• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Parliament to consider changes to "O Canada"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Next thing you know Trump will be the new CPC leader.  [:D
 
jollyjacktar said:
If it's such a problem then why don't they adopt "The Maple Leaf Forever" as the anthem?  It damn near was once already.

Its that whole verse about the Plains of Abraham that pisses of the people's republic likely holding it back. 
 
I must admit, I have never read the words to the song, I only know the music.  Didn't know about that bit.  I can see why that was counted out and is a no go.
 
There is also several different versions of the Maple Leaf Forever which completely exclude all the strong British lyrics. Personally I would rather see one of those as the national anthem (I would also rather see the Red Ensign back as the flag as well, even though I know it is unlikely to ever happen again).
 
The worse thing about all of this is that because the member has ALS and is essentially not going to last in a competant state for very much longer, the liberals are using that as a reason to rally behind the bill. They know this is a very dividing issue in Public. With very vocal numbers on both sides of the debate. But instead of doing a whipped vote which will accomplish the same goal but end with a taint on the liberals they are instead selling it as a dying mans wishes.

The fact a MP is dying should have zero to do with if a bill passes.
 
gryphonv said:
The fact a MP is dying should have zero to do with if a bill passes.

Valid point, but they prefer to do their 'electioneering' by tugging on the heartstrings of the voters, making it emotional as opposed to factual and logical.
 
Completely agree. It'll be interesting to see if they revive the bill if he unfortunately passes away before the vote. It's a sad situation, but a divisive issue like you mentioned and that's no reason to circumvent democratic process.
 
George Wallace said:
Valid point, but they prefer to do their 'electioneering' by tugging on the heartstrings of the voters, making it emotional as opposed to factual and logical.

Factual doesn't work with emotional issues.  Factual doesn't work in politics period (reference the current revolt against intellectualism). If you can find a lever to use against you opponent in politics you use it.  This plays to the thought that the CPC are the "nasty party" and plays directly to the Liberal base (and keeps those donations coming).  The PC's need to sort their crap out if they ever want to be the gov't again.  The conservatives are picking the wrong hill to die on.

If you want factual then [factual] "In all of us command" is pretty close to "thou dost in us command" from the original script that was changed to "in all our sons command", which I always thought was referring to the second person of the trinity.  But apparently it refers to soldiers.  Now women and trans persons (and any other category that comes up in the future) can and have died in combat so the words should be changed back to the original if you want to be a true conservative version.  The Liberals and NDP have tried factual.  The conservatives have blocked it (based on getting burned when they explored changing the words), so now it goes emotional.  [/factual]
 
Eaglelord17 said:
There is also several different versions of the Maple Leaf Forever which completely exclude all the strong British lyrics. Personally I would rather see one of those as the national anthem (I would also rather see the Red Ensign back as the flag as well, even though I know it is unlikely to ever happen again).

Coles Island, NB ESSO station, she still flies the Red Ensign like her Dad before her. 
 
So what happens next? Do we change it again when atheists or polytheists say that the reference to God is offensive and not inclusive?
 
ModlrMike said:
So what happens next? Do we change it again when atheists or polytheists say that the reference to God is offensive and not inclusive?

Once you open the door, yes.  You will end up with 600 verses.  Everyone will get bored and head home before the game starts. 
 
I am sorry, Underway but I can't agree with what you are saying.

This has gotten emotional for the Liberals, not for the CPC which is only insisting on members introducing private members bill (which this is BTW - it's not a government introduced bill) following the procedure and not getting a bye just because they are ill.

First of all, this is not the first, but the umpteenth time this gentlemen tried to have this private member bill passed. Every time before, it died on the agenda - like 99.9% of private member bills - with people on all sides of the aisle at the time voting or positioning themselves on both sides of the issue. Nad the last time, it came to a vote and was defeated. This issue BTW, comes out of his personal fascination with it - nothing else. I don't hear any clamour anywhere in Canada to change the words of O Canada. If issues were rated by importance to Canadians, this would surely rate bottom of page 987 in the list.

So now this gentlemen gets terminally ill - and I have great sympathy for what he and his family are going through - and the House honours him unanimously by making him Speaker for the day. Fine. Nice honour. Within the purview of the House, respectful and at the same time, non-influential on the agenda of the nation.

But, no. His caucus colleagues (this did not come from him, I am personally convinced) feel sorry - probably realize this would be a nice gesture to him and convinced him to introduce his bill again so they could support it. They (the Liberal caucus) probably felt that it was a matter of little importance - like his one day tenure  as Speaker.

But unfortunately, it touches on a National symbol - the Anthem - and whenever you try and change anything in a national symbol, it evokes strong emotions in people (look, even a few posts ago in this forum, someone is still attached to the Red Ensign as Canada's flag  :nod:). So you don't do it just like that, to make someone feel good.

Anyhow, the bill is introduced, and like all private members bill it is given a small time slot (in this case - one hour) for full disposition. Now here, two possibilities exist: Either the Liberal House leader knew that it would elicit a strong response and require more time - but wanted to use this to make the conservatives look heartless when they certainly move to follow the rules, in which case they, Liberals, are playing politics with a dying man's wish - or they honestly believe that this would be disposed of nearly unanimously because "it 's a minor matter without consequences". I suspect it's this second case, but that makes the House Leader stupid where nationalism is concerned. I can't say I am surprised: nationalism has been discarded as irrelevant by the Libs ever since the days of Trudeau the father, who believed that nationalist sentiments were "passé" and did not matter - save when you want to counter Quebec's nationalism. Ever since, the Libs, as party (not individuals) has been devoid of pursuit of any nationalist agenda -and rather prefer to eliminate national symbols.

I any event, all the CPC has done, is refuse to extend the hour of debate on that same day since the debate could not be completed in the allocated time. And I agree with that: There are much more important issues to be properly debated than this one. This means that another time slot had to be found later. Then, because they are not sure that the member could be in attendance for final reading at that later time, the Liberal House Leader tried to have the Sponsorship of the bill passed to another member of the Liberal party (a minister no less), which requires unanimity and would be unheard of for a private member bill. Many  "no" were shouted from the opposition side, which ended that attempt (but we don't know if these no came from only the conservatives or if some NDPers also said no, or even if there were some no from the Liberal side).

The only thing I can say is this: Had this gentlemen not been dying, none of the actions of the CPC would have attracted any attention, and the bill dying off on the agenda (if it had even ever been brought up again), would have attracted no attention whatsoever.

So who is playing politics in Ottawa? Everybody, including the Liberals just as much as everybody else. politics differently? Bull!
 
I still call our National Holiday "Dominion Day" mainly because I hate the underhanded way the liberals got the name changed.


I know, give it up, its just a word. But I'm always suspect of pretty much everything the Liberals do in the name of "National Unity".
 
I am part of a generation that remembers the playing of (and singing along with) the National Anthem(s) at the beginning of a movie showing in a theatre (yes, there was a time when most people went to theatres to see movies), at the end of the television broadcast day (yes, there was a time when both TV channels did not play 24 hours a day) and at the beginning of the first class of each school day.  Now, being from the Rock, that meant all three anthems - God Save The Queen, O Canada, and Ode To Newfoundland (it was still, for some, far too recent and painful, that we weren't our own country).  Don't get me started on flags.

I don't know if this recent attempt to change the lyrics is really a big deal for most Canadians.  Do most even know the words?  Or is the reality more along the lines of this attached (amended, with tongue in cheek) version of the legislated song that shows the words in English, in French, and in reality.
 

Attachments

  • O canada sheet.png
    O canada sheet.png
    279.9 KB · Views: 217
Blackadder1916 said:
..........  Do most even know the words? 

That is just the point.  The words are getting changed so often, that many don't know the words.  Our American neighbours don't have that problem.  Why do we have to be so subject to "Good Idea Faeries" wanting to change things just so that they can proclaim that they have brought about change, for good or bad.
 
It's not so much that they want to change the words. For me, it's two things.

1. That they want to change the words because of some PC BS.

2. That they want to change the words to something that is grammatically incorrect and sounds shitty to boot.
 
Lumber said:
It's not so much that they want to change the words. For me, it's two things.

1. That they want to change the words because of some PC BS.

2. That they want to change the words to something that is grammatically incorrect and sounds shitty to boot.

Pretty much my sentiments on this issue.
 
George Wallace said:
That is just the point.  The words are getting changed so often, that many don't know the words.  Our American neighbours don't have that problem.  . . .

Really?  That's the reason why Canadians don't know the words?  How often have the lyrics been changed in the thirty-five or so years since it was legally adopted as our National Anthem?  Zero.

As to Americans knowing theirs better . . . some surveys (dated, I admit, but I was too lazy to see if there is anything more up-to date) would indicate that ignorance abounds on both sides of the border.

Whether "Jose, can he see" the words or remember them from school days, back in 2004, the likelihood was only one third would get through the song.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/study-shows-americans-dont-know-the-national-anthem-as-well-as-they-think-72013107.html
WASHINGTON, March 9 /PRNewswire/ -- Nearly two out of three Americans
(61 percent) don't know all of the words to our National Anthem, the Star-
Spangled Banner, according to a recent Harris Interactive(R) survey.  Has
America lost its voice?  Many music experts say yes, and it's due to budget
cuts in school music programs.

    Three in four Americans say school is where they learned the anthem and
other patriotic songs.  In fact, music class is where students learn key
elements of American history and tales of United States heritage. Yet, the
survey showed that only 39 percent of Americans could complete the third line
of the Star Spangled banner correctly with " ... through the perilous fight."


Now, up here in the land of The Maple Syrup Forever, the study (in 2010) was aimed at students and found about two thirds generally knew the words, though I imagine that capability would diminish with increasing years since leaving school.  I was, however, pleased to see the mention of Newfoundland at the top of the heap.

http://www.canada.com/life/many+teens+know+lyrics+canada/3022581/story.html
VICTORIA — O Canada, our something, something land.

If you can only mumble and hum your way through the country's national anthem, it turns out you're not alone. A study by the University of Victoria, released Wednesday, found only 67 per cent of high school choir students knew the lyrics to O Canada.

"It's pretty alarming to me because these students are all enrolled in a high school choir of some sort and they are used to singing," said Mary Kennedy, the study's author and an associate professor of music education at the University of Victoria.

"But the thing we have to remember is that they don't have an opportunity in their schools to sing it that much."

Although students are first taught the lyrics as early as Grade 1, depending on the province, there is very little musical education around the anthem, said Kennedy. By the time the children become teenagers and enter high school, they appear to have lost or confused the words.

Kennedy surveyed 275 high school choral students at 12 schools in six provinces. Around 33 per cent made two or more errors in the lyrics. About 54 per cent made two or more melodic errors, including off-kilter pitch and tune.

The most common mistakes included substituting "our" for "thy" in the line, "True patriot love in all thy sons command," and mistaking "thee" for "the" in the line, "With glowing hearts we see thee rise."

"They are little errors," said Kennedy. "But on the other hand, if it's our national anthem, we should know the right words."

Students in Newfoundland fared best in the study, with 87 per cent able to sing the lyrics correctly.

In the worst case, Quebec, only 36 per cent of students knew the words. But it's not necessarily a lack of patriotism in Quebec, said Kennedy. Some students told her the only chance they get to sing O Canada is at hockey games.

The linkage between Canada's national anthem and sporting events is also problematic because singing in a crowd does not encourage individual knowledge of the words, she said.

"At hockey games now we have to have a soloist lead us, where in the olden days, we just got together and sang," said Kennedy.

Another problem may be the wide range of provincial rules on the anthem.

In B.C., students are supposed to sing O Canada at least three times a year. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec and Newfoundland have no such rules, although some individuals cities, such as Edmonton, have developed their own.

Ontario, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island say the anthem should be performed every day, although it often means a taped broadcast on the intercom, said Kennedy.

O Canada officially became the country's national anthem on July 1, 1980, but its roots can be traced back more than 100 years to music composed by Calixa Lavallee. In March, the Conservative government proposed, and then quickly abandoned, plans to explore more gender-neutral lyrics.

The idea for Kennedy's study, called the "O Canada Project," came in 2009 when she and a colleague from the United States surveyed how well students in Victoria and New Jersey could recite their home anthems. The New Jersey kids far outpaced their Canadian counterparts, and Kennedy wondered how widespread the Canadian problem might be.

Kennedy said she hopes to conduct two followup studies — one examining whether Canada's strong performance at the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver boosted knowledge of O Canada, and another that focuses on how elementary school kids are first taught the anthem and if there's a reason why they forget the words later in life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top