‘Yea or nay, we must seize the day’
Anthem debate hits new heights
MARIE-DANIELLE SMITH
OTTAWA — Senators continue squabbling over a woebegone national anthem bill — what else is new? — with debate reaching new heights Tuesday as one leader made a rhyming statement in verse and a veteran senator deemed a notoriously blustery colleague “gentle” on the inside.
The latest quarrel revolved around an argument over whether the bill’s sponsor breached privilege by asking Conservative leader Andrew Scheer to persuade his Senate colleagues against continuing a long filibuster that has, for more than half a year, prevented a final vote.
The bill passed in the House of Commons in June 2016. It would replace the words “in all thy sons command” with “in all of us command,” thus making the anthem gender-neutral.
During debate Tuesday on the latest in a parade of Conservative sub-amendments that are pushing forward an eventual vote on the legislation, Independent Sen. Grant Mitchell, who is in favour of the bill, argued in a speech that “delay has become obstruction.”
The leader of the Senate’s Independent Senators Group, Yuen Pau Woo, took a different approach by launching a rallying cry in verse: “Whether Yea or Nay We must seize the day Our national anthem though finely wrought Needs a sober second thought Don’t let prevarication Stop deliberation True patriot love does now command A vote on ‘sons’ or ‘us’ demand Enough procrastination Let’s call the question On guard for thee Glorious and free Honourable Senators We O Canada.” (We “owe” Canada, get it?) This received thunderous applause. Senators then decided to delay a vote on the sub-amendment by another day.
Last week, Independent Sen. Frances Lankin (a former New Democrat minister in Ontario) wrote to Andrew Scheer advocating for the bill and asking he urge Conservative senators to proceed with a vote.
While little debate was had on the actual bill Tuesday, a point of privilege from Conservative Sen. Don Plett asked the Senate speaker to consider whether Lankin was “impeding the ability of senators to carry out their functions independently” by asking a political leader to whip senators. (On a tangent, Plett mentioned his analysis of comments on a related Post story skewed heavily against changing the anthem lyrics).
His Conservative colleagues rose to support him. Sen. Leo Housakos, who chairs the Senate’s internal economy committee, said this was a breach of privilege “without a doubt” and an issue that “goes to the core of our parliamentary system.” On the question of whether the letter constituted “intimidation,” Sen. David Wells posited, “I don’t think it may go to the level of intimidation, but for some it might.”
The leader of the Senate Conservatives put on the record that “we are an independent group” from the Conservative caucus. “I would never send a letter to the Prime Minister asking him to influence one of his people. It’s not right. It’s not part of protocol,” Sen. Larry Smith said.
“There has been no intimidation, there has been no threat, there has been no bribe and there has been no attempt to change anyone’s vote,” Lankin argued.
Independents agreed there was no breach of privilege.
A vote on a sub-amendment to an amendment to the national anthem bill was expected Wednesday.