Article content continued

Words can include or exclude

The same point could be illustrated with the terms used to discuss immigration, the LGBT community and Indigenous peoples. In each case, greater social inclusion was accompanied by the use of more appropriate and respectful words.

Bill C-210 would do exactly that. It would change two words to reflect modern society and be inclusive of all Canadians in a powerful national symbol: our national anthem. The bill has been debated in the Senate for over a year since it was passed by the House of Commons. In the English version of the anthem, the words “in all thy sons” would be changed to “in all of us,” so that women feel included. This is a simple change, but it has caused a stir.

Opponents of the change argue that it is an affront to our history, that we need to protect our traditions and that the national anthem should be sacred and untouchable.

Short of arguments, opponents of this change have been reduced to stalling manoeuvres

But the truth is that national anthems have been changed everywhere and throughout history, each time with care and respect. Moreover, because the national anthem has the power to bring people together and inspire them, it is unacceptable for it to exclude half of Canadians. Think for a moment about the powerful image of a female Canadian athlete standing proudly on a podium with a medal around her neck who can sing “in all of us command.” This bill is an opportunity to include all Canadians in our national anthem. We cannot miss it.

Short of arguments, opponents of this change have been reduced to stalling manoeuvres, using multiple adjournments and ridiculous amendment motions for weeks on end. Their only goal is to prevent a final vote that, in all likelihood, would see the bill pass the Senate, the last step before it received royal assent. Unfortunately, even though these opponents are in the minority, the rules of the Senate do not offer a way out of this impasse.

Standing still is never a winning strategy, for either people or countries. Only through change can we embrace the future. If Canada is a country where everyone is welcome, where inclusiveness is a value that not only brings us together, but also defines us, then what we say, how we say it, and what we do must be consistent. Bill C-210 is another manifestation of this desire to be inclusive. That is why it must be put to a vote.

National Post

Chantal Petitclerc and André Pratte are Canadian senators.