Canadian Heritage Committee on June 2nd, 2016

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Champion, for your information.

As a historian, of course you come with a lot of history, and I respect history very much. Today's decision will be history in the future. I look at that picture on the wall and that pretty well tells me a lot of things. How could they come out with the words, instead of “sons”, with “ladies”, when none were present? That is very difficult to imagine. That also plays into what is history and tradition.

“Quick and dirty” is a term you used in answering, and it doesn't mean that because it's quick it's not right and it's not proper and it's not the way to do business. As much as I respect all individuals who have spoken about this, when I saw that all five parties in the House of Commons yesterday, who are elected by all Canadians across this nation, have supported.... It's not just the Liberal Party. All five parties together, forming the majority—if the Bloc voted, and I believe they did—have voted in favour of this change because this change is where we are as a nation today.

In 50 years' time we'll have other challenges, but today this is the right thing to do, and I support wholeheartedly the decision of the majority of the House of Commons who represent all Canadians. All five parties in general supported this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Samson.

For the benefit of the committee, the vote yesterday in the House was 219 to 79. Thank you.

We now have a second round. We will begin with anyone for the Conservatives.

Is it Mr. Maguire or Mr. Waugh?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

We'll share.

To pick up on Mr. Samson's point, we are a nation today. This has nothing to do with what heritage is today. Heritage comes from where we came from. As a former school board trustee, I can tell you, we'll be changing this every six months if we are a nation today.

I'm sorry. We have not consulted Canadians on this, Dr. Champion. We may have had a quick vote yesterday and maybe some stood up from every party and accepted it, but I haven't consulted my constituents. I have done a bit of it and I can tell you, they need to be consulted and they haven't been consulted on this. This is a major issue in this country as far as heritage is concerned. Comment on the situation here because we are a nation today, and then we pick up history today. No, history dictates where we came from, and you pointed it out, 300 or 400 years ago, and getting this piece of a national anthem....

[Dr. Chris Champion]

Madam Chair, as I mentioned, there is a track record of this type of change to heritage in Canada, and it goes back many years to the middle of the 20th century. A historian's job is to explain why. I don't think that's been fully explained by Canadian historians. There are people working on that field. I've made a small contribution myself.

There is a pattern there and the pattern is that it seems that it's better not to consult Canadians because there could be a backlash, and it's better if people here keep it to themselves and rush it through because it's too much trouble to consult people. Probably there would be a large negative reaction if people really knew what we were doing in here. I think that's the simple answer.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Yes. I'm concerned with “native land”. I'm concerned with the word “God”. These are changes that I can see after this bill, if it passes. Those words will be under attack—“native land” and “God”—in our national anthem. I mean, we'll be changing this every Parliament. That's not what heritage is all about. I'm a little distressed about this, to be honest with you, because the Canadians I talk to....

I used to be a sportscaster, and in sports you follow teams because of their history, not what they do today. In this country there are several Montreal Canadiens fans who will never change because of the history of that hockey club. It's the same with the Toronto Maple Leafs. No matter what you do, they will never change because of history. It's the same with this.

We need to do a better job in our schools to explain where this came from. I am shocked, because does this mean that the works of Shakespeare and van Gogh and all these people who came before us are useless now? I mean, that's where this is going, and I'm very distressed about it.

[Dr. Chris Champion]

I think it's right that this change does.... It's a little change, as your colleague Ms. Bennett pointed out. She said in the House that these two words, “of us”, are “small, yet meaningful”. I agree, but not for the same reason. If you really believe in ending exclusivity, then you should have no national anthem at all, because by definition the national anthem is exclusive of people who don't belong to the country or nation. The national anthem is about us in the sense that it's not about Americans, Ecuadorians, or Sinhalese.

If you really believe it's exclusive to have “in all thy sons command” in our national anthem, then it might make sense to just let every Canadian sing the song of their choice. You could have a kind of national jukebox: put your coin in and pick your tune.

Although it is a small change, this is separating us in present-day Canada. It also has the arrogance of separating future generations, who may not agree with us, from their tradition, from their literary and poetic tradition.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Waugh, you have two minutes which you're giving to Mr. Maguire. Okay.

Mr. Maguire, go ahead.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Waugh and Madam Chair.

Thank you, Dr. Champion, for your presentation and your clarity in regard to what those words mean in our society today—and have for, as you say, 100 years. I spoke in the House on this, and about some of the very things you said in regard to this matter. We have seen a very big rush put on this, as my colleague Mr. Van Loan indicated earlier. The bill hasn't been passed for 24 hours, yet it's appearing before us here, and is to be voted on today to make a change immediately, without Canadians being asked to have input into this. Or they've been asked, but obviously I agree with my colleagues and the comments you've made that most Canadians don't know it's being made.

However, because of some articles that have been printed in some areas of Canada, there has been some awareness of the issue. One of them is in the home province that I come from, Manitoba, through the Winnipeg Free Press. There have been articles and some small surveys done, including surveys that have been done either on some of the radio shows or through questions. One that I've heard is that 90% of Canadians were not in favour of this change, and 90:10 is quite an unusual ruling in the society we have in Canada today. It involves virtually everyone.

Some quotes have come back from some folks. I'd just like to put them on the record here and have you comment on them. Paula S. says, “I hate this controversy over the lyrics to Oh Canada! I feel we have a beautiful national anthem just the way it is!” Shane S. says, “What a total waste of time! People died for that anthem...you should all be ashamed!” Shelley says, “This is not about gender—Canadians are certainly accepting of all people”—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Maguire, we are now over seven minutes and as you know, our second round is usually five. I have given leeway because of the nature of this and because we have only one witness. We're into a seven-minute round on our second round, but you're now at seven minutes and thirty seconds.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

I'll just finish that quote, Madam Chair, “—no need to adjust this Historic song—beautiful as is.”

Maybe the witness could comment on those in response to some other question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Maguire.

I have Mr. O'Regan for the Liberals.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Chair, I would just remind my colleagues that this bill was first tabled in the 41st Parliament, so there has been ample time to consult with Canadians on this. With that in mind, I'd like to move on to the clause-by-clause, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

There is a motion on the floor to move to clause-by-clause.

I would call the question, unless there's debate.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Could I speak to that motion briefly?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Van Loan, I was about to suggest that people could speak to this motion, so maybe you will let me finish my statements. Thank you.

Is there discussion on this motion to move to clause-by-clause?

Go ahead, Mr. Van Loan.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

We have an agenda today that provides until 9:45 for this and then we have another hour for clause-by-clause. As we've observed, this is not a long bill.

We've already had a process that has not followed the rules of this committee and that has effectively shortened the opportunity for input from Canadians. We now have, through a miracle of generosity, someone who has come on virtually no notice and who is extraordinarily learned and has offered a great deal of thoughtful input to us, and who, I would say, speaks for a great many Canadians. Now we have a motion to cut short that opportunity for public input even further.

This is, to me, a staggering approach that achieves nothing except for the suppression of dissenting views. I cannot understand a motion like this. It's not going to advance the process from today. We're talking about 15 more minutes for public input and we now have a motion from the Liberal Party to suppress those who wish to have a contrary view from having their 15 minutes to say that. I find that staggering, unfortunate, sad, but entirely consistent with the handling of this by the Liberal Party.

With the greatest of respect for the member whose bill we are dealing with and the personal considerations we are taking into account for him, the last thing he would want would be for that legacy to be tainted by what has been happening. That is what happened at our last committee meeting, where we adopted a process, in violation of our rules, to shut down public input.

This is an individual who ran for Speaker, who held the totems of our democracy as important, and yet in an effort to rush his bill through, we are disgracing his respect for Parliament. It's the height of irony, but to me it says a lot about the way the Liberal Party is approaching things, whether it be on this, or in the approach to democratic reform whereby we're going to change our electoral system but will not give Canadians a say. There's a broader pattern taking place here.

I think this motion is unfortunate. I think we should vote against it. I urge you to vote against it and to allow us to have a few more minutes to hear from this very capable and very high-quality witness.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Van Loan, speaking against the motion.

Does anyone wish to discuss this motion?

Then I shall call the question.

(Motion agreed to)

We will now move to clause-by-clause.

We will suspend for a minute to get a legislative clerk.

[Dr. Chris Champion]

Does that mean the witness has no closing statement?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Champion, witnesses are not allowed closing statements.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We shall begin.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Chair, on a point of order, I have a couple of questions for the clerk of the committee.

On May 3, this committee adopted the following order to govern all of our business:

That, in relation to Orders of Reference from the House respecting Bills,

the Clerk of the Committee shall, upon the Committee receiving such an Order of Reference, write to each Member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the Committee to invite those Members to file with the Clerk of the Committee, in both official languages, any amendments to the Bill, which is the subject of the said Order, which they would suggest that the Committee consider.

Has that rule of our process been followed? Have all those members been written to?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

The clerk is answering, but I will allow him to answer himself.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Jean-François Lafleur]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Van Loan, it was done for independent members and members of the committee on Tuesday.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Chair, the rules indicate that this should be done upon the committee receiving such an order of reference. Was it done upon the committee receiving the order of reference, which would have been last night?