ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

Bowden, James W.J. “‘Dominion’: A Latent.” The Dorchester Review 5, no. 2 (Autumn-Winter 2015): 58-64.
58 T D R A/W 
British North America into one polity. While re-
publicans would argue that “Dominion” meant
British control over Canada, the word in fact re-
ferred to Canada’s consolidation of and control
over British North America.
Sir Samuel Leonard Tilley did not invent the
word “Dominion.” It also appears in the Bill of
Rights, 1689 and in documents in British North
America in the 17th century. During the Glorious
Revolution, Bostonites and New Yorkers revolt-
ed and deposed the Governors appointed by
King James II, and established the “Dominion of
New England.” While this entity bore the name
of Dominion, its political structure bore no re-
semblance to the Dominion of Canada and the
other self-governing dominions of the 19th and
20th centuries. In other words, the same word
was used to describe two completely dierent
governing arrangements.
In 1879, the Parliament of Canada ocially
recognized July 1 as “Dominion Day” through
the Dominion Day Act. e preamble of the bill
noted the historic signicance of July 1 and the
created of the Dominion of Canada in 1867:
Whereas, it was on the rst day of July that the
Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New
Brunswick became one Dominion, under the
name of Canada;
And whereas Rupert’s Land and the North-west
Territory, and the Province of British Columbia
became part of the Dominion in the month of
July, and Prince Edward Island became part of
the Dominion of the rst day of July;
And where as it i s expedient t hat su ch imp or-
tant events should be commemorated.4
e commemoration of Confederation and
the establishment of the Dominion of Canada
as Dominion Day would endure for a century.
e rst recital of the preamble of the British
North America Act, 1867 refers to this new type of
polity — a federation and constitutional monar-
chy under the Imperial Crown but self-governing
in its internal aairs — as a “Dominion.
Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia,
and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire
to be federally united into One Dominion under
On July 1, 1867, the British North America Act
re-organized three British North American
Crown colonies — the United Province of Can-
ada, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia — into a
unique type of polity known as the Dominion of
Canada.
John A. Macdonald rst sought to name the
new federal state resulting from Confedera-
tion “e Kingdom of Canada” but the British
Foreign Secretary vetoed the proposal, fearing
that such a name would invite hostility from the
American republic.1 At the London Conference
in 1866, the Fathers of Confederation and the
British government needed to agree on a new
name. Sir Samuel Leonard Tilley of New Bruns-
wick supposedly provided this inspiration by
looking to the King James Authorised Version
of the Holy Bible, and Psalm 72:8, which reads:
“He shall have dominion also from sea to sea,
and from the river unto the ends of the earth.
Canadian historian A.H.U. Colquhoun con-
siders the biblical origins of the “Dominion of
Canada” apocryphal (pun intended),2 though
other Canadian symbols derive from Psalm
72:8 and the Department of Canadian Heritage
acknowledges that the country’s ocial motto
contained in the coat of arms, A mari usque ad
mare (“from sea even unto sea”), also comes
from Psalm 72:8.3 e Psalm is about good king-
ship (the he” refers to King Solomon), and verse
8 evokes exerting control or sovereignty over a
territory which corresponds well to uniting
J W.J. B
mourns the much
misunderstood metonym
‘Dominion:
a lament
59A/W  T D R
‘Dominion
the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Brit-
ain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in
Principle to that of the United Kingdom:
Section 3 of the BNA Act (which P.E. Trudeau
in 1982 also re-named the Constitution Act,
1867”) could be interpreted as establishing that
the ocial, legal name of this country as simply
“Canada” instead of as “e Dominion of Cana-
da” — an argument that Prime Minister St. Lau-
rent did make in 1951. But the same provision
undoubtedly also refers to the new type of polity
that it brought into being as a “Dominion.
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the
Advice of Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy
Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and
after a Day therein appointed, not being more
than Six Months after the passing of this Act,
the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New
Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion un-
der the Name of Canada; and on and after that
Day those ree Provinces shall form and be
One Dominion under that Name accordingly.
By convention, we used to refer to the country
as “e Dominion of Canada.” e Parliament of
Canada proclaimed Dominion Day not because
of the ocial name of this country is “e Do-
minion of Canada” (as it is not) but because the
Confederation of British North America created
a new type of polity: a Crown colony that re-
organized several self-governing British Crown
colonies into a federation, at that time under
the sovereignty of the Imperial Crown but post-
1930s under the sovereignty of the Crown of
Canada, governed as a constitutional monarchy
with parliamentary responsible government.
e Dominion of Canada was the rst polity in
the world that combined federalism with con-
stitutional monarchy. e use of “Dominion” to
describe this new type of polity originated here
in Canada and later came to be applied to other
the self-governing British Crown colonies in the
Antipodes. It is perhaps this expropriation of
the term by Imperial authorities that ultimately
sowed confusion on the meaning of “Domin-
ion.” Various Imperial statutes would later re-
fer to the “e Dominion of New Zealand,” the
“Commonwealth of Australia” and the “Union
of South Africa” as “Dominions”, even though
the latter two had not incorporated “Dominion
into their ocial names.
In addition, “Dominion” served as a metonym
for Canada as a State (the federal government
or federal level of government) and to Canada
as a country (in both the senses of le pays and
la patrie) for decades, rather as Americans have
historically referred to the United States as a
State and as a country as “e Union.” What we
would now call the “federal government” once
went by the “Dominion government,” and vari-
ous departments and agencies once bore the
Dominion moniker: Statistics Canada was once
the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, and what we
now call “Federal-Provincial Conferences” were
“Dominion-Provincial.
Ottawa turned its back on “Dominion” in the
1940s and 1950s. In 1947, the Canada Ga-
zette dropped “Dominion of Canada” in favour
of “Canada.”5 In 1949, the Journals of the House
of Commons followed suit and dispensed with
“Dominion of Canada” at the start of the 21st
Parliament. In 1955, the House of Commons
Debates emulated the Journals and got rid of
“Dominion of Canada” between the 1st and 2nd
sessions of the 22nd Parliament, during St. Lau-
rent’s premiership.
In making these changes Prime Minister St.
Laurent proclaimed during Commons debates
on the periodic revision and consolidation of
statutes that his government’s ocial policy
of cleansing “Dominion” from the names of all
federal departments, agencies, and organiza-
Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia,
and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to
be federally united into One Dominion under the
Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Prin-
ciple to that of the United Kingdom.
... the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New
Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under
the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day
those Three Provinces shall form and be One Do-
minion under that Name accordingly.
British North America Act, 1867
60 T D R A/W 
‘Dominion
tions. “I think there has been progression,” St.
Laurent said in 1951,
... and I can say at once that it is the policy of
this government when statutes come up for
review or consolidation to replace the word
‘Dominion’ with the word ‘Canada.’ ere are
some people in this country who rather like the
name of Canada. at was the name given to
the new nation by the British North America Act
at the time it came into
being. Section 3 of that act
provides: It shall be lawful
for the Queen, by and with
the Advice of Her Maj-
esty’s Most Honourable
Privy Council, to declare
by Proclamation that, on
and after a Day therein ap-
pointed, not being more
than Six Months after the
passing of this Act, the
Provinces of Canada, Nova
Scotia, and New Bruns-
wick shall form and be
One Dominion under the
Name of Canada; and on
and after that Day those
ree Provinces shall form
and be One Dominion un-
der that Name accordingly.
ere has been a constant progression that
some people in this country have attempted
to impede and have resented, but neverthe-
less that progression culminated in the Statute
of Westminster which recognized the equality
of ail the sister nations of the commonwealth.
at progression has been resented by some,
but not by the majority of the people of Canada
or by the party that supports this government.
I think that party will be prepared to support
this government in the policy of replacing the
word ‘Dominionwith ‘Canada’ in the statutes
when they come up for review.6
In e Strange Demise of British Canada: e
Liberals and Canadian Nationalism, 1964-1968,
C.P. Champion notes that Pearson and his min-
isters legitimated their “neo-nationalism” of
making Canada independent from the British
Empire and United Kingdom ironically by por-
traying their ideas as having owed naturally
from Canada’s British inheritance.7 In fact, they
were trying to substitute one system for anoth-
er. ese neo-nationalists believed that Canada
must replace its “traditional identity and sym-
bols with new ones, no matter how many Ca-
nadians opposed it,and they portrayed their
political opponents as “reactionaries mired in
nostalgia.8 In this way, neo-nationalists func-
tion rather like the van-
guards of the proletarian
revolution who must drag
these “Ready, Aye, Ready”
Canadians who cling to Em-
pire into modernity and out
of their false Imperial con-
sciousness. e neo-nation-
alist views Canadian history
as a “nationalist teleology”
such that Canadians have
inevitably sought to elimi-
nate what they would con-
sider colonial vestiges in
an inexorable journey from
colony to nation9 and
perhaps ultimately, to a re-
public.
St. Laurent conformed
precisely to this neo-nation-
alist teleology and methodology and set the
precedent for Pearson. He sought to legitimate
his radical argument by couching it in section
3 of the British North America Act and sought
to de-legitimate all those paleo-nationalists
(as Champion calls the more conservative ele-
ments) who wished to retain references to “Do-
minion.rough a zeal for textual originalism
worthy of Justice Scalia, St. Laurent argued that
the traditional usage, “Dominion of Canada,
had always contradicted the wording the sec-
tion 3 and thus “Dominion” never rested on a
valid legal foundation.
St. Laurent’s assertion that “there has been
a constant progression moving inexora-
bly toward the government’s policy expressed
clearly the neo-nationalist teleology. Tradition-
alists were waging a futile struggle to “impede”
this inevitable “progression,” which they simply
“resented” because of their false consciousness.
e Dominion Lands Surveys Act rst fell victim
‘Dominion’ was
a metonym for
Canada as a State
and as a country
rather as Ameri-
cans referred to
‘the Union.’ The
French ‘Puissance
had a certain
charm
61A/W  T D R
‘Dominion
to the neo-nationalist teleology and became
the Canada Lands Surveys Act. St. Laurent set in
motion the Federal (no longer Dominion) Gov-
ernment’s slow-moving but all-encompassing
nomenclature revolution aimed at erasing all
vestiges of the old order and expunging “Do-
minion” — but with such parliamentary recti-
tude through the existing procedure to revise
and consolidate statutes. In Canada, even the
revolutions are polite. In the French language,
the nomenclature revolution of dispensing with
the Dominion of Canada proved even more
radical: it forced the country to undergo a sex
change, in the linguistic sense. La Puissance du
Canada, normally shortened to La Puissance,
became instead Le Canada.
After St. Laurent had turned against “Domin-
ion” and begun phasing it out, only Dominion
Day remained as the last redoubt of the old or-
der. e standard parliamentary process had
failed the neo-nationalists many times since
the 1940s.10 As such, some Liberal and New
Democratic backbenchers mounted their nal
assault against this redoubt of paleo-national-
ism on July 9, 1982, at 4:30 on that Friday after-
noon, when thirteen MPs suddenly slipped a bill
through Second Reading, Committee, Report,
and ird Reading in mere minutes adopting
the name “Canada Day” for July 1 — all without
the quorum of 20 members required by section
48 of the BNA Act.
The incident began that quiet summer after-
noon when Liberal MP Hal Herbert moved
that Bill C-201 (a private member’s bill to amend
the Holidays Act) be given Second Reading and
referred to its corresponding Standing Commit-
tee, which would mean sending o the oor of
the House of Commons that day into the hands
of another group of MPs. e motion out of the
blue caught Conservatives o guard. e MP
for Nepean-Carleton, David Baker, exclaimed,
“What is going on?” Without pause, the Deputy
Speaker, Lloyd Francis, a Liberal MP, asked for
unanimous consent that the bill be dealt with by
Committee of the Whole, meaning the members
of the House then present, rather than the for-
mal Committee. David Smith, a Liberal MP (and
since 2002 a Senator), rose on a point of order in
favour of immediately passing the bill. Francis
then chaired the Committee of the Whole, and
peremptorily passed the bill: “Clause 1 agreed
to. Preamble agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill re-
ported, read the third time and passed.”11 It was
highly unusual to say the least.
ey then agreed to deem the time to be ve
o’clock and immediately adjourned the House.
Having participated without demur in this mini-
hijack of the parliamentary process, New Dem-
ocratic MP Mark Rose proclaimed, “I think this
is a day on which to develop and to celebrate
our new holiday. It is only appropriate that, in
celebrating our new holiday called Canada Day,
we should at least take a holiday of 55 minutes
for the afternoon”12 — as if the Senate did not
rst need to approve the bill, or the Governor
General give it Royal Assent, before this little
coup d’état in the House became law.
All had transpired in a matter of minutes —
the transcript of this incident takes up only
one page (p. 19201) in the Commons Debates
— with the concurrence of the Deputy Speaker,
Lloyd Francis. Worse still, rather than reverse
her deputy’s knavish tricks owing to a lack of
quorum required by section 48, Speaker Jeanne
Sauvé let the change stand.
In fact the House of Commons acted uncon-
stitutionally and did not validly pass this bill,
because section 48 mandates that a quorum in
the House of Commons is 20, not 13: “e Pres-
ence of at least Twenty Members of the House
of Commons shall be necessary to constitute a
Meeting of the House for the Exercise of its Pow-
ers, and for that Purpose the Speaker shall be
reckoned as a Member.” For example, later in
the same year, on November 16, having failed
to reach a quorum even after ringing the bells
to summon more Members, the Speaker ad-
journed the House (Debates, p. 20729).
For this reason alone, the Canada Day bill
did not legitimately pass onto the Senate, and
the Senate should have rejected it. In addition,
this private member’s bill was not, and could
not have been construed as, a matter of con-
dence in the Trudeau government, so rejecting
it would not have threatened the government’s
parliamentary position.
In defence of the Speaker’s conduct on July 9,
1982 it can be argued that none of the MPs pres-
ent protested the lack of quorum. is argu-
ment is awed for two reasons. First, the Con-
62 T D R A/W 
‘Dominion
stitution is the supreme law, and though the
House of Commons has authority over its inter-
nal aairs, its Standing Orders must conform
to the Constitution. If the Standing Orders and
the Constitution come into conict, the Consti-
tution must prevail to the extent of the incon-
sistency. Secondly, Tory MP David Baker prob-
ably would have objected at the time if he had
grasped the signicance of the usurpation that
his colleagues were in the
middle of orchestrating.
When the bill arrived in
the upper chamber, Con-
servative Senator David
Walker noted that the
Commons had passed it
with only 13 members
present and “to make
sure that the bill slipped
through, a member asked
for ‘unanimous consent
that the clock now read
ve o’clock,’” precluding
further objections.13 Since
the Commons failed to
uphold the Constitution,
the Senate should have
done so by rejecting the
bill.
e Senate arguably
failed to apply even “so-
ber rst thought” to this
bill. Liberal Senator Florence Bird supported
and moved it to Second Reading — all the while
extolling Canada’s British inheritance of West-
minster parliamentarism, trial by jury, the com-
mon law, and the recognition of fundamental
freedoms like the freedom of speech.14 She then
portrayed the new name of Canada Day as the
culmination of the teleology of Canada’s path-
way from colony to independence as a sover-
eign state. Citing the Statute of Westminster,
1931, the Royal Style and Titles Act, 1953, and the
Patriation of the Constitution earlier that year
as precedents, she characterized this bill as “cel-
ebrating the national day of Canada as a com-
pletely independent country.15 She also sought
to delegitimate “Dominion Day” by belittling
it as an Imperial anachronism — suggesting a
false dichotomy between Dominion” and “Can-
ada” as if they were contradictory rather than
complementary. In reality, “Dominion Day
ows from the very same British traditions —
parliamentarism, the common law, trial by jury,
and liberty under law — that she praised.
To borrow from Champion’s terminology,
Senator Bird implied that only paleo-national-
istic reactionaries beholden to a foreign coun-
try would opt for the colonial baggage of “Do-
minion,while true and loyal Canadians would
choose “Canada. “Do
you think that the men
who fought in two world
wars were ghting for do-
minion, or do you think
that they were ghting
for Canada?” she asked,
imposing the neo-nation-
alist teleology of change.
“ose men wore proudly
the word ‘Canada’ on their
shoulder patches …”16 She
concluded that Canada
had nally “achieved full
nationhood” in 1982 and
that “the days of our so-
called inferiority complex
are over.17 In reality, of
course, the adoption of
the status of “Dominion
in 1867 was a Canadian
invention, derived by a
Canadian from a two-
millennia-old text (Psalm 72) that had every-
thing to do with Canadian sovereignty under
the Crown in Right of Canada.
During the Senate debate on Canada Day,
Senator George McIlraith, a Liberal, argued
that a Minister should have properly tabled the
bill as a government bill and that the Senate
should let the bill die on the Order Paper rather
that defeating it, so that a Minister could re-in-
troduce it as a government bill in the next ses-
sion.18 Senator Ernest C. Manning, the only-ever
Social Credit member of the upper chamber
(appointed by P.E. Trudeau in 1970), implored
his colleagues to reject the bill outright be-
cause of the unconstitutional manner in which
the Commons had passed it. He noted that the
Trudeau government had tabled similar bills to
this eect in the 1970s:
63A/W  T D R
The Commons
did not validly
pass this bill,
because section
48 mandates
that a quorum
in the House of
Commons is 20,
not 13.
‘Dominion
ey [the previous iterations of this bill] were
not proceeded with in the other place [the
House of Commons] because opposition to
them was such that the [Trudeau] government
wisely did not want to make an issue out of the
legislation. In this case, as has been outlined,
the matter was sneaked through the other
house without debate, with less than a quo-
rum in the house, and it now turns up on the
Order Paper on this chamber for sober second
thought.19
Senator Manning also pro-
tested against the Liber-
als’ attempt to “wipe out one
more part of Canada’s heri-
tage by abolishing Dominion
Day and all that its name im-
plies to millions of Canadians
and replace it with a name
that has absolutely no historic
signicance.20 Although the
July 9 incident appeared to be
spontaneous, it had obviously
been orchestrated by Liberal
MPs with NDP acquiescence
and Manning accused the
Trudeau government of hav-
ing engaged in “a long series of
deliberate steps to chip away at all those things
which pertain to the rich heritage of this coun-
try’s past.”21 After all, “spontaneous” political ac-
tions tend to require a lot of planning.
e authors of the bill and Senator Bird could
certainly have done better. “Confederation Day”
would, in my view, have been a more suitable
replacement because it dignies the creation
of the Dominion of Canada on July 1, 1867 with
the historical gravitas and signicance that the
day deserves. Such a name would also implic-
itly recognize that Canada’s history does not
start at a Revolutionary “Year Zero” in 1867.
Confederation was a step in the evolution of
Canada’s political order, not the beginning of its
existence. In March 1970, the eminent constitu-
tional historian Eugene Forsey (named to the
Senate by P.E. Trudeau later that year) appeared
before a Commons committee on an earlier bill
that proposed to replace Dominion Day with
Canada Day. He said:
Well, I think it [Canada Day] is devoid of the
historical associations which you do get either
in Dominion Day or in Mr. Hogarth’s suggestion
Confederation Day. It takes the historical zip
out of the thing somehow and it seems to me
that you want to have something in the name
of the day if possible. You want to have some-
thing to commemorate some historical event
and this was a meaning ful historical event.
Just as I would say, if the United States called
its national holiday “United States Day,” that
would be a rather colourless
and banal description of that
day. ey call it, to the best of
my belief, “Independence Day,
and I think that immediately
recalls to every American the
fact that on July 4, 1776, the 13
colonies became the United
States of America. I think it has
an evocative touch to it that
you would not get if you sim-
ply said “United States Day.
… Similarly, if you called the
French national holiday “Bas-
tille Day,” as I think it usually
is called, again it seems to me
that you would be taking some
of the historical signicance
out of the thing.22
In contrast, “Canada Day” does not convey
any concrete meaning. If anything, it implies
that Canadian history began in 1867 and that
anything which antedates Confederation is un-
Canadian, “British,” or “Imperial” and therefore
ought to be forgotten.
Some parliamentarians have made half-
hearted efforts to resurrect Dominion Day. As
a backbench Reform Party MP in 1996, Ste-
phen Harper introduced a private member’s
bill to restore Dominion Day. Harper said at
First Reading:
Mr. Speaker, this bill would restore the name
Dominion Day to the July 1 holiday. e coun-
try founded on July 1, 1867 was not Canada but
the Federal State of the Dominion of Canada,
still the country’s ocial name. ... e word
“dominion” has its linguistic roots in the French
language and was chosen as the name for this
64 T D R A/W 
‘Dominion
country by the Fathers of Confederation from
the 72nd Psalm: “He shall have dominion from
sea to sea and from the rivers unto the ends of
the earth. ... It has been a mistake for this coun-
try to try and preserve its future by destroying
its past and the name Dominion Day should be
restored.23
Harper’s bill died on the Order Paper. Years
later, as Prime Minister, Harper sometimes
used the term “Dominion.” One of his minis-
ters, Jason Kenney, often spoke of the “Domin-
ion of Canada” and employed “Dominion” as a
metonym — probably much to the confusion of
some in the audience. On July 1, 2011, Kenney
sat alongside the Duke and Duchess of Cam-
bridge at a citizenship ceremony and commem-
orated the 144th anniversary of “e Dominion
of Canada” and “our great Dominion.24
I once thought that any attempt to restore
the long-form of this country’s name to e Do-
minion of Canada — perhaps for the Sesquicen-
tennial of Confederation in 2017 — would be
portrayed as an unpardonable imperial retro-
gression. However I now suspect that it would,
if anything, simply be met with confusion and
bewilderment rather than hostility. While hos-
tility would at least imply some kind of engage-
ment, confusion would suggest that Canadians
have been deracinated from their history and
that “Dominion” has been successfully denor-
malized and delegitimated. Sadly — for the time
being at least — the much-maligned metonym
has been consigned to the revolutionary dust-
bin of history. 
Notes
Janet Ajzenstat et al., ed. 1. Canada’s Founding
Debates. (University of Toronto, 1999), p. 60.
George M. Wrong and H.H. Langton, eds. 2. e
Chronicles of Canada: Volume VIII e
Growth of Nationality (Tuscon, AZ: Fireship
Press, 2009), p. 61.
e circlet in our coat of arms bears the 3.
phrase desiderantes meliorem patriam ( “d e-
siring a better country,the motto of the Or-
der of Canada), which comes from St. Paul’s
letter to the Hebrews 11:16.
An Act to make the rst day of July a Public 4.
Holiday, by the name of Dominion Day,” 4th
Parliament, 1st Session, Chapter 47, May 15,
1879.
Library and Archives. “A Nation’s Chronicle: 5.
e Canada Gazette.LAC has three histori-
cal periods of the Canada Gazette: 1841-1869:
e United Province of Canada; 1869-1946:
e Dominion of Canada; 1947-1997: Parts I,
II, and III. In 1947, the Dominion government
began to publish the Gazette under three
parts: Part I “Notices and Proposed Regula-
tions,Part II “Ocial Regulations,and Part
III, “Acts of Parliament.
Commons6. Debates, Nov. 8, 1951, pp. 851-852.
C.P. Champion, 7. e Strange Demise of British
Canada: e Liberals and Canadian Nation-
alism, 1964-1968 (McGill-Queen’s, 2010), pp.
3-15.
Ibid., 15. Pearson even tabled the resolution 8.
to adopt the Maple Leaf ag on the 749th an-
niversary of Magna Carta.
Ibid.9.
Commons10. Debates, Nov. 8, 1951, pp. 851-
850. MacInnis mentions that Parliament
voted down a Private Members’ Bill in the
1940s on changing the name of Dominion
Day to “Canada Day.
Ibid.11.
Ibid., p. 19202.12.
Senate 13. Debates, Aug. 3. 1982.
Ibid.14.
Senate 15. Debates, Jul. 22, 1982, p. 4668.
Ibid.16.
Ibid., p. 4669.17.
Ibid., p. 4671.18.
Ibid., p. 4672.19.
Ibid.20.
Ibid., p. 4673.21.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing 22.
Committee on Justice and Legal Aairs, 28th
Parliament, 2nd Session, Mar. 12, 1970.
Commons23. Debates, Dec. 13, 1996, p. 7523.
“Speaking notes for the Hon. Jason Ken-24.
ney, PC, MP, Minister of Citizenship, Im-
migration and Multiculturalism at a
special citizenship ceremony with Their
Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess
of Cambridge,” Gatineau (Hull), Que., Jul.
1, 2011.
Article
Full-text available
Bowden, James W.J. “George Brown and Canada’s Manifest Destiny.” The Dorchester Review 8, no. 1 (Spring-Summer 2018): 44-47.
Book
Canada’s Founding Debates is about Confederation-about the process that brought together six out of the seven territories of British North America in the years 1864-73 to form a country called Canada. It presents excerpts from the debates on Confederation in all of the colonial parliaments from Newfoundland to British Columbia and in the constituent assembly of the Red River Colony. The voices of the powerful and those of lesser note mingle in impassioned debate on the pros and cons of creating or joining the new country, and in defining its nature. In short explanatory essays and provocative annotations, the editors sketch the historical context of the debates and draw out the significance of what was said. By organizing the debates thematically, they bring out the depth of the founders’ concern for issues that are as vital today as they were then: the meaning of liberty, the merits of democracy, the best form of self-government, the tension between collective and individual rights, the rule of law, the requirements of political leadership, and, of course, the nature of Canadian nationality. Canada’s Founding Debates offers a fresh and often surprising perspective on Canada’s origins, history, and political character. Previous published by Stoddart Publishing, 1999.
Article
Among the fierce political debates in the 1960s between Prime Ministers John Diefenbaker and Lester Pearson was their disagreement about how Canada should be represented. When in power, Pearson seized the opportunity to make a symbolic break with the British past, while Diefenbaker became the self-appointed defender of the country's traditions. The Strange Demise of British Canada examines the debate and the formative background of the participants, and reconsiders whether Pearson's reforms were successful in ushering in a "New Canada" for the 1967 Centennial. Examining cases such as the introduction of the Maple Leaf to replace the Canadian Red Ensign and Union Jack as the national flag, Champion shows that, despite what he calls Canada's "crisis of Britishness," Pearson and his supporters unwittingly perpetuated a continuing Britishness because they - and their ideals - were the product of a British world. Using a fascinating array of personal papers, memoirs, and contemporary sources, this ground-breaking study demonstrates the ongoing influence of Britishness in Canada and showcases the personalities and views of some of the country's most important political and cultural figures. An important study that provides a better understanding of Canada, The Strange Demise of British Canada also shows the lasting influence Britain has had on its former colonies across the globe.
Pearson even tabled the resolution 8. to adopt the Maple Leaf flag on the 749 th anniversary of Magna Carta
  • Ibid
Ibid., 15. Pearson even tabled the resolution 8. to adopt the Maple Leaf flag on the 749 th anniversary of Magna Carta. Ibid. 9. Commons 10. Debates, Nov. 8, 1951, pp. 851
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing 22 Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, 28 th Parliament, 2 nd Session Speaking notes for the Hon of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism at a special citizenship ceremony with Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge
Ibid. 16. Ibid., p. 4669. 17. Ibid., p. 4671. 18. Ibid., p. 4672. 19. Ibid. 20. Ibid., p. 4673. 21. Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing 22. Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, 28 th Parliament, 2 nd Session, Mar. 12, 1970. Commons 23. Debates, Dec. 13, 1996, p. 7523. " Speaking notes for the Hon. Jason Ken24. ney, PC, MP, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism at a special citizenship ceremony with Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, " Gatineau (Hull), Que., Jul. 1, 2011.
LAC has three historical periods of the Canada Gazette: 1841-1869: The United Province of Canada; 1869-1946: The Dominion of Canada; 1947-1997: Parts I, II, and III. In 1947, the Dominion government began to publish the Gazette under three parts: Part I "Notices and Proposed Regulations
  • Holiday
Holiday, by the name of Dominion Day, " 4 th Parliament, 1 st Session, Chapter 47, May 15, 1879. Library and Archives. "A Nation's Chronicle: 5. The Canada Gazette. " LAC has three historical periods of the Canada Gazette: 1841-1869: The United Province of Canada; 1869-1946: The Dominion of Canada; 1947-1997: Parts I, II, and III. In 1947, the Dominion government began to publish the Gazette under three parts: Part I "Notices and Proposed Regulations, " Part II "Official Regulations, " and Part III, "Acts of Parliament. " Commons 6. Debates, Nov. 8, 1951, pp. 851-852.
Speaking notes for the Hon. Jason Ken24. ney, PC, MP, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism at a special citizenship ceremony with Their Royal Highnesses
  • Ibid
Ibid., 15. Pearson even tabled the resolution 8. to adopt the Maple Leaf flag on the 749 th anniversary of Magna Carta. Ibid. 9. Commons 10. Debates, Nov. 8, 1951, pp. 851850. MacInnis mentions that Parliament voted down a Private Members' Bill in the 1940s on changing the name of Dominion Day to "Canada Day. " Ibid. 11. Ibid., p. 19202. 12. Senate 13. Debates, Aug. 3. 1982. Ibid. 14. Senate 15. Debates, Jul. 22, 1982, p. 4668. Ibid. 16. Ibid., p. 4669. 17. Ibid., p. 4671. 18. Ibid., p. 4672. 19. Ibid. 20. Ibid., p. 4673. 21. Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing 22. Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, 28 th Parliament, 2 nd Session, Mar. 12, 1970. Commons 23. Debates, Dec. 13, 1996, p. 7523. "Speaking notes for the Hon. Jason Ken24. ney, PC, MP, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism at a special citizenship ceremony with Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, " Gatineau (Hull), Que., Jul. 1, 2011.