Plett’s stand guards O Canada’s origins

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 16/06/2017 (2503 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Conservative senator Don Plett is not singing the praises of a private member’s bill, currently before the Senate, that would make the English lyrics of Canada’s national anthem gender-neutral by changing two words.

Bill C-210 seeks to amend the National Anthem Act by substituting “in all of us command” in place of “in all thy sons command.”

Recently, during Senate discussion preceding the bill’s third reading, Plett’s proposed another alternative, “thou dost in us command,” arguing its historicity made it a superior choice.

Penned in 1908 by Robert Stanley Weir, the English lyrics of O Canada originally contained the line “thou dost in us command.” In 1914, for reasons that are still debated, Weir changed the line to “in all thy sons command.”

“If we’re going to change, my argument still is that we change to what Judge Weir [initially] wrote, not to some wording that we come up with 108 years later,” Plett told The Carillon this week.

However, the seemingly straightforward amendment came with other implications. Bill C-210 was originally sponsored by the late Ottawa MP Mauril Belanger. Parliamentary protocol dictates that if a private member’s bill faces an amendment after its original sponsor has died, it must be sent back to the House of Commons. MPs must then grant unanimous support to a new sponsor before he or she can oppose the amendment.

The scenario is considered by many to be highly unlikely in a partisan House, but Plett told The Carillon he was optimistic, and stressed his amendment was not intended to undermine the bill.

“Unanimous consent is not entirely impossible,” he said.

However, he admitted the unanimity clause came as a surprise.

“I knew they would have to get a new sponsor in the House, but I did not know that they would require unanimous consent.”

Plett’s amendment was defeated in the Red Chamber last Thursday by a vote of 41 against and 18 in favour, with nine abstentions.

“It didn’t surprise me that it was defeated, and nor did I lose any sleep over it,” Plett said. His amendment was put forward, he said, “for the sake of compromise,” and to ensure any changes made to the anthem were rooted in history.

Some onlookers now wonder if the bill will pass in time for Canada Day, but Plett remains unsympathetic towards its overarching aim.

“I’m not that concerned about the bill dying, because I’m quite content with the words the way they are,” he said. “I’ve always been opposed to the bill. I don’t like the bill. I am going to continue to work against the bill at this point.”

Plett did, however, acknowledge the bill would not change the meaning of the national anthem, and indicated his tentative support of gender-neutral language in everyday life.

“As time evolves, we get more comfortable with language, and I think we should,” he said.

“But if my son was a policeman, I’d probably call him a policeman,” he added.

Plett was also skeptical of those who found “in all thy sons command” offensive or exclusionary, saying the anthem addresses, and belongs to, all Canadians.

“I have strong feminists working in my office—strong feminists—they do not feel left out when we sing ‘in all thy sons command,’” he said.

Before the Senate rises, more amendments are expected, including grammatical challenges, Plett said.

“I don’t expect it to pass,” he remarked, and surmised the bill occupies a lower rung on the government’s priorities ladder.

Whatever the future holds for Bill C-210, Plett said three-quarters of the correspondence he has received on the matter has opposed changing the lyrics.

“Southeast Manitoba would be right up there, and maybe even in a higher percentile,” he said.

Regardless of the bill’s fate, which lyrics will Plett belt out at this year’s Canada Day celebrations?

“I will sing the lyrics that are officially our song at that time,” he pledged.