed change is to ensure the gender neutrality of the wording. I am not opposed to that in a general way, only in this particular case. That argument implies that the English language is incapable of allusions, allegory, imagery, metaphors, or irony, that somehow the English language is very static. We know that not to be a fact. Many members use allegory, metaphors, and irony in their speeches in the House, using words that 200 years ago had a completely different meaning.

Andrew Coyne made this same argument in a National Post comment that appeared May 9, 2016 online, and wrote that if “all thy sons” ever meant “just the guys”, it does not do so now. I very much agree with him. It requires an extraordinary effort of obtuseness to claim that it does. I am using his words here. I am just quoting what he said.

After all, many of the same proponents of this view of the static meaning of words are also enthusiastic proponents of a legal theory called the “living tree” when approaching the law and a constitution. It is that a constitution that serves the basis of all laws in a country can be reinterpreted, endlessly at times, with new meaning, including new words being found in it, sentences being read into it and read into the law.

I am conscious that in Canada we accept that the English language does change. All languages are not static. They change with the times, and words take on new meaning. In the case of the anthem, I believe it is all-inclusive, and if it meant a very specific thing 100 years ago, it does not mean that necessarily today.

Before 0 Canada was officially adopted in 1980 as the official anthem, we used God Save the Queen. Will we be changing that as well? It still remains our royal anthem in Canada.

We have many national symbols, including coats of arms, mottoes, a national flag, official colours, the maple tree, the beaver, the national horse, our national sports, and the tartan. How many of these should we start to change, as well, to achieve some type of goal? Should we restore them to their original status of maybe 1967? How far do we need to go back to ensure gender neutrality? When is it appropriate to change these symbols of Canada? Is there a rush to change them? Does it not need fulsome debate?

We have had 25 or 30 years of different individuals considering the matter and proposing changes to our different symbols. Our provinces and territories also have their own symbols, which residents of them cherish to various degrees. I am from Alberta, and back home we unofficially sing a tune called Alberta Bound by Paul Brandt as our anthem. I will provide a few lyrics from that song because it is so good:

I'm Alberta bound

This piece of heaven that I've found

Rocky Mountains and black fertile ground

Everything I need beneath that big blue sky

Doesn't matter where I go

This place will always be my home

Yeah I've been Alberta bound all my life

And I'll be Alberta bound until I die.

Despite not being born in Alberta, those few lines speak to that deep, hard to explain, but easy to feel, sense of home and belonging that Alberta is to Albertans. It is an unofficial anthem. There is no act saying that it is an official symbol of Alberta, but those few simple lines give literary life to the feeling that every Albertan feels, wherever he or she is from originally, that we are truly only home when we are back in Alberta. I hope Paul Brandt keeps every single word exactly the way it is.

Words do have meaning, and they do have a lot of power, and the original meaning especially has a lot of power.

My constituents, though, are really tied to the current version of the national anthem. I deeply respect the motivation of the mover of this motion, the member for Ottawa—Vanier. He has offered us yet another opportunity to have vigorous debate on this topic. I salute his stamina and strength as he battles his illness. It is courageous to see a man like that who has such grace and power. It gives heart to people like me with kids with a chronic condition. They can do it too. They can outlast it as well. However, at the end of the day, I must listen to my constituents, who are vastly opposed to the bill. Canadians, in 2010, so strongly opposed the amendments to the national anthem, and I must vote against the bill.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin my remarks on this important bill by paying tribute to the work done by the member for Ottawa—Vanier. Of course we can still have differences of opinion with respect to this bill. However, it is important to recognize his courage and commitment to a cause that we may not all agree with. Nonetheless, his willingness to absolutely preserve and put forward a principle that is important to him and reflects a long-term project of his is important.

I have to say that I have thought quite a bit about this bill. I know that during this debate some have taken the view that these things can never change. That is not my view. I am open to having a conversation about the wording and I believe that there is no harm in having that conversation.

In that context I will say that if we were to change the words, I would personally prefer the original version of “thou dost in us command” over “all of us command”, which I regard as somewhat awkward phrasing. This perhaps illustrates the point that ultimately this is not quite a binary choice. Members of the Canadian public might ultimately wish to make some kind of a change but have a range of different perspectives on what the best kind of change would be.

However, I have concerns about the process. I will be voting against the bill, principally because, and this is perhaps the only case wherein I would tell the government it needs to do much more consultation on this. I do not think two hours of debate on a private member's bill is the appropriate process of pushing through a change that is this consequential to our national anthem. It seems perhaps strange that I would say that, given on so many files we make the opposite criticism of the government, that it seems to be dragging out and punting down the road decisions that could be taken much more quickly. Then on other files, and particularly in this case, there is a will it seems to expedite this.

In fact, there was some criticism in the media about Conservative members who wanted to complete the first hour and continue to a second hour. There were members of the government who felt that we should just let the debate shut down and have the vote right then. I think that is fundamentally irresponsible. I understand the desire to move this along because of the health situation of the member for Ottawa—Vanier, however, I think we would give him a better tribute if we give this the thorough discussion, and engage in the necessary conversations and consultations with Canadians as part of that important process. Therefore, I would make a modest proposal. If the government wants to have this discussion, if it wants to have Canadians engaged in this discussion, why not have this as the second question on the electoral reform referendum that we think certainly needs to happen and we hope will be happening?

If members of the government are eager to have this conversation, I just do not think we should be rushing this in through the vehicle of a private member's bill. I also do not think that prescribing specific new wording is the way to go instead of having a conversation that engages Canadians and then ultimately puts the question to Canadians. I believe that a process that engages Canadians in the discussion would be more effective because it seems to me there are likely many Canadians who do not even know that we are having a conversation this consequential about changing our national anthem. I know that some members have talked, and my friend from Calgary Shepard in particular, about the significant engagements they have had with their constituents on this issue. However, I suspect all the same that there are many Canadians who are not following the debates in this place in detail. They would be surprised to find that in a few short months all of a sudden they are told that the anthem that they have been singing from childhood has been changed. I think that would be a surprise and a very unfortunate way of rushing this important conversation.

The language contained in this type of an anthem obviously is important. It has symbolic value for Canadians on both sides. It has symbolic value to those who may not feel included by the words, but on the other hand, they may not be interpreting the original connotation of those words in the correct way, but still may not feel included by them.

On the other hand, there are those who have identified with that anthem, have fought for Canada under that anthem, and would feel the opposite, would feel that moving away from wording that they have historically identified with and appreciated would be really troubling for their sense of patriotism, troubling in their desire to identify with long-standing Canadian symbols.

We can do this. If members in the government are interested in having this discussion, it could be done in a responsible way. However, in the absence of that process and in the absence of the proper engagement with Canadians, I am forced to oppose the bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It being 7:10 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired.

The vote is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 1, immediately before the time providing for private members' business.

The House resumed from May 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-210, An Act to amend the National Anthem Act (gender), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-210, an act to amend the National Anthem Act (gender) under private members' business.

Since this is the first recorded division on private members' business in this Parliament, I wish to remind all hon. members that the division will be taken row by row, starting with the sponsor, if he or she is present, and then proceeding with those in favour of the motion, beginning with the back row on the side of the House on which the sponsor sits. After proceeding through the rows on that first side, the members sitting on the other side of the House will vote, again beginning with the back row. Those opposed to the motion will be called in the same order.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #78