National Holidays and Minority Festivals in Canadian ...
Access to Electronic Thesis
|Author: |Lianbi Zhu |
|Thesis title: |National Holidays and Minority Festivals in Canadian Nation-building |
|Qualification: |PhD |
This electronic thesis is protected by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. No reproduction is permitted without consent of the author. It is also protected by the Creative Commons Licence allowing Attributions-Non-commercial-No derivatives.
If this electronic thesis has been edited by the author it will be indicated as such on the
title page and in the text.
National Holidays and Minority Festivals in Canadian Nation-building
By
Lianbi Zhu
A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Department of History
January 2012
Abstract
This study of Canadian national holidays examines their role as a complex and dynamic instrument of nation-building from 1867 to the early 2000s. It indentifies three phases of nation-building, labelled assimilation, transformation and multiculturalism. It takes the ideological change in Canada in 1971, namely the proclamation of Official Multiculturalism, as the momentous turning point which motivated the pioneering changes and creation of Canadian national holidays based on negotiations in the government and the interventions of varied ethnic groups, focusing on the relationship between the commemorative and recreational functions of these holidays. Specific holidays considered including Dominion Day (Canada Day), Labour Day, Victoria Day and Remembrance Day, as well as National Aboriginal Day, Canadian Multiculturalism Day and one minority festival – Chinese New Year. Counterparts in France and the United Kingdom are presented to contrast with Canadian practices, putting Canada in the global context of nation-building and decolonisation. It argues that debates surrounding national holidays are a good measure of underlying national ideology, which underwent a real change in Canada across the period studied.
Acknowledgments
Very sincere thanks to my supervisors. Dr. Timothy P. Baycroft, as my primary supervisor, considerately and carefully supervised me in the past three years and a half. My secondary supervisor, Dr. Benjamin Ziemann, also gave many helpful comments to me during this period of study. Thanks also go to Dr. Clare Griffiths and Dr. Michael Foley, who left me useful suggestions in my upgrade meeting in March 2010.
I also sincerely thank to the many other staffs, whose names I have not had a chance to record, of the history department, library of the University of Sheffield, the British Library, the National Archive in Kew Gardens, and the Library and Archive of Canada supported my research in various ways.
Friends’ precious companionship and comfort relieved most of my anxiety and frustrations when I felt like almost giving up. My study fellow, Mrs. Hilary Sheffield, and her gentle husband John Sheffield, always watched my research progress and encouraged me when I was lack of confidence. I shared many lovely times with Dr. Mengning Liu and Mr. Li Liu, a very generous couple. A very gracious Francophone Canadian couple, Charlyne Gervais and Alain Vaillancourt, treated me as their family member when I took my archive trip in Canada. Zikui Wang, Yingying Fei and many other friends in real life and cyberspace, as well as my flat-mates all kindly supported my study and life through such a long-run.
Without my parents’ encouragement and support, I even cannot come to Sheffield to satisfy my long-sustained interest in this research topic and develop this piece of work. My most grateful thanks and deepest love to them are beyond words. This dissertation is dedicated to them without any doubt.
Contents
|Abbreviations |i |
| | |
|Chapter One: Conceptual Analysis on Nation-building and National Holidays in Canada |1 |
|Theories of Nationalism, Nation-building and National Holidays |2 |
|Nationalism and Nation-building: Perspectives |2 |
|National Holidays: Existing Approaches |9 |
|Canada: From Assimilation to Multiculturalism |15 |
|The First Phase: Assimilation, 1867 - 1945 |16 |
|The Second Phase: Transformation, 1945 - 1971 |20 |
|The Third Phase: Multiculturalism, 1971 to date |23 |
|Canadian Historiography of National Holidays |25 |
|Research Approach |30 |
| | |
|Chapter Two: Traditional Canadian National Holidays (1867 - 1945) |37 |
|Dominion Day and Its Alternatives |38 |
|Dominion Day |38 |
|Alternatives to Dominion Day |53 |
|Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day |53 |
|Chinese Humiliation Day |57 |
|Labour Day and May Day |61 |
|Labour Day |61 |
|May Day |68 |
|Victoria Day, Empire Day and la fête de Dollard |71 |
|Victoria Day |71 |
|Empire Day |77 |
|La fête de Dollard |83 |
|From Armistice Day to Remembrance Day |86 |
|Conclusion |96 |
| | |
|Chapter Three: Transformation of National Holidays (1945 - 1971) |99 |
|Dominion Day |100 |
|The First Wave of Transformation (1945 - 1957) |100 |
|The Second Wave of Transformation (1957 - 1971) |108 |
|The Quiet Revolution and the Establishment of the RCBB |108 |
|The Centennial Celebrations |113 |
|Renaming Dominion Day |120 |
|Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day |125 |
|May Day |129 |
|Victoria Day and Its Alternatives |130 |
|Remembrance Day |136 |
|Conclusion |138 |
| | |
|Chapter Four: Multiculturalism and National Holidays: From 1971 onwards |140 |
|The Designation of Canada Day |141 |
|Constitutional Change |141 |
|From Dominion Day to Canada Day |143 |
|The Designation of la fête nationale du Québec |160 |
|Labour Day and May Day |166 |
|‘Labour’ Day |166 |
|May Day |167 |
|Victoria Day and Its Alternatives |169 |
|Victoria Day |169 |
|Commonwealth Day |170 |
|From la fête de Dollard to la journée nationale des patriotes |172 |
|Other Ethical Alternatives to Victoria Day |176 |
|Remembrance Day |177 |
|Conclusion |184 |
| | |
|Chapter Five: Holidays and Festivals of the Minority Groups |186 |
|National Aboriginal Day |187 |
|American Indian Day: A Borrowed Festival |188 |
|A National Indian Day for the Centenary? |191 |
|The Designation of National Aboriginal Day |193 |
|Canadian Multiculturalism Day |207 |
|Chinese New Year |212 |
|Early Years of Chinese Immigrants in Canada: From the 1900s to the mid-1940s |213 |
|From Private Ritual to Public Representation: Chinese New Year in Canada |215 |
|Conclusion |227 |
| | |
|Chapter Six: Counterparts in France and the United Kingdom |230 |
|Counterparts in France |232 |
|Republicanism and French Nation-Building |233 |
|French National Holidays |235 |
|Counterparts in the United Kingdom |243 |
|A Multicultural Britain |244 |
|British National Holidays |247 |
|Conclusion |265 |
| | |
|Chapter Seven: Conclusion |268 |
| | |
|Appendix: Chronology |273 |
|Bibliography |278 |
Abbreviations
AFN Assembly of First Nations
CAB Cabinet Paper, National Archives
CBA Chinese Benevolent Association
CBC Canadian Broadcast Corporation
CCF Co-operative Commonwealth Federation
CIHM The Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions
CNE Canadian National Exhibition
C.O. Colonial Office, National Archives
Debates House of Commons Debates: Official report, Parliament, Canada
D.O. Dominion Office, National Archives
FLQ Front de libération du Québec
G.W.V.A. Great War Veterans’ Association
IAA Indian Association of America
INAC Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada
IODE Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire
LAC Library and Archives Canada, Ottawa
MNQ le Mouvement national des Québécoises et Québécois
MR Microfilm Reel
N.A. National Archives, The Kew Gardens, London
PQ Parti Québécois
RCAP Royal Commission on Aboriginal People
RCBB Royal Commission of Bilingual and Bicultural
SSJB Société de Saint Jean Baptiste
Chapter One: Conceptual Analysis on Nationalism, Nation-building and National Holidays in Canada
In 1869, Liberal member Thomas David McConkey moved a bill in the newly created Canadian parliament to recognise 1 July as ‘Dominion Day’, which found a way to centralise a civic holiday as the instrument of nation-building.[1] In 2002, the Governor in Council declared a Royal announcement to respect 27 June as Canadian Multiculturalism Day, thereby designating a national holiday which highlighted a major long-term shift in national ideology.[2] Dominion Day and Canadian Multiculturalism Day, both as national holidays, aimed at increasing the citizens’ sense of belonging to the nation but were underlain by different national ideologies and visions of the Canadian nation: assimilation versus multiculturalism. This work will focus on the construction, transformation and reconstruction of Canadian national holidays over the long run, to explore their diverse roles in various social contexts in order to understand how they were used to promote social integration, and the ways in which changing visions of the Canadian nation can be measured through an examination of these changes and the political debates on holiday creation surrounding them. It will argue that this complex instrument of social integration is a stage for different groups and entities to express their understandings to the nation, which is more than a stable invention of the past or tradition but a dynamic and changeable reflection to the present according to the debates of the political elites and the interventions from regional, ethnic and aboriginal groups.
This introduction will begin with an examination of theories of nation-building and social integration, to contextualise Canada and the ideologies influencing Canadian national holidays in the post-Confederation era. Next, it will review several major features of Canadian nation-building from 1867 onwards to provide the political and ideological background within which Canadian national holidays were created and modified. Then, it will present existing studies of Canadian national holidays before clarifying the main focus and argument of this dissertation. In the last section, this introduction will elucidate the methodological approach of the following chapters, evaluate the categories and limitations of sources and introduce the outline of the dissertation.
Theories of Nationalism, Nation-building and National Holidays
In the late eighteenth century, the American War of Independence and the French Revolution ushered in a new epoch of building nation-states, leading to the development of an ideology which would dominate the next two hundred years: nationalism.[3] This concept induced countless debates and discussions from then to date, which gradually comprised the theoretical foundation of modern nations.[4] In this section, a theoretical review of the modernist, constructivist and ethno-symbolic perspectives of nationalism will first contextualise the Canadian nation-building and the ideological turn of Canada after 1971.[5] Then, this section will examine the origins of national holidays – an invention of tradition in E. J. Hobsbawm’s term – as well as their practise in nation-building, and clarify the existing approaches and their limitations to this topic.[6]
Nationalism and Nation-building: Perspectives
Although studies of nation and nationalism were motivated by the initial nation-building worldwide from the late-eighteenth century onwards, the early 1980s saw the articulation of several models and theories which would prove enduring.[7] John Breuilly’s Nationalism and the State published in 1982, Ernest Gellner’s Nations and Nationalism, Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities and E. J. Hobsbawm and T. O. Ranger’s edited book The Invention of Traditions (all appearing in 1983) developed what would come to be called the modernist perspective of the study of nationalism.[8] Gellner argued forming a nation-state was equal to nation’s modernisation, to which Breuilly, Anderson, Hobsbawm and many others also agreed in different ways. Breuilly ‘treats nationalism as a form of politics’ which ‘is best understood as an especially appropriate form of political behaviour in the context of the modern state and the modern state system’, indicated a top-down approach of nation-building.[9] Before Anderson put forward his constructivist interpretation of nationalism by analysing the print media and other instruments operated in the public, he first reviewed the three paradoxes of its theory, which centred on the modernity and political power of the nation, as his starting point.[10] Hobsbawm developed his constructivist discussion of nationalism on the ground of Gellner’s definition of nationalism with Marxist criticism that took the perspective from below.[11] In short, modernist scholars mentioned above respected the political sense of nation-building as a key part of modernisation with the angles from the top or below in the early 1980s.
The modernist perspective, however, was one of several paradigms of nationalism and nation-building; one of Gellner’s students, A. D. Smith, criticised it, arguing that the ethnic roots of nations were more significant leading to another trend in the historiography of nationalism.[12] Looking back to the late nineteenth century, when asking ‘What is a nation?’ in 1882, Ernest Renan believed both the elites and the masses contributed to the building of a nation. He argued nation was ‘a soul, a spiritual principle’ and ‘the expression of a great solidarity constituted by a feeling for the common sacrifices that have been made and for those one is prepared to make again’, which essence ‘is that individuals have many things in common, but also they have forgotten many other things’.[13] He believed the birth of a nation was based on politicians’ construction of certain discourses about the nation’s past to stimulate the patriotic sensation of members of the nation who agreed with the discourse; the political elites and the mass mutually and primarily determined the nation and its ideology from the top of the politics and the below.
In the early nineteenth century, on the one hand, the cultural, ethnic and popular heritage of nationalism was noticed by Marxist politicians such as Joseph Stalin, Karl Renner and Otto Bauer who took it as the character and origin of nations.[14] On the other hand, a civic-ethnic dichotomy for understanding nationalism in Europe was prescribed by Hans Kohn in 1944, which contemporary studies still follow, to a large extent.[15]
In post-war academia, studies accepted the dichotomy of civic-ethnic nationalism as a doctrine, although the margin of two divisions was unclear: in ‘[Ernest] Renan’s acknowledgement, for example, “ethnic” mythology and history frequently existed alongside the “civic” and political voluntarism of a daily plebiscite’.[16] For example, Clifford Geertz believed the ethnic differentiation has political expression in the process of nation-building in some new nation-states.[17] John A. Armstrong analysed the nations via cultural, symbolic and perennialist perspectives.[18] Smith then absorbed Geertz’s and Armstrong’s statements on the ethical and symbolic factors in nation-building, confirmed the values of ethnic nationalism and ethno-symbolic in one nation and supplied an alternative to the modernist-oriented paradigm.[19] He believed the nation-building was not only about the ‘invention of traditions’ in Hobsbawm’s word or ‘imagined communities’ in Anderson’s, but also continually reinterpreted and re-constructed in the daily practices and apolitical aspects of the society by the public, not the political elites only.[20] This claim responded to the ‘everyday nationalism’ or ‘banal nationalism’ contributed by Michael Billig, Tim Edensor and others which introduced the daily and endemic reproduction of nationalism into account, and highlighted the cultural aspect of nationalism which John Hutchinson had promoted after the mid-1990s.[21] Smith also suggested a long-term study – initially promoted by the Annales School of French historians – of nation-building, which considered varied ethnic groups’ role, by analysing the symbols, myths, memories and other ‘cultural’ heritage of the nation.[22] As a sociologist, he aimed to construct a new theoretical building for integrating existing theories of nation and nationalism. Increasing numbers of studies on ethno-symbolic, ethno-culture and ethnic groups’ role in nationalism and nation-building covered a new research area owing to Smith’s theoretical approach from the late 1990s.[23]
Indeed, this dissertation will examine nation-building in Canada from the view of ethno-symbolism to criticise the constructivist one by a long-term study of the creation of and change to national holidays, one complicated category of symbol and instrument of nation-building. The following paragraphs will explain the reasons why this perspective can be used to explore the Canadian case and point out the ideological background of Canadian nation-building in the theoretical sense.
As mentioned above, Canada experienced an ‘ideological turn’ which changed the leading national policies for nation-building and social integration fundamentally. This turn was marked by the proclamation of Official Multiculturalism by the federal government in 1971, altering the previous assimilative ideology that had operated since Confederation.[24] To explain the applicability of ethno-symbolism in analysing the Canadian cases, it is necessary to clarify how and why multiculturalism became the ‘national ideology’ of Canada, and its connotation for the purpose of this study.
The status of multiculturalism as the Canadian national ideology can be understood in three senses: as a set of values, as the manifesto of liberal nationalism in Canada, and as the leading principle behind federal legislation. First, Wsevolod W. Isajiw asserted that multiculturalism offers a set of social values not only recognised the ‘expressive identity needs and the instrumental power needs’ of ethnic groups but also stood for the ‘basis for a new kind of universalism which legitimizes the inclusion’ of ethnic groups.[25] Evelyn Kallen’s believed this ‘ideology of cultural pluralism underl[ies] the federal policy’ of the Canadian government from the 1970s onwards.[26]
Second, as the ‘ideology of cultural pluralism’, multiculturalism plays a role as ‘liberal nationalism’ – termed by Yael Tamir – in contemporary nation-states, which was a principal theory of minority rights for the purpose of social integration.[27] Among the many models of social integration, the division between assimilation and cultural pluralism is always central.[28] Such theories of cultural pluralism were dramatically developed after the end of the Second World War. When political philosopher Isaiah Berlin argued pluralism and negative liberalism were the keys to prevent the recurring of totalitarianism and war in his outstanding speech ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’ in 1958, it unveiled the heated and continuous debates on a new model of social integration, cultural pluralism or multiculturalism.[29]
Cultural pluralism, however, was only one possible approach to social integration in the post-war period. Nations could and did choose different roads for the same purpose: for example, the French government kept assimilative Republicanism as the national ideology in the post-war period. In this sense, as the counterpart to Republicanism, multiculturalism can also be respected as an ideology. Furthermore, after putting nationalism in the liberal context, Michael Freeden argued that nationalism could be understood as the ‘embellishment, sustainer and feature’ of the contextual ideology, liberalism; in other words, it is reasonable to respect liberal nationalism, namely multiculturalism, as an ideology.[30]
Third, from the 1970s onwards, the governments of Canada ceased the previously assimilationist approaches of social integration and officially replaced them by those led by multiculturalism.[31] As mentioned above, the Canadian government first proclaimed ‘Official Multiculturalism’ in 1971. Then, the Constitution Act, 1982 declared that multiculturalism was one value and principle of the nation.[32] The Canadian Multiculturalism Act 1985 and 1988 further recognised and protected the multicultural heritage as well as the rights of minority groups and the Aboriginal peoples.[33] The above legislative protection strengthened the influence of multiculturalism on the public polices, especially those related to the minority rights, social integration and nation-building, throughout Canada.
As multiculturalism played a key role within national ideology in Canada after 1971, for the convenience of discussion, the previous model of social integration, namely assimilation which guided the national policies of nation-building from Confederation to 1945, will be regarded as its alternative in this dissertation. Under this assumption, the basic difference between assimilation and multiculturalism is the recognition of the minority and sub-national cultural heritage within the national boundary: assimilative ideologies intended to build a homogenous nation by recognising the high and national culture and identity only; multiculturalism, on the contrary, endeavoured to recognise equally various sub-national and minority rights and their heritage as part of the national identity. As the assimilative ideology was gradually altered to multiculturalism, the interval period between the operations of two ideologies has been named as ‘transformative period’ in this study.
Historically speaking, the assimilative policies were operated by Anglophone Canadians in the early years after Confederation by undertaking ethnic nationalism; non-British immigration, however, was excluded from mainstream society.[34] Multiculturalism, as the manifesto of civic nationalism, protected the rights, especially the cultural rights, of the minority groups after 1971 by shifting the assimilative policies. In other words, the ideological change in Canada also meant the shift from ethnic nationalism to civic in the Anglophone Canadians’ side; the primary counterparts to Anglophone Canadians, Francophone Canadians maintained an ethnic nationalism to protect their own interest and heritage.[35] On the one hand, this ideology change, motivated by Québec nationalism, intended to solve the conflicts between ethnic nationalisms within the framework of newly emerged civic nationalism; meanwhile, governmental policies, which were guided by multiculturalism for nation-building purpose, mainly operated in ethnic, cultural, symbolic and linguistic aspects of the nation such as ‘using national symbols in public life (e.g. flag, anthem, public holidays)’.[36] Using ethno-symbolic perspective to analyse the operation of multiculturalism which has a paradoxical feature, hence, have three advantages. First, it could produce a long-term study from the age of Confederation to date that covers the practises of civic and ethnic nationalism. Second, it could probe the paradox of multiculturalism which was motivated by the ethnic nationalism. Third, it could elaborate the tension between the competing ethnic and civic nationalism in Canada. Examining the features and functions of national holidays – an instrument of nation-building and a symbolic representation of the nation – and their counterparts will be helpful to clarify the character of the ideological change in Canada.
National Holidays: Existing Approaches
Among the various instruments of nation-building which range from education, citizenship to national symbols, music and other recreational practices, this study will focus on national holidays for a variety of reasons. Hobsbawm’s ‘Mass-Producing Traditions: Europe, 1870-1914’ published in 1983 has already analysed one civic holiday and claimed holiday’s positive function in stimulating national identities for nation-building from the modernist and constructivist perspective.[37] Anderson took the public memorial ceremony and tombs of Unknown Soldiers as ‘modern cultural of nationalism’ to motive the ‘deep and horizontal comradeship’ among the citizens for forming a ‘divinely-ordained, hierarchical dynastic realm’ in the second part of Imagined Communities.[38] Furthermore, as mentioned in the previous part, studies of political philosophy also recognised that public holidays are one kind of national symbol which can be created to promote nation-building.[39] Although the role of national holidays in nation-building has been approved by the above studies of constructivist nationalism and political philosophy, only a few recent works examine this topic from the historical and ethno-symbolic angle (see below).
The aims of designating national holidays were to foster of an identity of a certain nation according to the principles of its leadership. In this sense, national holiday is signified as ‘an instrument of nation-building’ in this dissertation. This part will first review the origin of national holidays, their shared features and functions as well as existing research approaches to them, then, this part go on to criticise Hobsbawm’s approach to holidays in ‘Mass-Producing Traditions’. This critique covers three aspects – chronology, ideology and functionality – to show the uniqueness of Canadian cases which makes them worth analysing in greater depth.
The term ‘holiday’, etymologised from ‘holy’ and ‘day’ and meaning ‘all the saints’ days and special days of the ecclesiastical calendar’, gives national holiday the basic feature of any holiday, namely a day for commemorative or recreational events.[40] Actually, invention of ‘secular holidays’ literally broke the connection between holidays to God’s sphere. The national holiday, as the government’s proclamation of a secular holiday, initially politicised local matters to national scale when nation-states were internationally emerging. It reflects a certain nation’s identity and the ideology of the leading national group, and presents political and patriotic orientations via commemorative ceremonies and recreational celebrations, which similarly function as the religious holiday, to motivate the participants’ sense of belonging in the secular kingdom. Repeating national activities, in some cases, communicated and crystallised the participants’ appreciation, which achieved its goal in promoting citizens’ shared sense of belonging to the nation.[41] Maurice Halbwachs termed constructing shared memory of the public events as ‘collective memory’, which turned to be the ingredients for future generations to ‘think with’ as their common heritage.[42] Victor Turner believed that the ‘collective effervescence’, termed by Emile Durkheim, appeared in the gathering events such as national holidays to motivate the participants to accept shared purpose and common values with heightened awareness and moral earnestness.[43]
The commemorative and recreational events of national holidays both originated from religious holidays to promote shared memories, values and experiences with different focuses. Considering the commemorative aspect of public events such as 4 July in the United States and 14 July in France, John R. Gillis believed these creations of the government aimed at shaping the public memory to promote national unity and identity.[44] In other words, commemoration of national holidays has both civic and constructivist features. Regarding the events with the recreational feature, as Alessandro Falassi suggested, generally intended to encourage participants’ sense of belonging to certain community. He believed that the social function and the symbolic meaning of the festival are tightly linked with a set of remarkable values, which are approved by certain groups of people as the part and parcel to ‘its ideology and worldview, to its social identity, its historical continuity, and to its physical survival, which is ultimately what festival celebrates’.[45] These events somehow link to the ethnic, historical and symbolic past of the nation.
The relationship between the two functions of national holidays is complicated and cohesive. Although existing studies of national holidays cover the discussion of the two functions, their relationship has been given limited notice. As mentioned above, Marxist historian Hobsbawm discussed May Day from the view of labour and working class history, which followed earlier labour historians’ interest in analysing the class struggle and labourers’ welfare in the 1970s.[46] This Marxist tradition of study national holidays attached to the past of the working class not only inspired followers such as Hobsbawm but also other works: they explored holidays containing anti-socialist stance such as imperialism in the same period of time.[47] Both the recreational and commemorative aspects of these holidays were discussed in these works, though the relationship between the two aspects was not their major focus.
From the late 1970s onwards, studies of national holidays showed increasing interest in commemoration.[48] For example, Christian Amalvi analysed the creation of Bastille Day to clarify its function for promoting Republicanism and Antoine Prost discussed the concrete symbols of Armistice Day ceremonies, namely the monuments, in France which represented the patriotism in the local level.[49] Both of them were selected in the first volume of Lieux de mémoire edited by Pierre Nora and published in 1984. Although Lyn Spillman also studied the commemorative aspects of national holidays in the United States and Australia, she focussed on the role of mega-events in promoting the national identity.[50]
As mentioned above, Smith’s ethno-symbolism motivated analyses of the symbolic and banal dimension of nationalism, including those took national holidays as the case to study.[51] For example, Jon E. Fox suggested that ordinary people’s everyday practises produce the nation and national identity via sports and national holidays.[52] David McCrone and Gayle McPherson’s selection of articles, focussed on European national days’ role in constructing and changing national identities in the second half of the twentieth century, intended to encourage more studies on the symbolic values of national holidays.[53] They suggested that a national holiday was a ‘truism in the literature on national identity and nationalism that who we are in national terms is usually implicit and taken-for-granted’; their book aimed to ‘show how national days are invented, reconstructed, mobilised, and even denied for cultural and political purposes’ as a changing complex to indicate ‘who people think they are, who others think they are (as in national stereotypes); and how national identities are made, unmade and remade’.[54]
Although the significance of national holidays has been re-emphasised by McCrone and McPherson, their book did not elaborate the dialectic relationship between the commemorative and recreational aspects of holidays. Elgenius Gabriella’s recent article made a break through in exploring a long-term history of Constitution Day of Norway by analysing the situation of the ceremonial events in a rival and multicultural context and suggested the incorporation of national holidays and other instruments of nation-building such as primary and secondary school curricula.[55] More studies on the functionality are necessary to engage and enhance Gabriella’s discussion.
This dissertation will thus focus on analysing the relationship of the functions of national holidays in Canada and take the ethnic group’s role into consideration. The following paragraphs will show that, in order to explore the characters of Canadian national holidays, it would be helpful to define several key concepts by revising the existing ones contained in Hobsbawm’s work.
As discussed in the opening paragraph of this chapter, the Canadian government has a long history in creating national holidays for nation-building. Indeed, it was the first one in the world to designate a national holiday, Dominion Day, to commemorate the founding of the nation which combined the newly created civic and statutory holiday with a day of rest. The criteria of regarding Dominion Day as the first ‘national holiday’ is that this creation combined the commemorative and recreational functions of a holiday and recognised a historic date as a public holiday by the federal legislation.[56] The centralisation of Dominion Day was earlier than Hobsbawm’s definition of the ‘mass-producing traditions’ period so that the creation, negotiation and proclamation of Canadian national holidays could continually reveal underlying trends in nation-building in a full time-span.
Moreover, the ideological turn in Canada, which has been discussed in the previous part, parallels the debates of the names and rituals of Canadian national holidays. Analysing these holidays could help us to explore the characters of the national ideologies in different periods of time.
Considering the functionality, Hobsbawm has already summarised the mechanism of designating a national holiday, an invention of traditions, as
essentially a process of formalisation and ritualisation, characterised by reference to the past, if only by imposing repetition.[…] It is probably most difficult to trace where such traditions are partly invented, partly evolved in private groups (where the process is less likely to be bureaucratically recorded), or informally over a period of time as in parliament and the legal profession.[57]
This summary indicated that the interaction of ‘formalisation and ritualisation’ in the top of the politics and the practices of the private groups eventually constructed the new tradition for a nation. For the convenience of discussion, he used ‘political’ and ‘social’ to categorise activities of the invented traditions in the high and low levels of politics.[58] This division, however, has limitations of signifying how Canadian national holidays reflected and responded to the ideological change. For the convenience of study, this dissertation will replace Hobsbawm’s terms with ‘centralisation’, ‘commemoration’ and ‘recreation’ for the following reasons.
The meaning of centralisation is related to the above criteria which respects Dominion Day as the first national holiday worldwide. Although Hobsbawm noticed centralisation (formalisation and ritualisation, in his term) was a crucial process of the invention of traditions, he did not clearly identify the legislative approval as the cornerstone of this process. Canada experiences a continuous decentralisation of the administrative rights after Confederation, especially after the Quiet Revolution.[59] ‘National’ holidays, however, are centralised in the federal government by legislation after the political negotiation in the centre of Canadian politics. Such kind of legislation defines the reason of designating a certain civic holiday by explaining the official narrative of an historical event or person as well as the date of rest for this holiday. The commemorative and recreational functions are conjoined in the same legislative text due to the centralisation. This negotiation might be reopened with the change of constitutional or political context or the interference from the below, mainly the ethnic and minority groups in Canada, to change the enforcing legislation. After the ideological change, although some provincial governments started to declare their own legislation of national holidays, the federal government is still in charge of the official arrangements of the events of national holidays whether taking place in Ottawa or other parts of Canada. Analysing the debates and discussions of centralisation can reveal the features of diverse Canadian national holidays with different ideological backgrounds, including the activities of competing social groups and to observe a long period of time from the perspectives of top-down and bottom-up.
The division of commemoration and recreation is originated from the civic-ethnic dichotomy of nationalism discussed above. Commemoration links to the civic, political, legislative and ceremonial aspects of a national holiday while recreation links to the ethnic, cultural, practical and festivalised aspects. In Hobsbawm’s work, he blended the political and social aspects of inventions while did not analyse the tension between two aspects in and to national holidays. As the commemorative and recreational activities are merged and mixed with each other, these settings are ideal types for the convenient of discussion. Even so, separating the two key functions of national holidays and exploring their relationships, as the following chapters will show, could point out the characters of ideological changes in Canada and is helpful to evaluate the national holidays in depth.
After clarifying the theoretical base of this dissertation, the following two sections will review Canadian nation-building and the existing works of Canadian national holidays based on the theoretical review in this section. The division of the three-phase nation-building, defined by the different national ideologies operated in these periods, has been explained in this section. Discussions of existing studies of Canadian national holidays will further examine why this dissertation takes centralisation, commemoration and recreation as the key concepts to study by showing the advantages and limitations of these works as the context of the methodological approach of this dissertation.
Canada: From Assimilation to Multiculturalism
After clarifying the ideological bases of Canadian nation-building in the previous section, this section will analyse the characters of the three phases of this nation-building. The reason of the division of chronology is stemmed from the ideological change and thus the features of national ideologies name these phases: assimilation, transformation and multiculturalism. Roughly, the assimilation period started from the year of Confederation, 1867, to the end of the Second World War. In this period, the Canadian government promoted national policies to build an integrated nation, with policy of assimilating individual’s and minorities building on the Dominion-Empire identity. When the British Empire collapsed in the end of the Second World War, one key ingredient of Canadian national identity became somewhat devalued.[60] This change encouraged Canadians to look for the replacement of the sense of belonging to the Empire. From 1945 to 1971, the Canadian government and the public both made efforts on this issue, which led to a shift in values and the proclamation of Official Multiculturalism. As this period witnessed the changes and controversies on the new national identity, this dissertation defines it as the ‘transformation’. The proclamation of the new national ideology in 1971 and following constitutional change in 1982 brought the final phase of Canadian nation-building, namely the phase of multiculturalism, in which the significance of the minority groups’ role in nation-building was increasing. This section will examine these three phases to clarify their features which stimulated and affected the centralisation of Canadian national holidays. Disagreements and grievances with national politics will also be included to show the counter-histories of nation-building. Meanwhile, it will illustrate the significance of party politics in different phases as the party line played significant role in the creation and changes of some national holidays as the following chapters will show.[61]
The First Phase: Assimilation, 1867 - 1945
In the first phase of Canadian nation-building, the boundaries of the nation were gradually extended to almost their current shape, with only one further alteration in 1949. The relationship between the Dominion of Canada and the British Empire was also transformed in these years. With regards to the policies of nation-building, the federal government enacted legislation to assimilate the aboriginal peoples and restrict non-white immigrants, especially the Chinese. Disagreements over such assimilative policies were not only varied by the minority groups but also the provincial governments. In this assimilative phase, the creation of four major national holidays in Canada was mainly approved by the Conservative governments, aiming to enhance Canadians’ sense of belonging to the Dominion as well as the British Empire.
The founding of the Canadian Confederation in 1867, unlike the United States almost a century earlier, was accomplished by legislation without violence. After three Confederation Conferences – the Charlottetown and Québec Conferences in 1864 and the London Conference in 1866, the Canadian founding fathers achieved the draft of the British North America Act in February 1867. Queen Victoria gave Royal Assent to this Act on 29 March 1867, which set 1 July as the date of its enforcement. This date, therefore, marked the momentous point, which transformed four parts of the British colonies in North America – Upper and Lower Canada, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia – into a Dominion of the British Empire, called ‘Canada’: a word the aboriginal settlers in Québec used to call ‘town’ in the sixteenth century, to name the new integrated political entity.[62]
After the establishment of the Dominion of Canada, the federal government took further steps to build the nation, including expansion and further unification.[63] On 1 December 1869, the Hudson’s Bay Company transferred the Northwest Territories to the Canadian government and gained a payment of £300,000.[64] On 15 July 1870, the Métis’ Red River settlement in the Northwest Territories became an independent Canadian province, Manitoba, with the proclamation of the Manitoba Act to protect the settlers’ rights.[65] British Columbia and Prince Edward Island joined Confederation on 20 July 1871 and 1 July 1873 respectively by provincial legislation.[66] The aboriginal peoples in Yukon asked to separate their local government from the Northwest Territories on 13 June 1898 and became the second territory of Canada.[67] Then, settlers in Saskatchewan and Alberta made the same choice to those of the Yukon on 1 September 1905 and became new independent provinces.[68] Like many other nations, fixing the nation’s boundary was the most significant step of building a new nation. In Canada, this process was achieved in about forty years by combining different territories with varied heritage and histories as a whole. Although Canada’s boundary was eventually fixed on 31 March 1949 – the date when Newfoundland became a province, the majority land of today’s Canada had become part of the nation before the arrival of the twentieth century and operated the same federal polities for nation-building.[69]
The federal government’s efforts to extend the boundaries of Confederation met with disagreements in different provinces. For example, Joseph Howe and other Nova Scotians who were against Confederation strongly opposed the union shortly after 1867.[70] The provincial controversies to the unification of the nation paralleled the government’s promotion of the unification: politicians adopted nationalised practices to unify the nation in the communicational, political and religious aspects.[71]
Another crucial part of building a homogenous nation was shown in the federal legislation for limiting the rights of the minority groups in this phase. For instance, Chinese immigrants, who came to Canada to build the national railways, were charged head tax and not permitted to move freely according to the federal legislation, for the protection of the nation’s welfare.[72] The federal legislation also took lands from the aboriginal peoples for assimilation and protecting the benefits of the European-origin Canadians.[73] Assimilating immigrants with diverse origins into the nation – including those of the United Kingdom and France – was a key target of the government from 1867 to 1945.[74]
The enlargement of Canada’s territory between 1867 and 1945, as mentioned above, was a gradual process; the construction of the parliament was a similar expansion whose members had varied origins. For example, the first two major political parties in Canada, the Conservatives and the Liberals, each had drawn together several political groups with different stances in economic, religious and many other aspects based on the interests of individual provinces.[75] Conservative members such as the first Canadian Prime Minister John A. MacDonald intended to promote the Confederation and national unity, as well as protect the benefits of the businessman with ultramontanism, ultranationalist and the loyalism, or imperialism.[76] As the Conservative Prime Ministers led most of the parliaments in the first three decades of Canada after 1867, early national policies of the nation were clearly followed the ideologies of this party.[77] The Liberal Party played an increasingly important role in government from the early twentieth century, and also promoted national unity but held different ideologies, including continetalism, free-trade and anti-clericalism. After Wilfrid Laurier became the leader of the Liberal Party in 1887, he tried to distinguish the political liberalism and Catholic liberalism which were both the heritage of the party. His fellow party member in Québec, Honoré Mercier, added nationalism to the ingredients of the party in the late 1880s.[78] In Québec, therefore, the competition of imperialism, promoted by the federal government, and nationalism, promoted by local liberal politicians, was one of the key political themes from 1867 to the mid-twentieth century.[79] Besides, the development of the left-wing movement in the early 1930s motivated the emergence of a new political party, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) in August 1932, which suggested socialist policies in the federal government[80] Basically, from the mid-1890s until the early twenty-first century, Canadian politics were dominated by the Liberal party, with occasional government’s from the Left and the Right, and some others forming provincial governments.
The modernisation in the political and religious arenas and the legislative restrictions on the non-white Canadians operated by the Canadian government, however, did not explain ‘what is Canada?’, a question tightly connected to the nation’s ideological definition, namely Canadian nationalism. Inspiring its citizens’ sense of belonging to the nation was another vital part of nation-building in the same period, which was relatively less discussed in existing studies. It motivated the Canadian government to create national holidays for encouraging the citizens to accept an assimilated Dominion-Empire identity while this kind of invention faced challenges in the practices, especially after the Imperial Conference in 1926 and the enforcement of the Statute of Westminster, 1931, which adjusted the relationship between the Empire and the Dominions and the Canadian government achieved autonomy in domestic and external affairs.[81] As a result, increasing sense of belonging to the Dominion gradually overwhelmed the one to Empire, and this trend extended to the post-war period and caused the changes to the official name and other symbols of the nation. Studies of Canadian national holidays and their counterparts in the first phase will be discussed in Chapter Two.
In short, the first phase of nation-building focussed on the construction of a physically and politically united and cohesive Canada with a unique Dominion-Empire national identity, although the diversity of the nation was deeply rooted with in the process of nation-building. Changing social context after the end of the Second World War led to irresistible transformations of nation-building in ideology and practices.
The Second Phase: Transformation, 1945 - 1971
In the phase of transformation, theoretical debates of nation and nationalism were heating up in European and North American academia while the Canadian government was adjusting public policies to interact with the changing national status. These parallel happenings indicated the growing recognition of minority groups and their cultures in nation-building. This part will mainly cover the Canadian government’s ground-breaking declaration of Official Multiculturalism, which altered the nation’s ideological context, by reviewing the historical change and political background of Canada from 1945 to 1971.
When Newfoundland became the latest province of Canada in 1949, the British Empire was diminishing simultaneously, which opened a new phase of Canadian nation-building. The politicians started to debate about the proper components of national identity after these changes to substitute the previous ones related to the British Empire.[82]
The Canadian government’s changing policies on social integration paralleled the debates on liberalism, pluralism and nationalism as mentioned above by protecting ethnic groups’ rights and preserving their culture. Legislation that restricted the rights of non-white Canadians was abolished or amended, which opened the access to these groups of people to integrate into mainstream society.[83] Moreover, the government established the Royal Commission of Bilingualism and Biculturalism (RCBB) – an institution specialising in dealing with linguistic and cultural affairs – in July 1963 to respond to the Quiet Revolution in Québec. After the RCBB submitted the reports about the current cultural and ethnic situation of the nation from the late 1960s to the early 1970s, the government modified the assimilative mode of social integration to the one recognising the sub-national and ethnic rights, and proclaimed Official Multiculturalism in 1971 which opened the third phase of nation-building.[84]
While the new national ideology was emerging, politicians and the public were arguing with the connotation and features of Canadian national holidays, which indicated the interaction between the national ideology and national holidays. Separating the two parts of Dominion-Empire identity and removing the later one to reflect Official Multiculturalism was the trend in the second phase. Besides, as one member nation of the Commonwealth, identity linked with this community was also accepted by Canadian politicians as part of the Canadian identity, which somehow replaced that of the British Empire.
It was the Liberal members of the parliament who promoted the enactment of Official Multiculturalism in the federal government. Indeed, the Liberals won most of the general elections after the end of the Second World War to the end of the century.[85] The Liberal government led by Lester B. Pearson arranged the RCBB for uniting the nation and the one led by Pierre Trudeau declared the Official Multiculturalism. These policies partly reflected the ideology of the Liberal members in the federal government. In Québec, however, the Quiet Revolution was first organised by Liberal members and then members of the Parti Québécois (PQ).[86]
The Conservative Party reformed its own party polices as the reaction of the failure in the general election in 1940, and renamed itself as ‘Progressive Conservative Party’ in 1942 to appeal to the farming population.[87] Although had different ideas on the making and reconstruction of the national symbols such as the national flag, the Progressive Conservatives were generally agreed with the Liberal’s making of an official bilingual and multicultural nation with the support of the successor of the CCF, namely the New Democratic Party.[88] Only members of regional parties, such the PQ in Québec or the Social Credit in British Columbia, opposed the emerging national ideology and its policies.[89]
In short, new political circumstances in the post-war Canada, with the fading sense of belonging to the Empire and increasing significance of multiculturalism, motivated the change of Canadian national ideology and related instruments. Debates and disagreements of the politicians and the public on these issues ultimately motivated the ideological change in 1971, which consequently stimulated further changes in other areas; related debates will be discussed in Chapter Three.
The Third Phase: Multiculturalism, 1971 to date
After 1971, the newly proclaimed national ideology, Multiculturalism, motivated expanding discourses of social integration surrounded it and the forthcoming change of the constitutional context, which paralleled the growing narrative of the minority groups in academia and in the political arena. Increasing numbers of Canadians hence argued with the proper name of the nation as well as national holidays. This part will point out the Constitutional change in 1982 as the historical background of the shifts of national holidays in the third phase of nation-building. It will then discuss the European heritage of Canada to explain the reasons for choosing France and the United Kingdom as the counterparts for compare with Canada to discuss in this dissertation.
After the declaration, Official Multiculturalism was integrated into national policies to promote the social integration of the sub-national and minority groups. The three meanings of Multiculturalism were thus fixed: reality, ideology and policy. Application of Multiculturalism goes wider and wider in the political area and rising controversies in academia.[90] It emphasises tolerance and protection for the cultural heritage of ethnic groups and minority rights for the aboriginal peoples as well as the immigrants’ claims, which could smooth the way of social integration in a different approach. As the Liberal party won most of the general elections from 1971 onwards, policies of Official Multiculturalism were continuously promoted by the Liberals.[91] The party politics in the Parliament were generally the same to the previous phase of nation-building in this circumstance: most of the parties in the federal Parliament agreed with the policies of Official Multiculturalism and the new constitution while the disagreements remained in the provincial and ethnic levels.
The Constitution Act 1982 further strengthened the policies of Official Multiculturalism and supplied the constitutional impetus for changing instruments of nation-building, although it excluded the approval of Québec, which caused continuous attempts to amend it afterwards. On the one hand, this act further recognised the minority cultures and protected minority rights; the government, politicians and public hence persisted to centralise national holidays from different approaches in the debates on Canadianness. On the other hand, the rejection by the Québec provincial government left the critiques of the new national ideology, which also questioned the effectiveness of national holidays. Chapter Four will explore the changes of traditional Canadian national holidays after 1971 to show the influences, sequences and critiques of the ideological change.
The same changing ideological context affected the festivals of minority groups. As the rights of the minority groups were protected by Official Multiculturalism and Constitution Act 1982, they developed or changed their traditional festivals to integrate into the mainstream society as the response. Chapter Five will analyse festivals of the minority groups and national holiday for Multiculturalism to clarify the influences of ideological change on its target groups and consequential interactions.
Despite the changes in politics and banal practices of nationalism – termed by Michael Billig as mentioned above – Canadian scholars examined the character and uniqueness of Canadianness as well as related representations after 1971, who took complexity and uncertainty as their answer.[92] Philip Resnick believed the complexity and uncertainty of Canadinaness came from its European roots: two competing European cultures – the cultural heritage of French Catholic and English Protestant – differentiated Canada from its neighbour, the United States of America.[93]
Such character, with a conflicted nature, leads to two concerns of this dissertation. First, it will cover the conflicting interaction and integration between two heritages in Canadian nation-building. Francophone counterparts to statutory national holidays will be examined to display the alternative to Canadian national identity. Second, it will introduce national holidays in France and the United Kingdom as the counterparts to those of Canada, countries with also sought to link national ideology to models of social integration, but which have revealing differences to the Canadian case. Although France and the United Kingdom faced the similar social changes to Canada after the end of the Second World War that saw increasingly visible minority claims for cultural and economic rights, the French government sustained Republicanism as the national ideology while the British government headed towards anti-racism for social integration.[94] Differences in national ideology, according to this work, constructed differentiated conditions of national holidays, and will be discussed in Chapter Six.
The above review of the three-phase nation-building in Canada indicates the changes and features of Canadian national ideology from Confederation to date. Diversity is deeply embedded in the past and present of Canada, and promoting the unity of such a diverse nation was the shared target of the politicians in different historical periods and across the main party lines, although their practices were not the same owing to their various ideologies. The ideological turn in 1971 offered the space to the ethnic groups to claim their rights. Canadian national holidays, as the instrument of nation-building, therefore, also represented and reflected these changes. The next section will review the Canadian historiography of national holidays to contextualise the research subject and methodology of this dissertation.
Canadian Historiography of National Holidays
Derek Foster argued that there was no national way for Canadians to celebrate Canada Day because the nation faced ongoing identity crisis and had different national holidays from place to place, for the reason that he believed that a unified and single national identity could produce a single ‘national’ holiday.[95] Nevertheless, as the previous section has pointed out, this dissertation will analyse the relationship between the commemorative and recreational functions of Canadian national holidays as this relationship reflected the changing national ideology and the uniqueness of these holidays. This section will demonstrate that existing works about national holidays or public holidays in Canada have not explored this aspect yet. The following review of the Canadian historiography of national holidays will follow a chronological order to show a general picture of Canadian academia’s changing interests in this topic, including the sources, subjects, methods and limitations. Compared to the number of analyses of other instruments of nation-building, the number of those on Canadian national holidays was astonishingly small, which inspired this dissertation to shed light on this subject from an integrated and long-term perspective.
Early analyses focussed on Canadian political holidays emerged in the early 1970s as the reaction to Québec nationalism, shortly after the proclamation of Official Multiculturalism. Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, the Francophone counterpart to Dominion Day, was the case these studies analysed, which reviewed the activities, associations, ideology, values and influences of this religious and political holiday in Francophone or Anglophone Canada, although they were mainly unpublished works.[96]
Early works on Anglophone Canadian holidays reviewed holidays related to imperialism, a popular idea during the period of the British Empire. For example, Robert M. Stamp discussed the construction of Empire Day in Ontario, an educational day for training the young generation with imperialism, in the early twentieth century, and treated it as the training instrument of nationalism and imperialism.[97] It connected certain national ideologies for the nation-building in the psychological sense and briefly mentioned their change after the construction.
Works about political holidays in Anglophone and Francophone Canada finished before the 1980s were bascially case studies, which noticed that a certain ideology affected the events, values and effectiveness of these holidays in uniting certain community and covered the first phase of Canadian nation-building.[98] Regional and national newspapers as well as archives of the institutions which organised the events of these holidays were the main sources of these works. Compared to the studies of other instruments of nation-building, those of political holidays were much fewer. ‘Holiday’ was not an item in the index of the 1973 Bibliographia Canadiana in sharp contrast to more than 200 items related to education and 48 items about Canadian national railways under the ‘nation-building’ catalogue.[99] In the early 1980s, although Dwight L. Smith suggested the study of Empire Day in Canada belonged to the study of nationalism in The History of Canada, in 1983, he neither mentioned any other political holidays nor Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.[100]
Daniel Latouche’s work, published in 1985, noticed that the young Francophone Canadians regarded la fête nationale du Québec (the renamed Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day) as the most prominent symbolic identification in all age groups of Francophone Canadians while he did not analyse this holiday’s competition with Dominion Day for highlighting Québécois’ identity.[101] Although the function and value of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day has been demonstrated by studies published from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, the number of these discussions was few.[102] In short, works before the mid-1990s only considered the cases related to nationalism and imperialism and treated these cases as instrument of encouraging certain sense of belonging while only focussed on one single case respectively, which could not show the interaction of varied national holidays and their counterparts.
Discussions originating from the mid-1990s to 2000 showed strong interest in the momentous celebrations and mega-events of one national holiday, especially those related to Confederation, and presented a wider and more meticulous picture of Canadian national holidays as the instrument of nation-building.[103] For example, H. V. Nelles included Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day events when reviewing the Tercentenary celebrations of Québec in 1996 as the approach to analyse social integration in this province.[104] In the same year, Craig Heron and Steven Penfold, two New Labour History scholars, first published their study of early Labour Day parades, which concentrated on craftmen’s contribution in designating a holiday as an alternative to Hobsbawm’s work about May Day.[105] It was a part of the Labour history in Canada. They then expanded this study to the general history of Labour Day in Canada from the perspective of skilled workers and showed that aims of this holiday were shifted from claiming rights to enjoying leisure activities as a ‘Canadian’ holiday in the twentieth century.[106]
Moreover, Robert Cupido presented his first article about the 1927 Diamond Jubilee – a grand event of a national holiday – by exploring its preparation, events and political narrative in a conference themed as ‘Canadian Identity’ in 1997 organised by the Association of Canadian Studies, which clearly recognised national holidays as a component of Canadian national identity.[107] Cupido continued to work on the same topic in the following years by analysing the rituals and representations of the 1927 Diamond Jubilee as the instrument of motivating the participants’ sense of belonging to the nation with the combination of other instruments of nation-building.[108] Many others explored the mega-events of a national holiday in constructing the narrative of national unity and identity at the same time, which were mainly unpublished works.[109]
Increasing discussions of Canadian national holidays succeed the previous topics by adding various perspectives such as social memory, mass media, sports, games, gender, visual and so forth after 2000.[110] When Alan Gordon examined the Francophone Canadians’ collective memory in the events of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day and other festivals, he moved to the details of the route of the parade, the hero of the nation and symbols of Québec, which displayed patriotism and nationalism.[111] Mary Vipond concentrated on the role of mass media, a vital instrument to create the imaginary community, in Canadian history via the Empire Day broadcast in 1939.[112] Nancy Barbara Bouchier traced back to the sports of Victoria Day celebrations in Canada and argued games, a kind of recreational activities, encouraged local identity and later national identity.[113] Jane Nicholas opened up a chapter-long discussion of the 1927 Diamond Jubilee via the gender perspective and respected it as part of the public presentation of body, space and social order in the 1920s in Canada.[114]
Besides, Anglophone scholars studied Francophone holidays and their responses to other national holidays that implied the interaction between two major lingual groups in the same subject with a comparative perspective.[115] The minority groups also took the events of their traditional festivals as the evidence of Official Multiculturalism.[116]
From 2009 onwards, Matthew Hayday published several articles about the past and present, function and features, politics and practices of Dominion Day and Canada Day via analysing the mass media and the governmental documents.[117] He took centralisation, depoliticisation and decentralisation, and recentralisation as the characters of the celebrations of Canada Day after the from the late 1950s to the 1980s while he neither took changing ideological context as a crucial factor nor respected national holidays as the stage for presenting and negotiating the national ideology in the post-war period.[118]
The literature review above showed the growing interest in Canadian national holidays or holidays with political features in the past forty years. They covered many different holidays and studies from varied perspectives, which were similar to those of the national holidays in other nations. The governmental documents, archives of the organisations which arranged the events, print or other kind of sources of the mass media, parliamentary debate and other sources were all used to explore this topic. Although these studies have confirmed that national holidays were created for the social integration and nation-building, they have not pointed out the interaction of the two main functions of national holidays in a long time span. Moreover, very few discussions included the minority groups’ attitudes and practices of national holidays. The next section will explain why this dissertation can demonstrate the uniqueness, complexity and dynamic of Canadian national holidays through the long-term study of several cases in a changing ideological context via analysing their functionality.
Research Approach
This section will elucidates the reason and criteria of choosing cases and perspectives this dissertation uses and the prospective landscape it will reveal. Then, it will introduce the primary sources and spelling format, and illustrate the general map of the following chapters as the guide.
This dissertation has taken four holidays as ‘Canadian national holidays’: Dominion Day (Canada Day), Labour Day, Victoria Day and Remembrance Day (Armistice Day). All these holidays were proclaimed in federal legislation after negotiations in the centre of Canadian politics. Another two holidays which were created for the promotion of Official Multiculturalism – National Aboriginal Day and Canadian Multiculturalism Day – will also be studies as national holidays, having been affirmed by the Royal proclamation. The legislative base of this dissertation is the Holidays Act, Labour Codes and two proclamations of new national holidays.[119] Two kinds of legislation signified the commemorative and recreational significances of these holidays respectively; the proclamations recognised the commemorative value while encouraged recreational events. As the following paragraphs will show, the combination and separation of the commemorative and recreational aspects of a national holiday via official approval are both complicated and unique in Canada due to the ideological turn.
Although these Canadian national holidays have similar legislative status, they have diverse origins, which influence the exact centralisation of each case. Holidays with recreational (local and ethnic events) or commemorative (historical moment or person) significances were both the prototypes of Canadian national holidays. These significances were attached to them and influenced their future changes during and after the centralisation. A study of different holidays – not a single holiday like most existing works did – will show that both ceremonial and leisure events motivate the participants’ sense of belonging to a nation; in other words, after being recognised as national holidays by the legislation, the civic and ethnic aspect of the nation operated in the same instrument of the same purpose. Nonetheless, varied origins also caused different challenges and critiques of centralised holidays and related changes. The commemorative and recreational aspects, therefore, cooperated and conflicted in particular conditions due to the intention of centralisation and the underlying national ideology, and thus the centralisation is not a temporary but a long-term and dynamic process. Reviewing the continuous and altering centralisation of different national holiday could provide an integrated and comprehensive landscape of national holidays as the following chapters will show.
Moreover, centralisation does not equal to a top-down process of designating holidays in Canada. On the contrary, the federal and provincial governments, lobby groups, political parties and other institutions all engaged into the centralisation in different ways. The negotiation about the national holidays is hence a two-way process, especially after the ideological change as it turned national holidays as the practice of Official Multiculturalism and thus encountered critiques of the new ideology. Numerous controversies which surrounding Canadianness made Canada a unique case to explore rather than study the holidays in a stable or temporary ideology. Ethnic and minority groups might create and celebrate their own holidays or festivals as the counterparts to the national holidays, which led to another centralisation of national holidays or decentralisation of events of centralised holidays, and stimulated new narratives and counter-memories of a nation’s past. In other words, the recreational function is reused by the ethnic and minority groups as the chance to create their counterparts to the national holidays, and leads the commemorative significance into an open interpretation, which showed the disagreements to the national ideology and related policies. These groups of people also changed their way of celebrating own festivals other than those counterparts to the national holidays. Existing studies, however, barely included the festivals and holidays of the minorities, and this dissertation will include these cases and analyse their centralisation, commemoration and recreation to evaluate the ideological context.
Furthermore, this dissertation will analyse national holidays in France and the United Kingdom by discussing the interaction of the commemorative and recreational aspects of their national holidays. The historical links between Canada and France, and Canada and the United Kingdom make counterparts in these nations appropriate cases to discuss. Although this dissertation believes that national holidays in Canada have their uniqueness, the way that analyses these cases can also be used to discuss those of the nations which have different ideological contexts to Official Multiculturalism.
The primary sources of this dissertation include governmental documents in Canadian and British archives, newspapers, parliamentary debates, legislation and other publications of the associations which organised the events of Canadian national holidays or their counterparts. The governmental documents mainly showed the politicians’ views of national holidays and some common Canadians’ attitudes to the same issue by procurement. Thus although some national evaluations, reports, polls and surveys about the national holidays summarise and asses public opinion (mainly after the ideological change), they primarily reflect the debates as they unfolded and was understood by the elites in the political centre. The correspondence from the collection of the Department of the Secretary of the State – ranged from the 1860s to the 1980s – indicated common Canadians’ understanding of national holidays and politicians’ attitudes.[120] Besides, the correspondence between the Canadian government and other governments illustrated the outside views of the symbolic functions and connotations of Canadian national holidays, which are also discussed in the following chapters. Other official programmes of the events of national holidays, resolutions, proclamations, minutes and so forth will be reviewed to show the rituals, narratives and myths of the commemorative or recreational aspects of a holiday.
The parliamentary debates, similar to the governmental documents, show how and why Canadian political elites created or changed a national holiday. According to the reasons and evidence presented by politicians, their interpretations of national holidays and related ideology, identity, rituals and disagreements do show regional differences and occasionally party lines. Analysing these sources enables this work to display the varied understandings of these holidays from the view of the politicians so that it could examine the operation of party politics, regionalism and ethnic nationalism appeared in the parliamentary debates. Texts of the legislation and proclamations that declared the creation or alteration of national holiday will also be mentioned to clarify the result of centralisation in different historical periods. These sources scattered in the archives of different departments of the governments of Canada in the Library and Archives of Canada (LAC), Ottawa and the National Archive of the United Kingdom in Kew Gardens, London. Moreover, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), Multicultural Canada and other political institutions have collected a comprehensive range of digitalised sources about the past and present of Canadian minority peoples and their celebrations of various holidays and festivals.
The use of newspaper clippings in this dissertation aims to introduce the response to the discussions and bills in the centre of politics which attempted to create or change national holidays. When discussing the cultural roots of the nation, Benedict Anderson respected newspapers represented the national community from the seventeenth century onwards.[121] Under this perception, as the previous sections have shown, analysing the print media is widely used by Matthew Hayday, José E. Igartua, to name but a few, as the evidence of the public’s reaction to the governmental policies related to national holidays.[122] According to the newspaper archives, nationally circulated newspapers such as the conservative The Globe and Mail and the liberal The Toronto Star have great interests of reporting the events, spectacle, debates, advertisements and other aspects of national holidays, covering the recreational and commemorative aspects of holidays, which somehow presented the public opinion on national holidays as well as political elites’ expectations and persuasions on promoting national holidays.[123] Moreover, as Mary Vipond suggested, mass media played a crucial role in nation-building for centuries, believed in liberal individualism from the late nineteenth century and distributing the multicultural goods throughout the nation.[124] In other words, Canadian media generally share the value of Official Multiculturalism with its own political stance after the ideological change.
As discussed above, the creation of four major Canadian national holidays in the first phase of nation-building was brought about by Conservative governments; changes to these holidays were promoted by the Liberals in the post-war period. This study will draw upon one of the most widely circulated newspapers in Canada with Conservative stance, The Globe and Mail, as the backbone of the print media for the reason that it included the intentions of the creation and the rejections to the changes with a relatively stable stance for the convenience of discussion.[125] Meanwhile, it will observe upon other national, regional, and multilingual newspapers which sometimes presented alternatives and to clarify the reaction of the public, especially the regional and ethnic groups, to these holidays. Although the ideas and statements which appeared in print media could not wholly represent the diverse and complicated public opinion in Canada, analysing the narratives in various national, regional and ethnic newspapers can provide alternative voices and understanding of the debates and discussions in the centre of politics.
Two more points should be mentioned before introducing the research outline. The first one is the spelling form this work uses. As Canadian English spells some words differently such as ‘labor’, this dissertation will keep the Canadian spelling in direct quotations and footnotes. The second one is the content of the Appendix, which contains a chronology of Canadian governments, legislation related to Canadian national holidays and milestones of Canadian constitutional history.
After this introductory chapter, this seven-chapter dissertation will first examine the designation of four national holidays – Dominion Day, Labour Day, Victoria Day and Remembrance Day – and their counterparts in chronological order from 1867 to 1945, to unveil their representation of the assimilative social integration model for highlighting a Dominion-Empire identity in Chapter Two. Chapter Three will illustrate the transformation period of Canadian political history from 1945 to 1971, and cover two-wave transformation of Dominion Day, and other changes to Victoria Day, Remembrance Day and their counterparts, which were based on the fading sense of belonging to the Empire and the increasing significance of multiculturalism.
Chapter Four will explore the context of a ‘multicultural Canada’ from 1971 to the early twentieth century, which led to the eventual change in the name of Dominion Day and other alterations to the rituals and interpretations of national holidays with the growing new ideology. Chapter Five will concentrate on the designation of multicultural national holidays – National Aboriginal Day and Canadian Multiculturalism Day – and celebrations of Chinese New Year, as well as related the background of Canadian aboriginal peoples and immigrants, which are the latest representations of Canadian national ideology and models of social integration.
Chapter Six will review the national holidays of France and the United Kingdom as the international counterparts to Canadian ones to contextualise the uniqueness of Canadian practices in the previous chapters. As both of two nations have their own criteria and legislation to recognise or designate a public holiday, these rules will be explained with the introducing of their national identities and models of social integration. After the comparison, Chapter Seven will conclude the peculiarity and uniqueness of the long-term Canadian practices of constructing and reconstructing national holidays for social integration and nation-building in a changing ideological context.
Chapter Two: Traditional Canadian National Holidays (1867 - 1945)
Contributions inside and outside of the government created Canadian national holidays in the first phase of nation-building – from Confederation in 1867 to the end of the Second World War defined in Chapter One – aimed at highlighting a certain sense of belonging to Dominion and Empire. Discourses of building a unified, powerful and assimilated nation emerged during and after their centralisation. Designating and celebrating Dominion Day, the first exemplification of this process, from 1869 and afterwards, expressed that an extending group of politicians accepted the idea of constructing a secular and civic holiday for promoting social integration and spreading national identity, while faced rejections simultaneously; other holidays, such as Labour Day and Victoria Day, came in the following decades for a similar purpose.
This chapter will show that differentiations – including origins, centralisation and events – in four major Canadian national holidays reflect the value and the identity they recognise to represent the same nation in diverse approaches. The centralisation of Dominion Day was initially suggested by the Canadian politicians for motivating the participants’ sense of belonging to Dominion via commemoration and celebration on the date of Confederation. Labour Day, previous public events organised by the working class to commemorate their own efforts, was designated as a public holiday by the federal government to satisfy the demand of a holiday from Dominion Day to Christmas. After sixty years’ local, leisure and social events for commemorating the birthday of Queen Victoria, Canadian parliament named her birthday as ‘Victoria Day’ and proclaimed it as a public holiday when her Majesty had passed away. The end of the First World War inspired a national memorial ceremony, which was recognised as a national holiday by Canadian politicians in the early 1920s to commemorate the fallen soldiers died for the British Empire.
Although the motivation of centralising different holidays came from different levels of politics and contained varied emphases in their events, after they were approved by the federal legislation, promoting a homogenous sense of belonging to Dominion and Empire became their shared target. As the invention of traditions in Eric Hobsbawm’s term, these holidays used the rituals and events of long practices religious holiday but added civic features to highlight their character as ‘national’ holidays. Meanwhile, the groups of people who disagreed with the Dominion-Empire sense of belonging expressed their own identities via creating and celebrating the counterparts to these national holidays, which reused the recreational function of a holiday for their own interpretation.
This five-section chapter will include four leading Canadian national holidays, Dominion Day, Labour Day, Victoria Day and Remembrance Day (Armistice Day), according to their date of creation, and sum them up in the concluding section. Their counterparts designated by different groups of people will also be discussed to show the alternative voices to a centralised instrument of nation-building. The conclusion aims at clarifying how the ‘traditional national holidays’ worked for assimilation in Canada from 1867 to 1945. It will argue that although Canada was not a fully independent nation from Confederation to the end of the Second World War in the constitutional sense, its government still made noteworthy efforts on building a unified and assimilated nation and a unique national identity, which was represented in the centralisation of national holidays and challenged by the counterparts with a different identity.
Dominion Day and Its Alternatives
This section will analyse the designation of the first national holiday for commemorating and celebrating the founding moment of the new political community – the Dominion of Canada – by the Canadian federal government, as well as its counterparts in Québec and its counter-creation established by Chinese immigrants. It will begin with a discussion on Dominion Day itself – including its early celebrations and centralisation from 1867 to 1879, its expanding rituals from 1880 to 1914 and its two grand celebrations in 1917 and 1927 – to show the interaction in the different levels of politics on this holiday, which gradually formed its ritual, connotation and ideology. The second part will analyse the birth of the sub-national counterpart of Dominion Day, Saint Jean-Baptiste’s Day, and the ethnic counter-creation, Chinese Humiliation Day, exploring the interaction between the interrelated holidays which have competitive political purposes and identities.
Dominion Day
During the time-span Eric Hobsbawm defined as ‘mass-producing traditions’ of nation-states, ingredients and inconsistencies of Dominion Day performed in the central stages of national and provincial politics of Canada, and House of Commons debates amplified the two crucial functions of a national holiday – commemoration and recreation. This initial centralisation was a top-down process to create a new instrument of nation-building in the early stage and encountered disagreements from the provincial level.
After the designation of Dominion Day in 1879, increasing number of events with religious, civic and leisure features that were organised inside and outside of Canada, and the use of other instruments in the events, all aimed to show a Dominion-Empire identity. Meanwhile, Canadian politicians debated the recreational function of this new invention, which showed the competition between the two basic functions of a national holiday.
When the momentous anniversaries of Confederation arrived in 1917 and 1927, the federal government started to organise events of Dominion Day; it added other instruments of nation-building and provided financial supports to motivate the participants’ sense of belonging to the nation with a less concern to the Empire than the previous events. Unofficial associations cooperated with the government in preparing events of Dominion Day, which indicated the centralisation of a national holiday in the practical aspect shifted to a two-way process with increasing Canadianness. At the same time, members of Parliament kept on discussing the adjournment of Dominion Day which showed their understanding of the recreational function of this holiday.
Centralisation of Dominion Day in the first phase of nation-building, therefore, promoted the clarification of a homogenous and joint national identity. This process began with a top-down approach and turned to a two-way process with the efforts of the members of unofficial associations.
The name ‘Dominion Day’ originated from ‘Dominion of Canada’, which first appeared in print media on 1 July 1867, the date of Confederation.[126] Samuel Leonard Tilley, a Liberal of New Brunswick Assembly first suggested this Anglophone-Anglican vocabulary ‘Dominion’ at the London Conference of 1866 as the name of the new-born entity. As ‘Dominion’ had named several other parts of the British Empire since the seventeenth century, its meaning is two-layered: as a part of the British Empire and a Confederation.[127] He picked this narrow usage from Psalm of the Prayer Book of the Church of England, which signified Canada as a land surrounded by seas, according to the Biblical reference, ‘He [God] shall have dominion from sea to sea’.[128] This word subsequently became a crucial part of Canadian identity and applied in the name of the primary national holiday which connected it to religion and British heritage. Newspaper advertisements discarded other names such as Confederation Day to call 1 July 1867 from 1869, which showed that its connection to the name of the nation endorsed its overwhelmed uniqueness.[129] Ordinary Canadians initially organised spontaneous celebrations for commemorating the founding moment nationwide by closing stores and arranging sports games on 1 July 1868 and 1869 that combined two functions of a ‘holiday’ unofficially and succeeded the European heritage.[130]
Politicians’ attempts of official recognition of the historical event led to the first trial of designating Dominion Day as a holiday, which Joseph Keeler (Liberal-Conservative, Ontario) put forward on 22 April 1869.[131] Thomas David McConkey (Liberal, Ontario) promoted the second reading and faced provincial disagreements from two other members: Isaac Le Vesconte (Conservative, Nova Scotia) and Leverett de Veber Chipman (Liberal, Nova Scotia).[132] Chipman suggested the creation of such a kind of new holiday could make ‘the [Nova Scotians] felt they were powerless in this House; and if this bill were passed it would only be another proof of it’.[133] His statement showed that politicians agreed that the symbolic meaning of a national holiday could affect ordinary people’s feelings toward a certain community at that time, and indicated that an anti-Confederation movement was taking place in Nova Scotia.
After the failure of Keeler’s Bill, Dominion Day encountered different situations from place to place. In Montréal, picnics on 1 July was organised in 1870 by religious entities while the provincial government cancelled the firecrackers in 1871 but recognised it as a voluntary holiday without officially organised celebrations.[134] In Halifax, the capital city of Nova Scotia, no official preparation for Dominion Day was organised in 1871 either, which confirms the disagreements of the Nova Scotians to this holiday mentioned by Chipman.[135] Newly joined provinces, however, showed interest in the celebration of Dominion Day.[136] Moreover, spontaneous celebrations of Dominion Day were organised by different ethnic groups in the provincial levels, including sports games and other activities.[137]
Although provincial barriers finally pushed this bill into a dead end in the House, the idea of a new public holiday called ‘Dominion Day’ gained popularity among the public. Some Canadians’ demand of an early-summer holiday and their sense of belonging to the nation motivated them to ask the government to recognise Dominion Day as a public holiday. For example, a clerk of Exclusive Council, J. G. Scott, wrote to then Secretary of State for the Provinces to ask ‘has first of July been proclaimed a holiday’ in 1872.[138] Owners of small banks in Québec and Prince Edward Island had similar claims in their letters to the Department of Justice of Canada in 1874 and 1876 respectively.[139]
Additionally, the commemorative aspect of Dominion Day presented in the religious services which panegyrised the Dominion and Confederation on the dates close to 1 July that reflected the two-fold meaning of Dominion. N. K. Clifford believed, from 1867 to the 1880s, Canadians’ understanding on ‘Dominion’ was a ‘nationalistic and millennial overtones’ implication of this ‘Kingdom of God’.[140] Cathedrals or parish churches held services for Dominion Day in the similar way to those for religious holidays that has practiced long before 1867: they included pray for a bright future and God’s mercy to a piece of land and its residents.[141] When clergymen delivered speeches in the ceremonies, they highlighted patriotism and nationalism to feature the secular character of this holiday by combining the God’s world and the secular world.[142]
The religious commemorations of an historical date, however, had not been assimilated in this period, and thus different churches made individual arrangements on Dominion Day with the support of varied religious associations.[143] Anglican, Roman Catholic and Presbyterian churches never opened to the public on ‘the national birthday with prayer and praise (the services were short but communal)’ while Methodists held camp meetings in some parts of Canada.[144]
In the spring of 1879, ten years after the withdrawal of Keeler’s Bill, members of parliament again moved motions for designating a new public holiday close to or on 1 July. James Domville (Conservative, New Brunswick) moved Bill No. 57, aiming at giving new statutory holidays to banks on the second Monday in June, July and August, which followed the declaration of Bank Holidays in the United Kingdom in 1871.[145] James Cockburn (Conservative, Ontario) moved Bill No.77, which respected Dominion Day as a ‘national holiday’ to commemorate Confederation and had gained support from the Senate.[146]
The then Liberal Prime Minister Alexander Mackenzie tried to combine two bills into one as both of them respected a public holiday on the dates near 1 July. Yet James Mcdonald (Conservative, Nova Scotia) and David Mills (Liberal, Ontario) both clarified the difference between them: Bill No. 57 focussed on a certain group’s benefit while Bill No. 77 concentrated on commemorating of a historically significant event.[147] At last, parliament passed Bill No. 77 in the third reading and renamed as the Dominion Day Act, 1879.[148] It declared Dominion Day as the first civic ‘public’ holiday in Canada, which reflected the ‘public opinion of the country’ and ‘under the control of Parliament’ with peculiar commemorative value.[149] This top-down centralisation integrated the public and political as well as commemorative and recreational functions of holidays to invent a new kind of civic holiday, although its rituals, symbols and other components had not been fixed.
After the enforcement of the act in 1879, the Nova Scotia House of Assembly declared Dominion Day as a school holiday and established 21 June as Natal Day in the same bill on 8 February 1897, after about one year’s debate; Dominion Day thus achieved the status as a public holiday in this province, with the weakening of anti-Confederation movement.[150]
Events of official recognised Dominion Day kept many of their earlier forms, including religious services, picnics, parades, sports and games, whose coverage were expanded compared to those before 1879, with official supports by presenting imperial and nationalist symbols to motivate the participants’ sense of belonging to the Dominion and the Empire. For instance, buildings in Anglophone provinces flagged the Union Jack, the symbol of the United Kingdom, on Dominion Day, which implied the association between Dominion and Empire, as well as the consistent senses of belongings to two entities.[151] Imperial Force Canada’s Dominion Day observance, which the British Queen authorised according to the Royal Standards, represented the connection of two identities and was the same to the observance of Queen’s Birthday in Canada.[152]
Public institutions such as schools and city councils became prime arenas of holding Dominion Day events to attract as many participants as possible who respected the governmental appeal, and different instruments of nation-building thus cooperated in these events.[153] For example, speech of Winnipeg public schools on 1 July 1891 highlighted that Canadian’s identity included the combined sense of belonging to the Dominion and the Empire.[154] Lord Lorne’s article ‘What Canadian Means’ illustrated the same point of view, and believed the Canadian identity were attached to Dominion Day.[155]
Nations other than Canada officially or unofficially celebrated Dominion Day in the same period that implied the two-fold identity of the nation. Events in the heart of Empire presented the Dominion-Empire interrelationship from the suzerain’s position. Organisers of religious services in Westminster Abbey and the feasts for Dominion Day expected that these events could promote the unity of the Empire.[156] Ordinary Canadians arranged observances and commemorations spontaneously in other European cities such as Berlin, Germany, to express their proud and patriotism of home nation.[157]
Meanwhile, rejection of Dominion Day continued to occur in Francophone Canada after 1879. Although the provincial government of Québec recognised Dominion Day as a public holiday in 1888 when labourers did not need to work, celebrations were still silent.[158] An Anglophone journalist believed ‘everybody seemed to betake themselves out of town’ on Dominion Day in Montréal, which implied the recreational function of Dominion Day was more attractive than commemorating Confederation to Francophone Canadians.[159]
An counterpart to Dominion Day appeared in Newfoundland synchronously, an independent British Colony at that time, to commemorate ‘the death of the Island’s fighting sons at Beaumont Hamel “marked the birth of the Dominion of Newfoundland”’ in 1916.[160] After joining Confederation, Newfoundlanders persisted in commemorating these soldiers on 1 July and named it Memorial Day with a strong sense of belonging to the province and the Empire. In other words, only the recreational aspect of Dominion Day was approved in Newfoundland.[161]
In the centre of politics, members of parliament started to think of one parliamentary issue about the recreational aspect of Dominion Day – whether parliament should adjourn on 1 July or not – which led to a series of century-long debates that showed the competition between the commemorative and recreational functions of this holiday. Intentions of standardising and encouraging politicians’ collective and model behaviours on Dominion Day were what political elites cared about. On 23 June 1885, Edward Blake (Liberal, Ontario) stated that he had read ‘a series of papers presented at the adjournment […] with reference to the North-West, extending from 1878 to 1885’, to persuade parliament to adjourn.[162] This motion was rejected by then Liberal-Conservative Prime Minister John A. MacDonald, who believed ‘the will of the house [is] to sit’ on 1 July.[163]
George Taylor (Conservative, Ontario) moved a similar motion to parliament on 30 June 1891, as he received a telegram from Belleville which enquired that ‘will the house be in session on Dominion Day’.[164] Party division was obvious in the debates followed: most of the Conservative members agreed to adjourn and the Liberal ones disagreed; disagreements came from two main directions: the inconvenience for members and the ‘disloyal’ to the government.[165] Frederick Charles Denison (Conservative, Ontario) asserted that:
by sitting to-day we are sitting a very bad example to the people of this dominion when we make of this day a statutory holiday and then fail to observe it. We are also sitting a bad example to all the employers of labour throughout the country by not observing the holiday we call on them to observe, and we, further, are showing scant courtesy to our own national day.[166]
The government eventually refused the adjournment while Kaulbach continued to work on this issue in the next year but in vain.[167] Moreover, compared to Lord Lorne’s article published on the same day as mentioned above, Denison’s word highlighted the symbolic value of Dominion Day linked to Dominion, not as a part of the Empire.
Change happened in 1894, the year the federal government established Labour Day as a statutory holiday. Members of the same parliament surprisingly showed overwhelming satisfaction on celebrating this holiday, respected the observance of ‘our national holiday […] throughout the Dominion [… would] arouse a very loyalty Canadian sentiment’, and identified Dominion Day as ‘the only holiday we have that may be regarded as a purely Canadian holiday’.[168] Critiques of parliament’s sitting in 1891 stemmed from both sides of the House.[169] ‘General desire’ of politicians motivated the adjournment of parliament on Dominion Day.[170] Adjournment continued in 1895 which reaffirmed the desire mentioned in 1894 although this ritual recessed thereafter.[171] Failures of regularising the adjournment of Dominion Day in parliament implied the symbolic and commemorative features of this holiday surpassed the recreational one in the centre of politics. Meanwhile, promoting the sense of belonging to Canada itself, with a less concern to the Empire, was expressed in these speeches, which indicated the growing of a ‘national’ identity of Canada.
In short, from 1879 to 1917, the federal government centralised the Dominion Day by emphasising its commemorative and political features via promoting the assimilated Dominion-Empire sense of belonging in related events, while some provincial governments and their residents rejected this holiday and its events. The sense of belonging to Dominion started to overwhelm that of Empire after the centralisation. Expanding scales of events in 1917 and 1927 tightened the relationship between Dominion Day and the sense of belonging to Canada in increasingly nationalised activities.
When the nation faced threats during the war period, Canadian politicians believed the nation needed more psychological support to encourage nationalism than other periods.[172] Although authorities in London cancelled the feast of Dominion Day in 1915 to respect the sorrow of war losses permeated the nation and the Empire, Gordon Crooks Wilson (Conservative, Ontario) suggested the Golden Jubilee celebrations in the early time of 1917 to cater the growing nationalism and commemorate the founding moment owing to Canadians’ contribution to the First World War.[173] Conservative Prime Minister Robert Laird Borden respected unifying four provinces in 1867 ‘has thrown into this war a spirit and an effort that have invested Canada with a new dignity before the world’ and regarded the praise to Confederation as the essence of the Golden Jubilee.[174] As some members of the opposition such as Rodolphe Lemieux (Liberal, Québec), disagreed with part of the official arrangements of the Golden Jubilee, the government eventually decided to lessen expenditure for the Golden Jubilee as the Great War was ongoing.[175]
In February 1917, then Prime Minister and the Governor-General appointed the Semi-centennial Parliamentary Committee for the Golden Jubilee celebration: a crucial step of nationalising Dominion Day activities from the top.[176] Differentiation, which marked off the Committee from other associations for arranging holiday celebrations such as the Société Saint-Jean-Baptist’ (SSJB) in Québec, was its role in organising systematical events for an assimilated national memory. It published a pamphlet reviewed the achievement and development of Canada, held memorial services in London, Paris and each provinces of the nation and suggested publishing commemoration cards and stamps for the Golden Jubilee. These efforts intended to construct a homogenous collective memory of the citizens about Dominion Day to encourage their sense of belonging to the nation.[177]
Performance of the future national anthem ‘O Canada’ in English in the 1917 official Dominion Day ceremony attached the events of the Golden Jubilee to other national symbols; ‘the Governor General touched a button releasing a Union Jack to unveil the following inscription carved on the central pillar of Confederation Hall inside the main entrance of the Parliament Buildings’.[178] ‘O Canada’ also opened the religious services for Dominion Day in Westminster Abbey that year as a recognised national representation.[179] Paralleled display of symbols of Dominion and Empire indicated the two-layered meaning of Dominion and its assimilated and joint identity.
The attitude of the politicians of the British Empire started to change in the war period. In 1918, the last year of the First World War, War Cabinet Paper of the Empire mentioned the war-related commemorative aspect of Dominion Day connected the Empire and the Dominion in the war period. It stated that ‘special services were held in nearly every church on the eve of Dominion Day, in accordance with the wish of the Government that Sunday should be treated as a day of national humiliation and prayer for the success of the Allied arms’, and then Prime Minister Borden made a unanimous statement followed in Canada.[180]
In June 1924, the expanding value of Dominion Day in commemoration again motivated debates on Dominion Day adjournment in the parliament. Then Liberal Prime Minister William Mackenzie King asserted that parliament would sit on Dominion Day as ‘it is the intention of the government’ and ‘the best way to observe the holiday’.[181] Other members such as William Irvine(Labour, Alberta), Joseph Tweed Shaw (Labour, Alberta), Arthur Meighen (Conservative, Ontario) and Lewis Herber Martell (Liberal , Nova Scotia) regarded adjournment was the best way to commemorate the ‘most outstanding holiday of the year’.[182] King’s insistence finally decided that parliament should sit on Dominion Day to respect its commemorative value, which reaffirmed its increasing and unique significance in the government.
When the Diamond Jubilee was approaching, its arrangements and celebrations were more well-organised, systematical and nationalised compared to those of the Golden Jubilee, with sufficient financial support from the government, to signify the achievements of nation-building after the First World War. Robert Cupido and other scholars defined the Diamond Jubilee as the landmark of constructing assimilative national unity and the sense of belonging to the nation via myth-making and invention of the tradition, from the lenses of commemoration, modernity, gender and representation.[183] They clarified that common Dominion Day celebrations were similar to other religious holidays, and features of a ‘national holiday’ were still developing before 1927 with constructing official discourses. In other wording, the centralisation of Dominion Day was continued in 1927.
One patriotic lobby group, the Canadian Club of Ottawa, not the Canadian government, played the initial role in planning the Diamond Jubilee celebrations, which demonstrated that the centralisation was not a top-down process only.[184] As early as 1923, members of the Canadian Club who were also members of parliament tabled a plan about preparing the Diamond Jubilee celebrations in annual meetings. In this plan, a long celebration (three days), using the two main languages in Canada and utilising new technology (nation-wide radio broadcast) were new ingredients of the Diamond Jubilee under the national committee’s authority, all designed to attract more participants.[185] The federal government later adopted this plan, and the Canadian club eventually operated the Diamond Jubilee celebrations, which believed new ingredients could enhance the commemorative content of the event. This intention was also displayed in Prime Minister King and some House members’ rejection of adjournment of parliament in 1926, with some members’ critiques that the Diamond Jubilee celebrations were unnecessary and the government should solve the economic problems first.[186]
On 15 February 1927, the House of Commons first read Bill No. 65, moved by Prime Minister King, who was a leading member of the Canadian Club, to arrange a committee for the celebrations of Diamond Jubilee sponsored by Canadian Patriotic Fund with $250,000.[187] Members of this committee chose class, gender and division of labour as the criteria of selecting members to ensure the committee could represent all works of Canada while members with the background of working class or peasantry did not have representatives in the committee for the reason that other politicians felt they could not stand for a modern and progressive young nation.[188] King believed:
the only purpose of the government is to secure a representative body that can be entrusted with the expenditure of whatever money there may be in connection with the national celebration of the diamond jubilee of confederation in a manner that will be likely to accord with the desires and wishes of the people of Canada as a whole.[189]
Finally, the Royal Assent declared the Diamond Jubilee of Confederation Act, 1927 which established the committee for the Diamond Jubilee celebration with the support of several patriotic associations on 17 February 1927.[190] It realised Canadian Club’s previous resolution by publishing a bilingual booklet and other pamphlets to propagate the glorious history of Dominion. The federal government believed events of the Diamond Jubilee would add ‘inspiration to the patriotic fervour of our people, and afford a clearer vision of our aspirations and ideals, to the end that from sea to sea there may be developed a robust Canadian spirit, and in all things Canadian profounder national unity’.[191] Additionally, it enforced a revised Dominion Day Act that re-confirmed the name and date of this national holiday as a legal holiday.[192] The enforcement of the Diamond Jubilee of Confederation Act, 1927 and the Dominion Day Act 1927 indicated the centralisation of Dominion Day turned to a two-way process that the political elites and the common Canadian both made efforts on it after a negotiation in parliament.
Moreover, as Canadian Club expected to apply the latest technology of communication, the committee broadcasted the Prime Minister’s speech in Parliament Hill on 1 July nationally, which supplied the chance for all citizens to share the experience of a nationalist, patriotic and assimilated event at home.[193] Then Prime Minister unveiled a new monument, the carillon in the Peace Tower, and ‘placed wreathes on the monument on parliament hill - the first on Queen Victoria’s Monument and the last on Sir Wilfrid’s’, in the official Diamond Jubilee ceremony.[194] A white-female image was recognised as the official image of the nation for the Diamond Jubilee in 1927, which shared the purpose of the SSJB in introducing the new Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day image in 1866, although Jane Nicholas believed white-male-bourgeois value dominated the arrangements.[195] Such cooperation of varied instruments of nation-building was an enhancement to the effects of the Diamond Jubilee in promoting the national identity. Nevertheless, official arrangements of the Diamond Jubilee excluded integrating various provincial celebrations for assimilating a homogeneous society or integrating the residents other than those with a European origin, which showed the Diamond Jubilee celebrations were only expected to inspire and influence the young generation of Dominion to feel proud of the nation.[196] Meanwhile, the federal government encouraged recreational celebrations for the Diamond Jubilee by distributing funding to the provincial government which was willing to organise local celebrations such as parades, bonfire, sports games and picnics.[197] Such localised activities in the spatial sense were thus part of the centralisation of national holiday for motivating a homogeneous sense of belonging.
Also, the commemorative aspect of the Diamond Jubilee included an increasing civic character with sustained religious specification. Then Prime Minister, as a Presbyterian, edited the ‘Order of Proceeding’ as the suggestions of the local celebrations of this holiday, which was not usable to the Roman Catholic.[198] Religious services for the Diamond Jubilee in Westminster Abby and banquets in London, with the support of the Empire administrators, continued in the capital city of the Empire like years before.[199]
Besides, the SSJB organised events for the Diamond Jubilee by combining them with those of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day under the permission and financial support from the federal government.[200] Even then Prime Minister King re-emphasised that educational and leisure functions were not as prominent as commemorative and inspirational functions in the events, which was a proper summary to signify the intention of centralising a national holiday and its activities: unifying the nation and building a powerful future Canada.[201]
From the Diamond Jubilee year to the end of the Second World War, events of Dominion Day further extended and developed internationally. In 1929 and 1930, the Canadian Legation located in Tokyo designed a banquet and official broadcast address for Dominion Day ‘to increase the prestige of Canada and promote the interests of Canadians abroad and interest the citizens of Japan in the present and future of Dominion’.[202] Canadian officers organised similar activities in the United States and France.[203] In the speeches of overseas ceremonies, Dominion Day celebration has become the ‘tradition’ of Canada; it was a Dominion of the British Empire as well as a powerful, progressive and magnificent nation which has a long history.[204] Overseas celebrations, therefore, constructed a standard and symbolised narrative of the past and present of Canada as an independent nation in an official occasion assembled officers of external affairs with a tight connection to the British Empire. Although the seventy-fifth celebrations of Confederation were in the period of the Second World War, they still practised with the support of the federal government and the British Empire by the similar way to previous celebrations.[205]
The centralisation of the first Canadian national holiday from 1869 to 1879 combined two major functions of a European religious holiday – commemoration and recreation – to create a civic and political category of holiday with politicians’ domination. The failure of the first trail showed some politicians started to notice the potential function of a national holiday in promoting the participants’ sensation to a certain community but faced disagreements from the anti-Confederation politicians.
After the first failed centralisation in 1869, the idea of Dominion Day was gradually accepted by the public. Politicians then tried to centralise Dominion Day for the second time in 1879 and gained success eventually. Events of the centralised Dominion Day displayed a two-fold Dominion-Empire identity which was rooted in the name of the nation, to play the role as an instrument of motivating the participants’ sense of belonging to the newly constructed Confederation while were rejected by the Québécois. Besides, competition between commemorative and recreational features of Dominion Day emerged in the centre of the politics after the centralisation, and ended with the enhancement of the commemorative value of this civic holiday in most of the cases for motivating sense of belonging to the nation.
The demand of expanding events of Dominion Day appeared in the Golden and Diamond Jubilee years, which inspired future centralisation of this holiday with the invention of other symbols of Canada. Increasing unofficial associations’ cooperation to the official arrangements of Dominion Day in 1917 and 1927 indicated the centralisation of a national holiday turned to a two-way process that both the top and below made efforts in promoting the homogenous national identity, although rejections to these efforts remained in the practices that will be discussed below. Moreover, the sense of belonging to Dominion itself started to overwhelm that of Empire in the initial joint Dominion-Empire identity owing to the changing relationship of Dominion and Empire. Additionally, Canada’s image as a nation was getting clearer in the overseas events of Dominion Day, which also confirmed the role of national holidays in presenting and promoting the national identity.
Alternatives to Dominion Day
Two major counterparts to Dominion Day from 1867 to 1945 will be analysed in this part: Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day of Francophone Canadians and Chinese Humiliation Day of one specific ethnic group. These two groups of people used the counterparts to Dominion Day to express their own senses of belongings to the entities other than Dominion, which provided another perspective to reveal the complexity of promoting national identity through a national holiday.
The changing political context and their own living conditions also motivated the organisers of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day and Chinese Humiliation Day to alter the arrangements. Changes of counterparts to Dominion Day, therefore, became a barometer to reflect the relationship between the Anglophone society and other groups of Canadians. Additionally, rituals of counterparts to Dominion Day also interacted with those of Dominion Day in their competitions.
Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day
When French colonists migrated to Northern America in the sixteenth century, they brought Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day and some other festivals with them, which contained Catholic traditions and rituals.[206] These holidays were merely a religious holiday from the sixteenth century to the early eighteenth century. As one of the festivals initially connected to the extending celebration on summer solstices, then Christianity put this custom under the patronage of St. John the Baptist. Other festivals such as Saint Joseph’s Day on 19 March every year – the festival commemorated the first patron of New France Canadian churches chose in 1624 – celebrated for the vernal equinox. According to Journal d’un voyage à Paris 1657-8 and Relations des Jésuites, rituals included setting bon-fire, a part of French peasant culture.[207] Extremely cold weather in March weakened French Canadians’ interest in joining outdoor Saint Joseph’s Day celebrations, and they shifted the interest to Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. From the late seventeenth century, religious, folk and popular Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day became the most appreciated holiday in the Francophone Canada as a localised event.
Increasing Anglophone immigrants to Canada after the Seven Year’s War (1756 - 1763) challenged the existing cultural and religious environment there. New immigrants brought with their religious holidays and celebrated them in their own community, which stimulated rational patriotism in Québec in the 1830s.[208]
Such patriotism was amplified in the growing importance and improving events of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. A journalist, Ludger Duvernay, named Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day as ‘la fête nationale’ of Québec in the newspaper he edited – La Minerve – on 17 March 1834, which gave it a higher fame than other religious holidays. In the same year, he organised an association – ‘Aide-toi et le ciel t’aidera’ (help yourself and Heaven will help you) – for the annual celebration of this holiday on 24 June, and held its first banquet on 26 June 1834.[209] The association, named after a secret society in the July 1830 Revolution in France, followed the format of religious associations, which Scottish and Irish immigrants had established several years ago.[210] Political feature of organised and patriotic events of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day was thus remarkably expanded during 1834 to 1837.[211]
Rising rebellion from 1837 to 1838 in Québec broke off the events of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day as it had exacerbated the colonial officers who squelched the radical patriotism of the Québécois. In 1842, the SSJB replaced ‘Aide-toi et le ciel t’aidera’, which marked the revival of religious Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day events with a better-organised statute and less political intention.[212] The new association then declared its principle, Nos Institutions, notre Langue et nos Lois (Our institution, our language and our laws), and flag, with maple leaf and beaver, which represented the myth and history of the patron as well as Francophone Canadians.[213] Souvenir pamphlets of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day printed these symbols for expressing Francophone Canadians’ national identity and moderate nationalism.[214] In 1866, the SSJB recognised a young child as the religious representation of Saint-Jean-Baptiste, which later became a popular icon used in parades and celebrations of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.[215]
In the post-Confederation period, the SSJB extended events of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day nationally and internationally. Increasing number of the SSJB were established in Anglophone cities such as Ottawa.[216] English publications of the history and rituals of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day appeared in Montréal no late than 1880 to attract Anglophone Canadians’ attention on this holiday.[217] The SSJB regarded all Francophone population in the Northern America were the target group to join the events and declared this aim in the Convention Nationale de Québec of 1880.[218] According to a systematic and comprehensive analysis on this holiday published in 1880, there have been 41 established divisions of the SSJB throughout the Northern America.[219] Moreover, Calixa Lavallée and Adolphe-Basile Routhier composed the song which later Diamond Jubilee ceremony used, ‘O Canada’, and performed in 1880 Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day celebration. It was the first performance of the future Canadian national anthem in its French version.[220] Although the SSJB mainly promoted the religious feature of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, this holiday’s tight connection to Francophone Canadian’s identity added political feature to related events. Divisions of the SSJB also extended to France in the 1880 for building a community for overseas Francophone Canadians to celebrate Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.[221]
Alan Gordon noticed that expanding Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day events, including parades, games, religious services and picnics, were the same to those in the nineteenth century. Institutional and representational evolution of this religious, traditional and recreational holiday added commemorating French Canadians’ history as the new ingredient.[222] The combination of religious and political commemoration as well as the expanding of rituals and symbols, therefore, became shared features of events of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day and Dominion Day in the late nineteenth century.[223]
Failure of the patriotic movement Louis Riel led caused a decline of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day celebrations after 1885, which revived in the mid-1890s with the cut of railway fares by several companies in Montréal.[224] This commercial stimulation made Montréal a popular tourist destination for leisure and festivals on the date close to Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. In 1908, Pope Pius X declared Saint-Jean-Baptiste as the patron of French Canadians, which motivated extending events of the seventy-fifth anniversary of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day in 1909. The Globe respected these events in Montréal as a successful practice of the unification of French Canadians which also stimulated their patriotism.[225] Anglophone Canadians’ positive discourse on this celebration showed the assimilative aspect of this religious and political holiday was what they felt satisfied to recognise. Another hero of Québec, Adam Dollard des Ormeaux, was popularising with Lionel-Adolphe Groulx’s advocacy as the symbol of French Canadians in the early twentieth century, and the date for commemorating Dollard turned to the counterpart of Victoria Day of Canada in 1919 with the events the SSJB supported.[226]
The year 1917 was also vital to Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day as it was the 275th anniversary of Montréal’s establishment. This year’s parades for Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day carefully affirmed patriotism to the Confederation to display Francophone Canadians’ willingness in devoting themselves for the nation to the ongoing Great War in Europe, and this attitude faded away after the war ended.[227] During the inter-war period and the Second World War, events of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day kept their forms, identity and rituals.
Initially celebrated in the sixteenth century in Canada, Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day was the most significant religious holiday and attached to the political feature in the early nineteenth century to defend Francophone Canadians’ sense of belonging to their own community. Its preliminary development in establishing organisations for events with political intention was much earlier than the centralisation of Dominion Day. The ebb and flow of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day was a reflection to the relationship between Francophone and Anglophone Canadians with a trend of expanding events, and its rituals interacted to and influenced the centralised Dominion Day from the 1880s with increasing political feature. This representation of a sub-national identity operated as an instrument of promoting a sense of belonging to Francophone Canada, not the Dominion-Empire one. The gradual politicisation of its rituals and connotation responded to the centralisation of Dominion Day and the identity it contained; the centralisation of Dominion Day also gained new symbols and rituals from its Francophone counterpart.
Chinese Humiliation Day
Ethnic groups’ attitude to Dominion Day varied. As mentioned above, some aboriginal peoples actively celebrated it as their own holiday as the spontaneously integration into the mainstream society; others made different choices. Other than the Québécois’ rejections to Dominion Day, Chinese immigrants took Dominion Day as the stage to show their grievance against the government’s legislation by altering it to Chinese Humiliation Day, which indicated the symbolic value of a centralised national holiday was accepted and utilised by ethnic groups at that time for their own purpose. The establishment and abolishing of this ethnic counter-creation to Dominion Day reflected the changing conditions and identity of Chinese immigrants from the 1920s to the mid-1940s.
Chinese immigrants stated their grievances to the ‘discriminatory’ legislation, the Chinese Immigration Act 1923, which applied a more restricted control on Chinese immigrants and a heavier head tax than the one of 1885, by commemorating their tough experience in the host nation.[228] They named 1 July, the date the federal government declared Chinese Immigration Act, 1923, as Chinese Humiliation Day, which was the same date as Dominion Day. The Chinese Benevolent Association (CBA) of Vancouver, an influential and political society established in 1906, organised a committee for holding meetings and commemorations for Chinese Humiliation Day to recall Chinese immigrants’ historical and contemporary circumstances since July 1924, two months after the act was enforced.
The CBA chose ‘humiliation’ as the core word to name the holiday, which was based on Chinese philosophy, as commemorating a humiliated past is part of Confucius’ rules for introspection and self-training.[229] From the broken out of First Opium War (1840 - 1842), ‘humiliation’ extensively appeared in Chinese contexts when Chinese were encountering great powers and policies from outside of the Kingdom.[230] Chinese immigrants thus utilised the same historical concept to describe their miserable condition in the host nation.
Moreover, the Chinese had not created a holiday based on Gregorian calendar until 1912, the year the Chinese Emperor abdicated and Republic of China was founded, as a part of nation’s modernisation. Designating Chinese Humiliation Day, therefore, was a typical reaction of Chinese political elites in that period, to express their political perspectives. The then most circulated Chinese newspaper in Vancouver, The Chinese Times strongly supported Dominion Day celebrations by criticising some Chinese restaurants’ operation on that day before 1924, which showed Chinese intellectual people’s acceptance to the centralised national holiday.[231] It stopped service on every 1 July to enact the federal legislation and signified Dominion Day as a public holiday, indicated their acceptance to its recreational function.[232]
From 1924 to 1927, however, The Chinese Times kept on declaring 1 July as a holiday without circulation and named it as Chinese Humiliation Day, an unofficial ‘holiday’ for Chinese Canadians to commemorate with political purpose.[233] This newspaper appealed to Chinese Canadians to reject any Dominion Day events to show no respect or patriotism to Canada.[234] Ceremonies on Chinese Humiliation Day were totally different to other traditional Chinese festivals at the same time, which seemed like a reproduction of centralised Canadian national holidays via commemorating a contemporary event.[235] Organisers composed and sung patriotic songs for the ceremonies Chinese political societies organised, and asked young Chinese students to pin their claims for a fairer immigration law in the same ceremony. All Chinese business closed as the silent resistance to the Chinese Immigration Act, 1923.[236] The ritualisation of Chinese Humiliation Day, therefore, adopted the forms and contents of centralised Canadian national holidays to express Chinese immigrants’ grievance to the Canadian government and their sense of belonging to the Chinese community.
Furthermore, The Chinese Times replaced the reports of Dominion Day by editorials which reviewed the tough life experience of Chinese Canadians and the chaotic and weak condition of their motherland.[237] Various Chinese political societies devoted into commemorative ceremonies on Chinese Humiliation Day that attracted hundreds of participants.[238] Ceremonies extended to outside of Vancouver and practised in some Chinese middle-schools.[239] These practices separated the recreational and commemorative functions of centralised Dominion Day and replaced the content for commemorating Chinese’s own past to reject the sense of belonging to the Dominion government.
The governmental funded éclat Diamond Jubilee celebrations attracted Chinese immigrants in 1927, which changed Chinese print media’s attitude to the national holiday. The Chinese Times reported this event that ended its neglect to Dominion Day in the past three years.[240] It chose the picture of Confederation meeting with Founding Fathers’ image, the same as other Canadian newspapers.[241] The page before the picture sustained a report of Chinese Humiliation Day ceremonies.[242] In the following years, paradoxical and parallel reports in the same newspaper mentioned Chinese Humiliation Day and Dominion Day at the same time.[243] For example, when 1 July was approaching in 1930, the first two pages of The Chinese Times published an editorial to criticise the Canadian government’s legislation and appeal to commemorate Chinese Humiliation Day.[244] The third page, however, positively reported Dominion Day events nationwide.[245] It also explained that no newspaper was circulated on 1 July owing to the federal legislation in 1932 and to Dominion Day from 1935 onwards, which implied Chinese acceptance of the sense of belonging to Dominion.[246]
In the tenth year of Chinese Immigration Act enforcement, editorials were published in The Chinese Times to evoke Chinese immigrants’ consciousness to their condition in Canada and the status of their war-going motherland.[247] On 30 June 1933, for example, one editorial said ‘ceremonies for Chinese Humiliation Day wished the development and flourish of our fatherland and the stability of the nation [...] and hoped the Canadian government could abolish the harsh legislation to Chinese immigrants to achieve mutual benefits and respects’.[248] Linkage between Chinese people in home and host country added patriotism into Chinese Humiliation Day ceremony and highlighted its symbolic value in Chinese immigrants’ own identity. More editorials were published in 1935, 1937 and the last two years of the Second World War to amplify the newspaper’s emphasis on Chinese Humiliation Day; they also illustrate the immigrants’ concern to the fate of their homeland and their rejection to the federal legislation.[249]
After 1943, a trend of increasing reports on Dominion Day celebrations and decreasing on Chinese Humiliation Day ceremonies was emerging due to the prospect of abolishing the Chinese Immigration Act, 1923.[250] The federal government eventually abolished the act in 1947, and thus Chinese Humiliation Day lost its target. This change shifted the counter-creation to Dominion Day to a counter-memory of Chinese immigrants.[251]
Chinese Humiliation Day’s short existence as a counter-creation to Dominion Day reflected Chinese immigrants’ changing attitude to the host nation based on their living conditions, and expressed their own identity. This holiday, as the symbol of an ethnic identity, was not only creatable but also changeable; its creators took the essences of a centralised national holiday to invent it and added a different content for commemoration, expressed their claims and identity through the ceremonies, and eventually abolished the invention for adapting the changing political context. Chinese Humiliation Day’s paradoxical competition to the national holiday hence provided another perspective the complexity of the centralisation of Dominion Day from 1924 to 1947.
The centralisation of Dominion Day from Confederation to the end of the Second World War, as this section showed, was a negotiation in the centre of politics in the first stage, and turned to a two-way cooperation of the top and below. It aimed at promoting a homogenous sense of belonging to Dominion and Empire, which reflected the assimilative nation-building strategy in that period as well as the two-layered meaning of the name of the nation. The Canadian government’s arrangement of events of Dominion Day and its enhancement to the commemorative significance of this holiday in the centre of politics further centralised this new invention and signified its uniqueness as a Canadian national holiday.
Discussion of the two counterparts to Dominion Day displayed the complexity of the centralisation from different perspective. On the one hand, two cases indicated the promotion of a homogenous sense of belonging encountered rejections from other identities in the practices, and interacted with the national holiday in rituals and events by adding political features. On the other hand, changes of two counterparts reflected the situation of two groups of people and the shift of federal legislation. This section, in short, showed a complex and dynamic centralisation of the first Canadian national holiday.
Labour Day and May Day
In 1894, the Canadian government proclaimed the second public holiday to transform the protests and parades of the working class into a civic holiday, and to satisfy the public demand of a day off work in September. This section will examine the centralisation of Labour Day which took a different approach to Dominion Day, and its competitive counterpart May Day. As the interaction and competition between Labour Day and May Day are different to those of Dominion Day and its counterparts, this section will explore the uniqueness of Labour Day which takes its recreational function as its major feature as a Canadian national holiday.
Labour Day
Spontaneous parades in summer time during the 1870s and 1880s led to the federal government’s proclamation of Labour Day as a statutory holiday, to fill the hunger for a holiday from Dominion Day to Christmas. The leisure function of Labour Day is thus inherent after the centralisation with the efforts of the working class.
Extending celebrations of Labour Day with official support highlighted the recreational feature of this holiday. Joint activities of Labour Day and the Canadian National Exhibition (CNE) from the early twentieth century to date deepened the centralisation of Labour Day by eliminating its initially radical and political features. A national holiday specialised for recreation was reconstructed and accomplished as a unique Canadian Labour Day in the first phase of nation-building with politicians’ efforts, to motivate the participants’ sense of belonging to Canada.
Peter F. Fohee argued that Labour’s parades in the late years of Victorian Canadian cities were typical ‘symbols of streets’, which were ‘spectacle’ or ‘grandeur’ public events to satisfy the working class’s demand of presenting their claims and themselves in the public space.[252] In July 1872, the Trades and Labour Council and Knights of Labour organised the first spontaneous labour parade under the idea of ‘Labour’s Holiday’ that unveiled the history of Labour Day in Canada.[253] Canadian labourers first participated in a great parade to celebrate their achievements in daily working and caught the public’s attention. According to the newspaper reports, three to four thousand of men participated in the 1872 parades and attracted more than fifty thousand witnesses.[254] Other events followed the parades included parades, speeches and sports in Exhibition Park, Toronto.[255] The public space parades used, namely streets, displayed the working class organised performance.[256] In 1882, an editor of Knights of Labour’s journal, Alexander Wright, once signified Canadian Labour Day as a ‘festive day that was distinct from May 1, which was observed in Europe as a labour day and already associated with radicalism’.[257] The recreational aspect of Labour Day, therefore, was confirmed before its centralisation by the organisers, who also took this aspect as the uniqueness of the Canadian Labour Day.
Significantly expanding parades on Labour Day in the 1880s were listed in Craig Heron and Steve Penfold’s work: ‘Hamilton and Oshawa in 1883, London and Montréal in 1886, St. Catharines in 1887, Halifax in 1888 and Ottawa as well as Vancouver in 1890’.[258] These dispersed and divisional events were organised independently by local labour unions and professional organisations of craftsmen in each province to success previous working class’s demonstration; they mainly took place in one day of July or August depended on local labour leaders’ choice to fall ‘at the end of what would normally be effective change of seasons and rhythms of manual work in the communities’ or ‘fill a hole in a rationalized holiday calendar between Dominion Day and Thanksgiving that did not interfere with the many local civic holidays’.[259]
Thriving Labour Day parades motivated Canadians, especially the labourers, to recognise ‘Labour Day’ as a secular holiday nationally, and labour leaders encouraged the working class to celebrate own achievements altogether.[260] This bottom-up suggestion encountered a counterpart in the United States as the neighbour government declared May Day as a holiday in 1886.[261] In 1889, a Royal Commission approved to designate Labour Day as a statutory holiday in terms of Relations of Capital and Labour, and this holiday was thus centralised.[262]
The local governments followed Royal Commission’s recommendation in the following years by declaring their own legislation to recognise Labour Day, and thus the centralisation moved to a top-down process. In 1890, the City council of Toronto first declared ‘[the council was] to be asked to proclaim September 1st, labor day, a public holiday. The Dominion Labor Congress, which meets on the 2nd, will probably be inaugurated by a grand demonstration’.[263] In the same year, the government of Montréal ‘declared [Labour Day as] a civic holiday [on] September 7’.[264] In 1892, labour leaders established a Francophone congress for organising the Labour Day activities in Toronto.[265] Dates, which Canadian local entities chose for Labour Day, were different to May Day in Europe, to signify the Canadianness it had contained, before the federal government designated it as a public holiday and fixed it on the first Monday of September.
The local government’s announcement of Labour Day and increasingly spontaneous labour parades transformed as resolutions in the early 1890s. For example, the Department of Agricultural received a letter from a farmer of Ottawa who asked for a holiday on Labour Day on 22 August 1893.[266] Just about two weeks later, the Department of the Secretary of State sent letters to the provincial governments and institutions declared that ‘it has been decided that the inside and outside Public Officers in every City or Town in Canada where Monday Next will be celebrated as Labor Day shall be allowed a holiday, but not to interrupt necessary public business’ that declared the government’s approval to Labour Day as a public holiday and predicted the quick centralisation followed.[267]
Compared to the long debates of centralising Dominion Day, that of Labour Day experienced was much more efficient. Then Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, John Sparrow David Thompson (Liberal-Conservative, Nova Scotia), sent a draft to parliament on revising Canadian holidays by adding Labour Day into the list of legislative holidays, as an equivalent to Dominion Day, New Year’s Day and Queen Victoria’s Birthday.[268] On 23 July 1894, both of the Canadian parliament and the United States Congress passed Thompson’s bill and declared the first Monday in September as a statutory holiday as most of the previous local events of Labour Day were assembled in the late August and September as noted above.[269] Gregory S. Kealey argued the creation of Labour Day was just an expedient to the class crisis in 1886 while the working class’s real needs were more than an officially approved Labour’s holiday.[270]
Then the labour lobby groups and working class supposed the federal legislation affirmed Labour Day could commemorate their existing contribution, while the legislation only approved its function as a day off work, namely its leisure feature. The forthcoming parliamentary debates on Labour Day adjournment re-emphasised this feature by agreeing adjournment to encourage members to join the celebrations.[271]
Although the federal legislation had declared Labour Day as a holiday, employers could refuse it in some occasions in the early 1900s. For example, when the Minister of Labour asked the Acting Deputy Minister of the Department of Justice could ‘employers refusing allow their employees to take advantage of a legal holiday’ in 1909, the answer was a public holiday like Labour Day had ‘certain efforts with reference to banking, protest of notes, etc., but it otherwise cannot be enforced’.[272] Even though the legislation confirmed the recreational aspect of Labour Day, it did not fully protect this aspect.
Upcoming discussion on Labour Day in print media signified Canadianness and leisure as two key components of its events, which linked the uniqueness of this holiday to national character and recreation, and thus Heron and Penfold termed Labour Day celebrations from 1894 as ‘universal playday’.[273] Then newspaper reports highlighted these features by defining Labour Day celebrations as less militant and argumentative demonstrations than May Day celebrations in Europe.[274] They believed peaceful events were the representation of Labour Day’s past and should expand, with increasingly organised leisure activities, to attract more participants.[275] Ethic groups shared the view of a recreational Labour Day at that time. The Chinese Times, for example, had no circulation on Labour Day only to respect it as a day off work.[276]
The commemorative aspect of Labour Day activities was weak but still existed. Official Labour Day souvenirs published in the 1900s recorded the celebrations after 1894 that illustrated the Canadian narrative of this holiday, including its history, official association organised celebrations, early and influential members of the association, celebration programmes, parades, Labour’s achievement in the past and their future.[277] The glorious past of labour and Labour Day set the ‘meaning’ and ‘value’ of present events with Canadianness, and the growing Canadianness was also shown in the establishment of new organisations and commemorative buildings by the government for this holiday.[278]
The religious services of Labour Day played a similar role to those of Dominion Day but aimed to praise labour’s previous contributions and expressed good wishes for the future of labourers in some churches and religious institutions such as the SSJB.[279] The SSJB also organised Labour Day movements and events in Montréal in the early twentieth century.[280] Religious ceremony, therefore, was still one of the rituals of a newly established public holiday in the late nineteenth century.
After the centralisation, the working class’s claim of designating official Labour Day was achieved, although this was only one of their initial claims; they gained a holiday, but a holiday for the nation, not for the working class only. This situation was demonstrated in the combination of Labour Day events and the CNE – another ‘Canadian’ leisure event, the most influential and popular national exhibition of the nation – from the early twentieth century. Here, the connotation of ‘Canadian’, which Labour Day represented, contained less sense of belonging to Empire than Dominion Day.
Because the closing date of the CNE coincides with Labour Day and two events use overlapping spaces, the combination of two events was achieved to extend their influences to attract more participants than arranged individually. The Labour Day picnic usually takes place in the Island Park after the parade; luncheon for this holiday is arranged in the hall of the CNE. Site of the CNE is the destination of Labour Day parade and where Labour Day speech usually takes place.[281] The CNE exhibits the latest technologies and developments of the nation with proud and appreciation, which were the contribution of the working class. Organisers of the CNE believed Canadians’ memory about what exhibited in the CNE attributed the sense of belonging to the nation and appreciation to the working class in the 1920s.[282] Francophone Canadians’ active participation into the celebration showed the success of the joint activities. In an African captain’s record, ‘a procession of French and English workmen headed by the French and English flags and with a band playing the La Marseillaise and rule in 1905’.[283]
Two cooperative leisure and consumptive events, therefore, formed a collective memory of Canadians, and the initial events of Labour Day – namely radical, political and chaotic protests – disappeared after 1894. Consequently, the weak commemoration appeared in the activities predicted the potential downplaying of working class’s claims.
After the Second World War had broken out, the scale of Labour Day events shrank with concreted connotation and interpretation.[284] The annual Labour Day message, which the President of the All-Canadian Congress of Labour presented from 1938 to 1945, repeatedly mentioned several points. First, parades, games and other celebrations on Labour Day have achieved outstanding success because of every Canadian could participate into these events, not merely labourers.[285] Second, all the labourers should contribute to the national unity in war-time instead of asking for reducing working hours and increasing welfare.[286] Third, the congress appreciated with the Canadian government officially designated Labour Day as a public holiday for the working class, which provided ‘an opportunity for the organized workers to show their strength and unity of purpose by means of parades or other celebrations, but it is important chiefly because it recognizes the essential function of the workers in the industrial sphere and in the social order’.[287] These messages summarised the recreational feature, approach and value of Labour Day in motivating participants’ sense of belonging to Canada, not Dominion of Canada.
Although labours’ association highlighted the events of Labour Day, the working class continued to claim recognition from employers, the Canadian governments and other related institutions to arrange dialogue and collective bargaining. Such claim demonstrated the disappearance of the initial function of Labour Day parades, which bounced back after the end of the Second World War and extended to the post-war period.[288]
The centralisation of Labour Day was a bottom-up process in the first stage: increasing parades in lovely summer time for showing the achievements of working class were recognised as a public holiday by the local and federal government respectively. After the centralisation, the recreational feature of Labour Day overwhelmed the commemorative one and became the uniqueness of this holiday while another initial function of Labour Day – presenting the claims of working class – was not respected by the government, which then transferred to its counterpart, May Day. Following centralisation of Labour Day – combined activities of Labour Day and the CNE – continued to highlight its leisure aspect its major feature to motivate the participants’ sense of belonging to Canada.
May Day
Although May Day and Labour Day shared purposes, rituals and events, their situations in Canada were totally different to each other. As the centralisation of Labour Day discarded its function of presenting the claims of working class, this function was succeed by its European counterpart, May Day, from 1906. Expanding events of May Day in Canada then cooperated with socialism, not the sense of belonging to Canada, which was forbidden by the federal government and welcomed by the Québécois. This counterpart to a Canadian national holiday became the battlefield of identities and ideologies of different groups of people, and presented the side-effect and complexity of centralising a recreational holiday to a national holiday.
The profound basis of May Day is a seasonal festival in many European countries while its modern ideological base is socialism and communism, which are different to those of Labour Day, although both of May Day and Labour Day were used by working class to celebrate their achievements on the streets.[289] Hobsbawm argued ‘May Day is a time of renewal, growth, hope and joy, the symbols of May Day in European nations are various flowers: the carnation in Austria, the red (paper) rose in Germany, sweet briar and poppy in France, and [...] from the mid-1900s replaced by the lily-of-the valley’, which revealed the popularity and diversity of May Day in Europe.[290] The short but glorious period of May Day was attached with socialism and replaced by ‘a basically good-humoured family’ event because the inventor of this holiday – the working class – celebrated it in different ways and localised it as their own holiday, although very few existing works have discussed it.[291]
Heron and Penfold noticed that May Day activities rewound in Canada in 1906 and functioned as the substitution to the lost part of Labour Day after the centralisation in 1894: claiming rights for working class.[292] Kealey’s study on labour revolt in 1919 pointed out that most of the demonstrations for labour’s welfare happened on the days near May Day in Canada, which implied that Labour Day was not working class’s choice for the labour movement no later than the 1920s.[293] Concerned the minority groups, worldwide and nationwide events of May Day were attractive to Canadian Chinese as a chance for radical demonstrations and labour movement after the 1920s.[294] May Day’s reviving in Canada proved the centralisation of Labour Day discarded a significant part of its original aims in the twentieth century.
Socialism is another remarkable feature of May Day in Canada. The Conservative stance national newspaper The Globe normally reported May Day activities with negative words like ‘trouble’, ‘discontent’ and ‘conflict’ in the first two decades of the twentieth century.[295] It believed people who celebrated May Day were socialists, not the majority of Canadian residents.[296] The federal government fully forbade May Day parade in Anglophone and Francophone Canada because of its political and ideological background, and tried to prevent it from any coherence to the socialist movement.[297] In the 1930s, the policemen arrested people of the Labour Union who participated into May Day demonstration.[298]
On the contrary to The Globe’s antipathy to May Day demonstrations, records of the Socialism Union in Canada were positive to the activities. The Union encouraged the working class to join the activities to strengthen the relationship between May Day and socialist movement in the 1920s and 1930s. These records clarified the difference among various socialists and encouraged working class to try their best to fight against capitalism as rulers of society via the events.[299] When May Day activities approached their peak in the 1930s, the Workers’ Party and the CCF organised fierce and grand parades, which attracted over 8,000 workers to join in 1935.[300] Booklets about May Day’s history published in this period to catch young generations’ eye to the movements this holiday promoted.[301] Nonetheless, events tasted bitter fruit that people who participated in were arrested, and thus influence of the CCF among Canadian labours and May Day celebration in Anglophone Canada dramatically declined after the 1930s.[302]
In Francophone Canada, May Day celebrations did not disappear in the early twentieth century; contrarily, the Québécois warmly welcomed it. For example, socialists organised a May Day parade in the Champ de Mars, Montréal in 1907.[303] In fact, Montréal was a major city of socialist movements from the 1910s to 1930s which printed pamphlets of Communist Party of Canada.[304]
The revival of May Day events in Canada in the early twentieth century indicated Labour Day lost part of its initial function after centralisation. Although May Day filled the gap left by the centralised Labour Day, its connection with other ideology caused the Canadian government to forbid it while attracting the Québécois to celebrate it. In other words, May Day turned from the European counterpart to the centralised Labour Day to a battlefield of different ideologies and identities in Canada.
At the centralisation of Labour Day was the recognition of existing events organised by labour and their unions since the 1870s, the commemorative aspect of Labour Day was less important than that for Dominion Day. After the bottom-up centralisation, the legislation only recognised the recreational function of Labour Day as its Canadianness by attaching it to another recreational and national event, the CNE, to further centralise from the top.
Nonetheless, such method to enlarge participation degraded Labour Day’s initial function as ‘symbols of streets’, and this function was transferred to its European counterpart, May Day, which attached to socialism and the Québécois. In other words, Labour Day gained a wider coverage at the cost of replacing its right-claim feature by Canadianness; it was centralised as a symbol of Canada, gradually loosing its connection to the working class.
Victoria Day, Empire Day and la fête de Dollard
The third national holiday proclaimed by the Canadian government was Victoria Day, a previous local, leisure and public celebration for the birthday of Queen Victoria, in 1901. Similar to Labour Day, the centralisation of Victoria Day was a bottom-up approach but promoted the sense of belonging to Empire and Dominion, not Dominion only, at the beginning. As the commemorative function of Victoria Day was weakening in the inter-war period, its cooperation with one of its counterparts – Empire Day, with a stronger imperialism than Victoria Day and a shared person to commemorate – implied the shifting of political context might influence a national holiday, and thus the second part will analyse the origins and feature of Empire Day and its relationship with Victoria Day. Additionally, the Québécois invented a new holiday as the counterpart to Victoria Day – la fête de Dollard – in 1918 to express their rejection to the homogenous national identity promoted by Victoria Day and Empire Day. This section will include the discussion of the ideological and ritual conflicts and the cooperation of holidays with shared origins to show another approach of centralising a national holiday.
Victoria Day
When members of parliament intended to recognise Victoria Day as a public holiday in different ways in 1885 and 1897, they affirmed its recreational orientation. Not until Queen Victoria’s reign ended in 1901, did the Canadian government declare Victoria Day a statutory holiday to commemorate the great Queen and the Great Empire, which accomplished the first centralisation of this new holiday from a bottom-up approach. Its linkage to the British Empire thus specified it as a representation of Canadians’ sense of belonging to the wider community through the monarch. The recreational feature of Victoria Day become overwhelmed by the commemorative one, displayed in politicians’ intention of changing it to a fixed day – Monday closest to the week approaching 24 May – not fixed date, 24 May in each and every year, in 1938, due to the changing relationship between Dominion and Empire. Its declining feature of commemoration transferred to its counterpart Empire Day, an unofficial, educational and imperial holiday to commemorate Queen Victoria and the British Empire.
Initial celebrations for Queen Victoria’s Birthday were full of sports games. In British Columbia, the then government passed a statute called the Sovereign’s birthday ‘Victoria Day’ in 1845 to celebrate Queen Victoria’s Coronation on her birthday, 24 May.[305] In Ontario, similar pre-modern amateur games and activities for the Queen’s Birthday since the 1840s presented rowdy and local features.[306] Official programmes of Queen’s Birthday in British Columbia from the 1840s to 1871, the year this territory joined Confederation, were almost the same to those in Ontario before 1867.[307]
Various games and events including parades and open-air concerts sustained to the end of the nineteenth century under the arrangement of specialised committees. Celebrations in British Columbia were better organised than those in Ontario with more varieties, including parades of military forces, water sports and sports of Canadian aboriginal peoples such as the regatta and the Indian canoes. Nancy B. Bouchier argued white-bourgeois males were the only participants of the events in Ontario, which was a smaller group of participants than those in British Columbia.[308] Additionally, one extraordinary clue of the modernisation of the events, the bicycle race, was one of the matches in Victoria, British Columbia.[309] It also existed in the sports games in Ontario in the same period.[310] In other words, before the twentieth century, the Queen’s Birthday became one essential part of popular spring leisure and community events in Ontario and British Columbia with expanding activities. These religious, regional, leisure and competitive activities similarly functioned as the European seasonal May Day in the same epoch, which attached to local identity.[311] The recreational feature of Victoria Day thus cemented early local practices and their tenacity was one of their most marked features.
Regional celebrations for the Queen’s Birthday first caught the attention of political elites in the 1880s. The Canadian parliament, located in the province that had a long tradition of Queen’s Birthday celebrations, received a question in 1885 on whether the House of Commons should adjourn on the Queen’s Birthday or not.[312] Although leaders of that parliament had failed to make a straight decision on whether it sit on Dominion Day or not, they decided to recess on the Queen’s Birthday without long debates and legislative support. This decision sustained in the following several years with occasional debates in parliament, which continually approved the recreational significance of the Queen’s Birthday in Canadians’ leisure lives and in the centre of politics to respect the monarch.[313]
Not until the 60th year of her Majesty’s reign, politicians and the public started to concern the legislative approval to her birthday as a public holiday. G. E. McCraney from Milton, Ontario, once wrote to The Globe and proposed that they could ‘make the 24th of May a holiday for all time to come […] under the name of Victoria Day’ as a memorial to the Victoria Era.[314] This suggestion implied the commemorative value of Queen’s Birthday and the patriotic sentiment it contained, which was one value worthy of Canadians’ respect. In Senate, William John MacDonald (Conservative, British Columbia) tabled a bill aimed at revising the Interpretation Act and The Bills of Exchange Act to recognise 24 May as a holiday on 2 April 1897 for the first reading.[315] He believed this change could encourage Canadians from the Pacific to the Atlantic to join the events which highlighted the recreational value of the holiday via motivating sense of belonging to the nation that combined the two major features of a holiday together.
When debating MacDonald’s bill, varied voices rose in the Senate. Senator William Johnston Almon (Liberal-Conservative, Nova Scotia) argued such commemoration should be arranged after the Queen passed away, and the bill should be suggested by the House of Commons as he regarded the creation of a new holiday as a Canadian affair and equalised commemoration to memorial.[316] He asserted the government should not ‘allow burden of this tax to fall upon the laboring classes, who, in Canada, already had more holidays than they wanted’ that reaffirmed the commemorative, not recreational, feature of the future Victoria Day.[317]
Senator Richard William Scott (Liberal, Ontario) agreed with Almon on the point that the holiday should be created after Queen Victoria’s demise for highlighting ‘the vast importance and significance of the glorious reign of Queen Victoria to Canada, and expressed the hope that parliament would adopt this happy method of expressing the loyalty of the Canadian people to the person of her majesty in this her jubilee year’.[318] Other Senators such as George William Allan (Conservative, Ontario) and Francis Clemow (Conservative, Ontario) both believed the bill ought to be passed with loyalty to the Empire, with reducing expenditure and inconvenience to the working class. Senator James Alexander Lougheed (Liberal-Conservative, Northwest Territories) worried about its potential disturbing to working class as well.[319] Despite the disagreement to the process of creating a new national holiday, competition between commemorative and leisure aspects of Victoria Day emerged in these discussions of recognising a ‘Canadian’ holiday.
The public’s attitudes to MacDonald’s bill transmitted to the government shortly afterwards. Canadian Wheelmen’s Association, a nationwide association organised cycling games and travelling, for example, sent a letter to then Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier to support legislative approval of Queen’s Birthday as a ‘perpetuity’ holiday, after their annual conference in 1897.[320]
In the House of Commons, as the response to the Senate debates, Henri Gustave Joly de Lotbinère (Liberal, Québec) moved MacDonald’s bill for the first reading on 5 May 1897.[321] Then leader of the Official Opposition, Sir Charles Tupper (Conservative, Nova Scotia), argued that this issue was unnecessary to discuss in the House as it was not a government order.[322] When reporting Joly de Lotbinère’s bill, The Globe summarised as ‘it was a kind of a left-handed compliment to pay the Queen for this Parliament to decree that her birthday should be observed as a holiday after her death, yet there was some doubt on the right of Parliament to legislate for posterity’, which implied the subtle and tight connection between Dominion and Empire was presented in centralising Victoria Day.[323]
Queen Victoria’s death in 1901 recalled politicians’ memory on designating Victoria Day in federal legislation. Edward Henry Horsey (Liberal, Ontario) moved Bill No. 33 which respected ‘the 24th day of May a permanent public holiday in Canada’ and named it as ‘Victoria Day’ for the first reading on 27 February 1901.[324] In the second reading, Horsey asserted that passing this Bill was the way to honour the memory of the Queen and her epoch which illustrated its commemorative function, and explained the reason of commemoration was that the personality and achievement of Queen Victoria was ‘commendable to the good sense and convenience of future generations’.[325] Besides, the leisure function of existing events for Queen’s Birthday should be preserved.[326] One difference between Victoria Day and Dominion Day (and Labour Day) was this legislation only applied on federal public offices without the Empire’s approval as a Canadian holiday.[327] Politicians’ intention of creating Victoria Day mainly focussed on highlighting its commemorative value via promoting a collective memory of the participants.
Members of other institutions also showed their preferences to Victoria Day. For example, the Bank of Ottawa asked the government to revise The Exchange Act for declaring Victoria Day as a bank holiday that showed the British influence in recognising a new holiday.[328] Then Minister of Marine and Fisheries agreed this resolution by suggesting revising the Interpretation Act and The Exchange Act to recognise Victoria Day in parliament.[329] Liberal Senators such as John Valentine Ellis for New Brunswick also wrote to then Prime Minister to back up Horsey’s Bill.[330]
The third reading of Horsey’s bill on 2 May 1901 approved ‘Victoria Day’ as a public holiday, which the House of Commons would prorogue.[331] Québécois politicians’ acceptance to this new public holiday illustrated in the official approval of the provincial government on 18 May 1901.[332] In Anglophone Canada, Victoria Day events maintained their traditional rituals after 1901.[333] Use of icons and identities of the Empire such as widely waving the Union Jack – ‘a symbol of a glorious land worth dying for, but also of a country worth living for’ – represented the commemorative function of Victoria Day in related activities.[334] Print media noticed the patriotism this holiday showed from the early twentieth century to the end of the First World War, which stressed Canadians’ sense of belonging to their monarch.[335] Even so, as the ‘most popular holiday in Canada’ in the early twentieth century, the recreational feature of Victoria Day was its main feature from the view of the public.[336] The centralisation of Victoria Day, therefore, recognised the commemoration to the pervious monarch by adopting regional and leisure events as the rituals, which took the bottom-up approach in the first stage.
Although the First Nations participated in events of Victoria Day in the end of the nineteenth century with the government’s support, they started to claim independent and different activities to celebrate on this holiday from the late 1920s.[337] Chinese immigrants only recognised this holiday as a day off work and translated it as Queen Victoria’s Birthday with no political consideration.[338] The minority groups’ attitude predicted the ideological importance of Victoria Day was weak and reducing while its recreational celebrations kept the temperature after the relationship between Dominion and Empire was changed with enforcement of the Statute of Westminster, 1931. Gordon Graydon (Conservative, Ontario) questioned the Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King about moving Victoria Day to the Monday nearest it on 10 May 1938, which indicated this tendency.[339] He argued that this legal holiday on the exact date of Queen Victoria’s Birthday should be changed to a fixed day for the convenience of Canadian people’s long weekends.[340] Prime Minister King responded that celebrations would be held on 24 May that year as the preparations had already been ready.[341] Temporary preservation of the date of Victoria Day, however, had not reaffirmed its commemorative function, and thus stimulated discussions and questions in the public afterwards.[342] Decreasing of commemorational value of Victoria Day continued in the following years; its popularity as a public holiday of Canada became the main feature and a representation of Canadianness. Similar to the sense of belonging Dominion Day contained, Canadianness illustrated in Victoria Day was a Dominion-Empire identity, and the part of the Empire was declining after the centralisation, especially after the 1930s.
In the last decade of Queen Victoria’s reign, politicians first suggested the government centralise Victoria Day, initially a regional and leisure festival, as a public holiday of Canada to commemorate a great monarch. Failed attempts in 1895 and 1897 implied the Canadianisation of an icon of the Empire was problematic, or at least suspected by some politicians. When a Canadian narrative and explanation to designate Victoria Day – a holiday to show Canadians’ respect to Queen’s contribution to Dominion – developed after Queen passed away in 1901, this unique commemoration in Canada achieved its centralisation as a public holiday. In the events after the centralisation, therefore, commemorating Queen Victoria was their key target with using many other symbols of the Empire and Queen that presented the joint Dominion-Empire identity. Nevertheless, the Canadian roots of Victoria Day – leisure and recreation – quickly showed their dominated role of this Canadian holiday when the national statues of Canada started to change since the 1910, which led to the forthcoming changes to the date of this holiday for enhancing its recreational function in the 1930s. Such transformations implied the nation-building aiming at uniting Canadians with the vision of the British Empire was demising to the growing independent Canada, which was also displayed in centralising a national holiday.
Empire Day
The Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria’s reign in 1897 not only inspired politicians to designate Victoria Day, but also encouraged an Ontario teacher Mrs. Clementine Fessenden to create a holiday – Empire Day – in school on 23 May to give students one holiday to learn more about the British Empire and commemorate Queen Victoria. As Empire Day and Victoria Day shared the target of commemoration, this alternative was less competitive but cooperative to Victoria Day while the federal government only respected it as an unofficial and educational holiday. Although the influence of Empire Day was enlarging from the early twentieth century to the 1920s, the period of ‘training the young imperialists’, throughout the British Empire, it failed to be centralised by the Canadian government.[343] Study of Empire Day in Canada from 1897 to 1945 will argue the centralisation of a Canadian national holiday focussed on the uniqueness of the nation, and thus preferred to recognise the days related to a deep-rooted tradition and rituals of the nation. Meanwhile, the joint identity of Dominion and Empire prompted the organisers of Victoria Day to absorb the new rituals of Empire Day.
In November 1897, Mrs. Clementine Fessenden began her contribution to construct Empire Day in Ontario schools.[344] She wrote to then Education Minister of Ontario and member of Dominion Teachers’ Association, George W. Ross, to suggest that schools should ‘devote a day each year to patriotic exercises, with the children taking part to be known as the League of the Union Jack’.[345] This suggestion not only gained support from other schools but also coincided with Ross’ interests, who intended to introduce patriotism in teaching young subjects of the Empire. Ross thus promoted the creation of an official Empire Day in the schools of Ontario in 1898. Dominion Education Association and authorities of schools in ‘Ontario, Nova Scotia and Protestant Québec gave official sanction’ to Empire Day and celebrated it in the coming year.[346] Although Robert M. Stamp believed that ‘Empire Day celebrations were widely supported by both students and the general public as long as the majority of English-speaking Canadians could equate Canadian nationalism and British imperialism’, this part will reveal that the unsuccessful centralisation of Empire Day showed the difference between its ideology and that of Canada.[347]
As the provincial legislation in Ontario had declared 24 May as a day off work, organisers arranged Empire Day events in Ontario on 23 May 1899, one day before Queen’s Birthday, by teaching of patriotic past of the Empire to the students.[348] The teaching content included the history of British Empire, relationship between Empire and Dominion, unity and glorious of the Empire and how to be a loyal subject.[349] Comparing to the sporty and leisure Victoria Day, Empire Day was for training and commemoration. A standard narrative of Empire’s past and present with assimilative intention located in the centre of activities of Empire Day for promoting the Dominion-Empire identity.
Without a tradition to follow, events of Empire Day explored the way of practice in the following years. This holiday gained expanding participant schools and increasing attention from outside of the schools. Every 23 May became the official date of Empire Day, when schools in Ontario taught the history of the Empire.[350] Additionally, publication for Empire Day in the 1910s reviewed the history of creating Empire Day.[351] Organisers sent publications to King George V for his appreciation.[352] Increasing popularity and appreciation of Empire Day inspired the Secretary Office of the Board of Education to ask the government to turn its attention to Fessenden’s suggestion, hoping the government would close to respect Empire Day as a public holiday. The resolution was attached to newspaper clippings of reports of Empire Day celebrations in Ontario, Québec and other provinces of Canada in 1907, with a positive tone.[353] Then Prime Minister Laurier received similar requests on 2 February 1908.[354]
Politicians’ attitude to Empire Day was serious and careful. For example, Laurier suggested that he could not give any help promoting Empire Day as a public holiday, in responses to the letter from the Secretary Office of Board of Education.[355] He thus rejected the invitation from the British Empire Day Celebration Committee in Boston, the United States, which asked him to participate in the banquet of Empire Day celebration in 1909.[356] Later Prime Minister Mackenzie King made the same choices as Laurier in the 1920s when he was in office.[357] These rejections implied the failure of centralising Empire Day as a Canadian holiday. Additionally, Mrs. Fessenden’s suggestion on calling Empire Day as ‘Flag Day’, for the concerns that teaching the meaning of Union Jack was a crucial part of Empire Day events, simulated a request of renaming ‘Victoria Day’ as ‘Flag Day’ to the government as another approach to centralise Empire Day, which also failed finally.[358]
The failed centralisation of Empire Day in Canada was sharply contrasted to that in another Dominion of North America, Newfoundland, which was not yet part of Canada but the British Empire at that time. As early as 1903, the government of Newfoundland passed a bill to designate ‘Empire Day’ on Queen Victoria’s Birthday as a bank holiday, to stimulate the residents’ sensations of loyalty towards Queen Victoria and the British Empire via a British way of recognising public holidays.[359]
Queries from other member nations of the Empire intended to centralise Empire Day in Canada were also unsuccessful, which indicated that the Canadian politicians regarded the centralisation of a holiday to promote the sense of belonging of the Empire was an affair of the Empire. Then Prime Minister of South Africa once wrote a letter to then Prime Minister Laurier, to ask for his joint action, to call Queen Victoria’s Birthday as ‘Empire Day’ officially in the whole Empire. Laurier rejected support for this issue as it should be dealt by the imperial authorities, not the leader of Dominions or colonies.[360] Moreover, in the United Kingdom, Empire Day celebrations combined with other patriotism events from the 1900s to the 1930s to show imperial patriotism, which was different to the one Canadian government promoted via events of Victoria Day.[361]
Although Empire Day was not recognised as a public holiday in Canada, its ritual and symbols were integrated into the events of Victoria Day owing to their similar content of commemoration. In the celebrations of 1907, 1916 and 1923, children’s demonstrations and parades – the key events of Empire Day – became the main events of Victoria Day.[362] Similarities between Victoria Day and Empire Day even confused politicians. Some politicians even used Empire Day in parliament to call the holiday on 24 May and treated it as the reason of House adjournment.[363]
Stamp argued that Canadian people’s interest in Empire Day had dropped dramatically after the end of the First World War for the reason that some politicians criticised the connotation of Empire Day.[364] A teacher and member of parliament Agnes Campbell MacPhail (Progressive, Ontario), for example, argued ‘Empire Day is made the occasion for nothing but strutty, silly, pompous, bombastic performances by military men and those who are backing them’ in the House of Commons Debates on 24 June 1925, which criticised the ideological content of Empire Day was disagreed by some Canadians.[365]
Other politicians, however, preferred Empire Day as a symbol to show the close relationship between Canada and Empire. Thomas Langton Church (Conservative, Ontario) once queried about why the Canadian government neither ‘send a message of cordial goodwill and hearty appreciation and affection to the Mother Country’ nor organised official ceremonies on 31 May 1926; then Prime Minister King answered him that there were no existing rules asked Dominion organised official celebrations for Empire Day and the annual message to London authority with goodwill never stopped.[366] It can be noticed that Church suggested Empire Day as a national affair while King treated it as an affair of the Empire, and the senses of belonging to which entity competed in their debates.
Meanwhile, American culture influenced its Canadian counterpart from the 1920s, which degraded the popularity of Empire Day in Canada. As mentioned in Chapter One, English heritage is an extraordinary feature of Canadian national identity which differentiated it from that of the United States. Although Empire Day connected Canadian identity to the British Empire, when American popular culture blew to Canada in the inter-war period, ‘Empire Day and all that it stood for simply could not compete with the powerful lure’ that showed the weakness of this identity in presenting the uniqueness of Canadianness.[367]
Intentions to centralise Empire Day and recognise its creator appeared in 1938. After Mrs Fessenden had passed away in 1938, in the educational line, officers and members of Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire (IODE) claimed to name her as the ‘founder’, as an honour to her contribution, by sending appeal to the Prime Minister, which failed disappointingly.[368] This final attempt of centralising Empire Day concluded the Canadian government’s long sustained persistence on recognising a holiday had a stronger sense of belonging to Empire than to Dominion.
In this circumstance, Victoria Day celebrations absorbed more contents of connotation and commemorative events of Empire Day than previous period that inserted imperial identity into Victoria Day. The news report described children’s parades on Victoria Day, 1941, as ‘a day of patriotic education and inspiration’, which integrated the rituals and functions of Empire Day into Victoria Day.[369] Although the commemorative value of Victoria Day was fading from the late 1930s as mentioned in the last part, promoting the sense of belonging to Empire was still part of the target of this Canadian holiday in the early 1940.[370] It also responded to a temporary rejuvenation of Empire Day celebrations in public school during the Second World War, a period Canada was in a liminal state. Reports and news of ‘Empire Day’ gave honour to Canadians as British subjects.[371] When the British Empire collapsed after 1945 with weakening imperialism, Empire Day was swept into history.[372]
The failure of centralising Empire Day – a holiday practiced in the educational line due to Canadian teachers’ efforts to commemorate Queen Victoria and the British Empire – indicated the Canadian government only officially recognised a ‘national’ holiday if it mainly based on the profound past and ritual of Canada. Although the joint Dominion-Empire identity was promoted by Victoria Day and other Canadian national holidays, the sense of belonging to Dominion gradually surpassed that the one to Empire, which explained why Empire Day, as the symbol of Empire not Dominion, was not centralised. The key ideology underlain Empire Day, imperialism, was different to the assimilative Dominion-Empire identity either, and thus the Canadian government rejected to endorse it as a Canadian holiday. Nonetheless, as Victoria Day and Empire Day shared target of commemoration, value, rituals and events of Empire Day was absorbed by those of Victoria Day at the same time. The competition and cooperation of Empire Day and Victoria Day, therefore, showed another kind of relationship between a national holiday and its counterpart.
La fête de Dollard
Although Victoria Day was a popular holiday in Canada as mentioned above, the Québécois chose to create a different holiday based on their own history to commemorate, la fête de Dollard. This part will examine the Francophone counter-creation to Victoria Day, which showed Québec nationalism and imperialism by commemorating a French Canadian hero, to clarify the ideological conflict encountered by Victoria Day and the complexity of promoting a national ideology after its centralisation.
Québec’s Lieutenant-Governor, Sir Adolphe Chapleau, unveiled the Maisonneuve monument in Place d’Armes, Montréal, on Dominion Day 1895, which was one celebration of Montréal’s 250th anniversary.[373] This event proclaimed the earliest official recognition of Adam Dollard des Ormeaux and the Battle of Long Sault by respecting Dollard’s death as a crucial event in Québec’s history. The seventeenth-century patriot Paul de Chomedey de Maisonneuve was the main figure of the monument as representations of historical celebrities and events. Dollard’s fighting in the Battle of Long Sault with his partners was craved on the north face of the pedestal of the monument as the provincial recognition of these event that opened French Canadians’ history.[374] This new narrative of history also respected Dollard’s as a follower of one of two commanders of the garrison at Ville-Marie (Montréal) appointed by the community’s founder, Maisonneuve.[375]
On 29 May 1910, the first demonstration for commemorating Dollard held in Place d’Armes, Montréal.[376] When someone said Dollard’s name aloud in the ceremonies, after one minute’s silence, only one soldier participating in this event answered that Dollard was a warrior for French Canada.[377] Participants’ unfamiliarity to Dollard’s name revealed that his story was fresh to the Québécois in the early twentieth century. John C. Walsh of the Montréal Herald and Henri Bourassa, founder of Le Devoir both joined this event. They suggested Dollard as a national hero of Dominion of Canada while few Anglophone participants agreed with them.[378]
In the next year, Bourbeau-Rainville published a historic drama about the experience of Dollard and his friends in the Battle of Long Sault in Montréal.[379] In the preface of this drama, there was a general review of the history of New France from 1608 to 1660, which ended in the year Dollard had died. This romantic and heroic, nationalist and patriotic drama rewrote the story of Dollard to defeat the silence on his history and show the characters and virtues of the ancient heroes when New France being created.[380] Events in 1895 and 1910 and Bourbeau-Rainville’s drama demonstrated the recognition of Dollard was a top-down process that political elites and intellectuals first constructed its symbol and narrative.
Two Québec historians Abbé Jean-Baptiste Ferland and Abbé Étienne-Michel Fallion and one nationalist Abbé Lionel-Adolphe Groulx popularised the greatness of Dollard after the end of the First World War.[381] Religious and political associations such as the SSJB, la Société Historique de Montréal, l'Association catholique de la Jeunesse canadienne française and l'Action française became the unofficial organisers of the events of la fête de Dollard, which agreed with designating ‘la journée de Dollard’ in 1918, by choosing 24 May for celebration in purpose: competing with Victoria Day.[382]
In 1919, the first organised event of la fête de Dollard held in Montréal, which Garth Stevenson believed it could ‘protect the French language and the Catholic faith’ on that day.[383] A report published in 1921 called it ‘la fête patriotique’, indicating it was a day to commemorate the patriotic heroes.[384] Groulx’s speech ‘Si Dollard revenait…’ (‘If Dollard returned’) in the ceremony reviewed the history of New France since the early seventeenth century, when early French settlers tried to built their own territories in Canada, from a nationalist tone.[385] This review was more historical and religious but less romantic than Bourbeau-Rainville’s drama. In the very beginning of the speech, Groulx defined Dollard and his companies as ‘jeunesse héroïque (young heroes)’ that showed this address was prepared for the young people of contemporary ‘New France’ to stimulate their patriotic to the nation and their courage to contribute their life and energy when the nation was in danger, as the imitation to Dollard. The title of ‘If Dollard returned’ also implied Groulx aimed to collect young generations’ passion for building a French people’s Canada. Organisers of this ceremony chose 24 May for two reasons: first, it was close to the date when Dollard died; second, it was close to Victoria Day so that it could replace Victoria Day but use the recreational function in Montréal. Groulx’s aim of establishing an anti-Victoria Day thus convinced, and implied creating this holiday was a top-down approach only for recalling the hostile memories of young Francophone Canadians about their ancestors’ fight with the British colonial authority centuries before.
In the following years, there were growing recognitions of la fête de Dollard in Montréal. Sculptor Alfred Laliberté and architect Alphonse Venne constructed a new monument for Dollard, which was inaugurated in the Parc Lafontaine in Montréal, on 24 June 1920.[386] The Parc Lafontaine witnessed the ceremonies of la fête de Dollard from the 1920s. Dollard and his fellows’ heroic history published and developed as part of the national history of Québec. Henceforth, the Québécois constructed a new religious, patriotic and political holiday based on a forgotten but rewritten history for nationalistic and patriotic purpose. Forthcoming concerns on the reliability of this thin history led to the changes to the connotation and name of this holiday in the post-war context, aiming at maintaining this holiday as an equivalent counterpart to Victoria Day.[387]
The centralisation of Victoria Day and the construction of its counterparts indicated the ideological confliction and ritual interaction of a national holiday in a changing political context. After centralisation, although events of Victoria Day began to include the commemoration to Queen and the Empire, its Canadianness was mainly based on its previous events including sports games and other recreations, which was the same to Labour Day. In other words, the identity Victoria Day promoted was a Dominion-Empire one and the part of Dominion was its uniqueness as a Canadian national holiday, especially after the 1920s. The newly added commemorative function, gained from centralisation, then encountered competition from Empire Day and la fête de Dollard, both had different ideologies to the homogenous Dominion-Empire one. As a result, Empire Day failed to be centralised by the Canadian government while its rituals were absorbed by Victoria Day to enhance Victoria Day’s commemorative aspect; the creation and events of la fête de Dollard motivated a Francophone Canadians’ patriotic narrative, as the counter-creation to the imperialist patriotism included in the sense of belonging to the British Empire promoted by Victoria Day and Empire Day.
From Armistice Day to Remembrance Day
Another Canadian national holiday designed by a top-down approach will be discussed in this section: Armistice Day and later Remembrance Day. The initial centralisation experienced the confliction of the commemorative and recreational aspects of a ‘national’ holiday and ended with the regularisation of an historical event as an annual commemoration called Armistice Day in 1921. Armistice Day’s combination with another holiday that had war memorial function, Thanksgiving Day, then faced critiques from the ex-soldiers owing to its recreational aspect in the 1920s. After the centralisation, rituals of Armistice Day absorbed other European-origin rituals to enrich its commemorative functions.
The recreational feature of Thanksgiving Day eventually led the government to detach Armistice Day and Thanksgiving Day under ex-soldiers’ pressure. This centralisation ended with the designation of Remembrance Day by removing Thanksgiving Day to a different date in 1932. The Canadianisation of Remembrance Day, therefore, revealed the competition of two key features of a national holiday for showing the increasing sense of belonging to the nation with localising European rituals as Canadian ones.
The date when ceremonies were held to commemorate the armistice of the First World War was named as ‘Armistice Day’ in 1918 and Canada accepted it like many other nations.[388] Isaac Ellis Pedlow (Laurier Liberal, Ontario) first suggested regularising Armistice Day 1918 as a public holiday, by moving Thanksgiving Day Act to the parliament on 4 September 1919.[389] This bill regarded each and every second Monday of November as ‘a special Thanksgiving Day and as a perpetual memorial of the victorious conclusion of the World War’, which ignored the existed governmental decision on the date of Thanksgiving Day of 1919.[390]
Pedlow first reviewed the history of Thanksgiving Day in his address on 18 September 1919 and pointed out that from 1798 to 1919, moveable celebrations in Upper and Lower Canada focussed on the thankfulness to God’s mercy and the victory of regional wars as a liturgical festival.[391] The reason of using Thanksgiving Day for the memorial ceremony was based on its profound root in Canadians’ own past. Non-interrupted Thanksgiving Day celebration on one Thursday of November, he added, started from 1879, was first celebrated as a civic holiday for the restoration to health of The Prince of Wales on 15 April 1872.[392] The date of Thanksgiving Day, therefore, could be any random day at first, and then fixed as an official holiday to create shared memory for participants.
Additionally, although both Canada and the United States celebrated Thanksgiving Day as a seasonal festival, a Canadian Thanksgiving Day was what Pedlow decided to create: he chose the date most of the previous Thanksgiving Day fell, each and every second Monday of November, to cause the least inconvenience to commercial associations and travellers whom he represented, which succeed a British tradition of designating holidays.[393] Pedlow then expected this holiday could
call up some of the enthusiastic comradeship and thanksgiving which touched the heart of all Canada on this ever to be memorable day, the most glorious in all our history. And give future generations a splendid opportunity of doing honour to the memory of their forefathers who suffered, bled and died for the freedom of the world.[394]
He also motioned the United States’ designation of Thanksgiving Day as a public holiday as the reason to create a Canadian counterpart, and suggested the events for the new holiday should included religious services, horse-racing, sham battles and other amusements as a combination of commemoration and recreation.[395]
This combination then caused other politicians’ critiques who regarded the recreational feature would harm the significance of commemorating the fallen soldiers. For instance, the then Minister of Justice from Unionist party, Charles Joseph Doherty, argued that Pedlow’s intention on Thanksgiving Day was for amusement, and the day he chose was more convenient to people in South Canada.[396] William Foster Cockshutt (Unionist, Ontario) pointed out a fixed-day Thanksgiving Day was not suitable for commemorating the day of the armistice, and thus rejected the cohesion of two holidays.[397] Other members supported this bill and showed the preference to a Monday holiday but not in November.[398]
Pedlow responded to these critiques by recalling the mix-up caused by the fixed date Victoria Day in the commercial arena, which won the appreciation of members who concerned labour issues.[399] Key disagreement between the two sides was on the main function of the new holiday, commemorative or recreational, although they cooperated in the events of other national holidays. Suspicion of the effect of Thanksgiving Day eventually pushed Pedlow’s bill to a dead end in 1919. Politicians’ preference to highlight the commemorative aspect of Thanksgiving Day then rejected the adjournment on that day.[400] Even so, Pedlow’s speech pointed out the features of a prospective new national holiday: it would be based on existing events Canadian people celebrated for commemorating the fallen soldiers with combined commemorative and recreational functions.
Just two years later, the Minister of Militia (Unionist, Ontario) moved Bill No. 119, a similar bill to Pedlow’s, An Act Respecting Armistice Day, to the parliament, which chose ‘the Monday in the week in which is the eleventh day of November’ for commemorating Armistice Day.[401] In the debate on 23 May 1919, Pedlow insisted on a fixed-Monday holiday based on one precondition: having ceremonies on 11 November could not help the young generation to have a firmer commemoration to the Great War; rejection to this bill was only due to his party was the official opposition.[402] This bill passed without amendment eventually because of its clear focus on the commemorative value of Armistice Day. Related legislation – the Interpretation Act, Bills of Exchange Act and Civil Service Act – quickly responded to the bill by regarding Armistice Day as an equivalent to Labour Day.[403] Shortly after the act passed in Canada, the federal government of the United States rejected a similar bill, which added Canadianness to the new holiday in an alternative way.[404] After this top-down centralisation, commemoration became the key part of Armistice Day, although it still attached with a recreational and seasonal holiday.
When the new holiday was seeking for scheduled rituals and customs to expand the scale of ceremonies, those arranged in other places migrated to Canada. Two mostly practiced rituals – the two minutes’ silence and poppy appeal – developed in the Dominion simultaneously and then became ‘Canadian’ rituals from Canadians’ view.[405]
The origin of two minutes’ silence had a remarkable connection to the British Empire. King George V showed extraordinary interest in setting ceremonies and rituals for Armistice Day. Five days before the first anniversary of Armistice Day, he asked then Secretary of State for the Colonies in London to send a telegram to the Governor-General of Canada and other colonies about the ceremonies of 6 November 1919. It said that:
the hour when the armistice came into force, the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, there may be for the brief space of two minutes, a complete suspension of all our normal activities. During that time, except in the rare cases where this might be impracticable, all work, all sound and all locomotion should cease, so that in perfect stillness the thoughts of every one may be concentrated on reverent remembrance of the glorious dead. […] I believe that we shall all gladly interrupt our business and pleasure whatever it may be and unite in this simple service of silence and remembrance.[406]
Canadian members of parliament expressed appreciation to George V’s statement by adopting two minutes’ silence in Armistice Day ceremony. This ritual with a British origin was centralised and sustained as the most distinctive part of the ceremony thereafter.[407]
The first appearance of the poppy appeal for Armistice Day was in 1921 and later turned to a ‘Canadian’ ritual from the organisers’ view, although other parts of the Empire practiced this ritual as well.[408] A Canadian Doctor and soldier, John McCrae, wrote a poem ‘In Flanders Fields’ after the death of his closest friend, Lieutenant Alexis Helmer of Ottawa, who was killed by a German bullet on 2 May 1915.[409] The poem became very popular shortly afterwards and the poppy it mentioned became a widespread symbol of the Great War.[410] In 1920, participants of Armistice Day ceremonies placed non-specific flowers wreath.[411] Rituals changed in 1921, when a French Lady, Madame E. Guerin of La Ligue Francaise des Enfants, first arranged 2,000,000 poppies made by war widows and orphans of the desolated region of France to sell for Armistice Day in a worldwide tour including Britain and other parts of the British Empire, which was inspired the poem written by John McCrae.[412] After this tour, purchasers took the poppy, namely the ‘flower of remembrance’, as the symbol for the ceremonies to commemorate fallen soldiers, and Canadian politicians brought it by person for the national ceremony of Armistice Day.[413]
After the poppy appeal was practiced in Canada, localised production of poppies emerged nationwide. Canadians who made poppies were not war widows and orphans; they were disabled soldiers who earned money from them for life. The Franco-Canadian Orphanage Society and the Great War Veterans’ Association sold the poppies disabled soldiers made, and this activity enlarged as national Poppy Day Campaign in Canada shortly afterwards.[414] Money received from the appeal funded the ‘relief of ex-service men and their dependents’.[415] Moreover, as Chapter Six will discuss, British Legion also arranged the poppy appeal for veterans from the 1920s.
Officers from other parts of the Empire joined Canadian ceremonies of Armistice Day while Canadian ministers participated in the ceremonies in other colonies from the 1920s, which both implied commemorations of Armistice Day united members of the Empire.[416] When the Imperial Conference was under way in London in 1923, the British government invited Prime Ministers and representatives of the Dominions and India to Armistice Day ceremonies who placed a wreath as the represent of their people.[417] Canadian politicians interpreted this ceremony as a ‘family affair’, or, the affair inside the British Empire and later British Commonwealth.[418] Although the Canadian institutions had made efforts on localising Armistice Day ceremony as a Canadian event, politicians preserved the sense of belonging to the Empire in the narratives of the ceremony. It illustrated the centralised Armistice Day symbolised a Dominion-Empire identity.
Extending local activities nationwide such as military parades in where the cenotaphs located in, politicians’ patriotic speeches and singing the hymn expanded the influences of Armistice Day ceremonies in the 1920s, with the participation of returned soldiers and school children.[419] Ordinary Canadians started to show their suggestions for the arrangements of Armistice Day. For example, a ‘Canadian Mother’, Jennie B. Walsh of Saskatchewan, suggested half-masting flags on all militia buildings throughout the Dominion for a period on Armistice Day as a part of commemoration, which the government eventually accepted after her two years’ effort.[420]
Combination of varied instruments of nation-building also appeared in Armistice Day ceremonies in the 1920s. As early as 1924, three years earlier than the nationally broadcasted Diamond Jubilee celebrations, Canadian Radio Commission transmitted the ceremony of Armistice Day in Parliament Hill to every corner of the nation.[421]
In provincial level, local authorities built numerous memorial constructions for commemoration, which materialised patriotism and national sensation. In Toronto, for example, a memorial window was unveiled at St. John’s Anglican Church, East Toronto on 11 November 1923, which revealed the religious origin of Armistice Day contained in the traditional events of Thanksgiving Day.[422] Other cities such as Montréal, Hamilton, North Bay, Ottawa and St. Catharines organised similar ceremonies to unveil monuments for fallen soldiers in the 1920s.[423] Québec administrative officers also actively organised local ceremonies by duplicating the programmes held in Parliament Hill.[424] The Military Minister of Québec once invited the Governor-General of Canada and the Minister and members of the Defence Council in 1928.[425] Although the Governor-General had participated in the ceremony in 1928, he rejected the second invitation in 1929 for his preference to the ceremonies in Parliament Hill.[426] Ceremonies on Armistice Day became an impressive and collective memory of all participants in national scale with cooperating to other instruments of nation-building and showed its significances in commemoration.[427]
Enlarging commemorative ceremonies of Armistice Day motivated political elites to amend its legislation in two aspects – date for ceremonies and name of the holiday – which both for re-emphasising its commemorative feature as a national event. Major General H. A. Panet first sent a claim to change the date of Armistice Day to 11 November to the Deputy Minister of Office in 1927.[428] Then Deputy Minister G. J. Desbarats promised to move this issue to parliament as the response.[429] Other institutions had the same idea covered professions such as agriculture and commerce.[430] Alan Webster Neill (Independent, British Columbia) tabled a resolution in the parliament in 1929 that believed holding commemoration on the exact date of Armistice Day was a more satisfied choice than a fixed day holiday.[431] Nevertheless, although the government held ceremonies on 11 November, not Armistice Day, in that year, the parliament rejected Neill’s resolution.[432] Politicians’ resolution showed the public began to engage to the centralisation of this national holiday via emphasising the commemorative feature of Armistice Day.
With another two years’ preparation, Neill introduced a bill to amend the date of Armistice Day which moved out Thanksgiving Day from the enacting act.[433] He argued that only commercial travellers, the group of people who claimed the Armistice Day Act 1921 preferred a Monday holiday in the first reading.[434] Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League and returned soldiers requested Armistice Day to agree to the date of the ceremony in 1918 to stress its commemorative value, and the parliament respected this resolution by changing the enacting legislation on 29 May 1931.[435]
The federal government assented to an amended Armistice Day Act on 11 June 1931, which recognised the eleventh day of November as the holiday observed the armistice in 1918 and called it ‘Remembrance Day’, a bank holiday and legal holiday.[436] This change echoed to King George V’s idea expressed in his Armistice Day message in the 1920s: he believed Remembrance Day meant the commemoration to all the people who scarified themselves to the Empire, more than those in the First World War.[437] The House of Commons began to adjourn on Remembrance Day of 1932 in respect of the legislation, with the support of then Prime Minister Richard Bedford Bennett.[438] This legislative change, therefore, removed the recreational origin of the previous Armistice Day while still respected the new holiday a day of rest on the exact day of the end of the First World War but intended to commemorate all fallen soldiers for the nation to show increasing Canadianness and emphases to the commemorative feature.
Events for renamed holiday maintained their previous forms, including parades, special radio programme, poppy appeal and two minutes’ silence.[439] Ceremonies contained unchanged patriotic tunes from year to year included ‘O Canada’, ‘the Last Post’, ‘Land of Hope and Glory’, ‘Valiant Hearts’, ‘Abide with Me’, ‘O God Our Help in Ages Past’ and ‘God Save the King’, and implied the connection of senses of belongings to monarch and Dominion.[440]
Remembrance Day speeches after 1931 continuously mentioned nationalism and patriotism. J. L. Raiston, former Minister of National Defence, suggested taking this holiday as the birthday of Canada as a nation, not a Dominion, for showing an independent self-definition.[441] According to the journalists who participated in the ceremonies of Remembrance Day in 1931, they predicted that ‘Remembrance Day will be as a symbol of a country’s loyalty to the memory of brave men who served it well; a symbol also of patriotic pride in the part Canada played during a time of intense peril to the Empire’.[442] As previous sections revealed, encouraging the sense of belonging to the Dominion started to surpass the one to the Empire after the 1920s, although the national identity was still a homogenous Dominion-Empire one, as this section shows.
Nevertheless, Canadian religious leaders still delivered Thanksgiving Day addresses on Remembrance Day services after 1931, which implied the legislative change did not fully cut the link between two holidays immediately and thoroughly.[443] Religious services in the inter-war and war periods contained extraordinarily expressed thankfulness to God for the victory of Canada, which succeed the ritual of Thanksgiving Day.[444]
When the Second World War was about to begin in the late 1930s, Remembrance Day ceremonies highlighted ‘peace’ as the key word and extended the ceremonies to week-length as part of the anti-war movement.[445] In 1939, there were very little ceremony and publicity on 11 November in Canada.[446] Ceremonies carried on during war time with the claim of Canadian Legion.[447] Although Remembrance Day ceremonies contained the sense of belonging and loyalty to the British Empire or later Commonwealth, synchronisation of the ceremonies in the United Kingdom and Canada decreased during the Second World War, with overwhelming Canadianness from Canadians’ perspective.[448]
Designation of Armistice Day or later Remembrance Day was an example of how traditional and civic holidays competed in centralising a new civic holiday. The initial Armistice Day rituals stemmed from a seasonal, religious and imperial holiday, Thanksgiving Day, to commemorate fallen soldiers. Positions of two attached holidays rapidly switched after the legislation enforced via a top-down approach. The importance of commemoration – the reason of designate Armistice Day – dramatically increased with the support of growing European rituals and augmented ceremonies in local level. Organisers added patriotism, nationalism and national character into the ceremonies since the 1920s by integrated different symbols of the nation together to enhance their effectiveness.
Mighty ceremonies of Armistice Day inspired the public to suggest separating two attached holidays, especially who devoted for military forces in the late 1920s, and the second centralisation of Armistice Day removed the contents related to Thanksgiving Day by designating Remembrance Day to commemorate all fallen soldiers for the nation, not those for the Empire during the First World War only, in 1937, that further exposed the underlying Canadianness. Commemorative feature of Armistice Day thus overwhelmed the recreational one to promote a Dominion-Empire identity with increasing Canadianness in the two centralisations with the growing efforts from the below.
Conclusion
Being different from the United States, its closest neighbour, Canada was founded by an act, not revolution. As such non-revolutionary trajectory modelled on the constitutional system of and in the British Empire, Canadian national identity was tightly connected to its means of birth.[449] In the first phase of nation-building, the Canadian government centralised four major holidays for promoting the sense of belonging to Dominion and Empire. This process, which Eric Hobsbawm termed as ‘the invention of traditions’, was complicated and dynamic in Canada for popularising an assimilative national identity, that reflected the changing political context and conflicting identities, rituals and ideologies via a two-way approach.
Motivations of centralising a national holiday were embedded in Canada’s past in varied senses. Historical events or person and traditional celebrations or ceremonies became the prototypes of future national holidays, and thus the centralisation came from the top or the below in different cases. As soon as the federal legislation proclaimed a new national holiday, the holiday played the role as an instrument of nation-building to encourage Canadians’ sense of belonging to the nation.
Promoting this two-fold and homogenous identity was complicated via the newly created national holidays in many aspects. Events of national holidays cooperated with traditional or new rituals to show Canadianness. Different rituals, however, had their own ideological background. Cooperated religious services and symbols of the British Empire highlighted the British heritage and traditional ritual of a holiday for motivating the sense of belonging to the Empire; that with modernised or local events and the latest technology illuminated the achievement of the nation to encourage the sense of belonging to Canada.
Nevertheless, as the senses of belonging to Empire and Dominion did not fully overlap, the Canadian government gave the priority to the events related to the sense of belonging to Dominion. This tendency was getting obvious after the relationship between Dominion and Empire changed in the 1920s, and showed the Dominion identity gradually surpassed the Empire one and imperialism in extending events of national holidays and growing narrative of the past of Dominion in this context.
Moreover, the homogenous national identity faced challenges, which was shown in the counterparts’ interaction to centralised national holidays. Francophone Canadians and members of ethnic groups developed counterparts or counter-creations to certain national holiday to express their own identity. Francophone Canadians’ counterparts shifted their religious holidays to religious-political ones to compete with the British heritage of the national identity. Ethnic groups, such as Chinese immigrants, created a counterpart to Dominion Day to show their grievances to the homogenous national identity which excluded the integration of immigrants.
Besides, although both commemorative and recreational events were used by national holidays to promote the national identity, they cooperated and competed in varied conditions. Although Victoria Day contained commemorative events after centralisation, its recreational aspect had a more profound tradition in Canada that the commemorative one, and thus became its main feature as a ‘Canadian’ holiday. The recreational aspect of Labour Day was where its Canadianness located; the centralised Labour Day even lost most of other functions for highlighting this aspect. In the case of Armistice Day, competition between the commemorative and recreational aspects was the most obvious, which eventually pushed the government to rename the holiday and change its date for commemoration.
All challenges and conflicts after the centralisation of a national holiday then caused the public or the government to adjust its meaning, ritual and other related aspects. New centralisation took a two-way process in different cases to show growing Canadianness. In short, the invention of traditions was not a token for promoting an assimilative Canadian national identity; it presented the identity and clarified its connotation in a changing national context or facing challenges. When one pillar of the Dominion-Empire identity fell after the Second World War, this homogenous identity and its instruments all had to be transformed, which will be discussed in the following chapters.
Chapter Three: Transformation of National Holidays (1945 - 1971)
When imperialism and the sense of belonging to the Empire was downplayed during decolonisation, the Canadian government took the approach of strengthening nationalism, patriotism and the sense of belonging to Canada as the reaction in such a liminal state. The government adjusted its national policies for social integration and nation-building, including the alteration to the content of national holidays. This chapter will illuminate the complicated interaction between a changing national ideology and national holidays. It will argue the change of national holidays and national ideology was an integrated and simultaneous process: the centralisation of a national holiday devoted to the construction of a new ideology, and the proclamation of Official Multiculturalism, the new national ideology, in 1971, promoted the alteration of national holidays.[450]
Although the trend of centralising national holidays in a changing ideological context was clear – replacing the homogenous Dominion-Empire sense of belonging to a multicultural one, the process was complicated that contained cooperation, competition and interaction of different levels of politics and different rituals. It did not mean a simple break of two joint identities; the new identity intended to remove the previous part related to the Empire, not the British heritage, to construct a Canadian identity, which followed the step of adding Canadianness to Canadian national holidays after the 1920s as mentioned in Chapter Two. Additionally, although this centralisation was also a two-way approach that both the government and the public made contributions, a trend of respecting the public opinion to reflect the features of the new national ideology was shown in this process.
Moreover, Canadian national holidays had individual experiences in the era of transformation and met challenges from their own counterparts, which implied this replacement was problematic and multifarious. The way of enhancing Canadianness was different from holiday to holiday, including emphasising its commemorative or recreational aspect. The new ideology helped the recreational aspect to overwhelm the commemorative one in presenting the uniqueness of Canadian national holidays. The invention of traditions, therefore, was a dynamic and continuous process in the post-war period that reflected and promoted the changing ideological context.
This chapter will start with the two waves of transforming Dominion Day, with the following discussion on its growing alternative Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day in Québec, and then move to analyse May Day, Victoria Day and its counterparts, and Remembrance Day. Discussions of the connotation of Canadianness, as following sections will show, were the key part of changing national holidays in this period. The conclusion will clarify an instrument of nation-building was not a stable and unchangeable symbol; its connotation was changeable to adapt the enforcing even emerging national ideology as a lively representation of the national identity.
Dominion Day
The changing political context of Canada was first displayed in politicians’ intentions of renaming the most momentous national holiday which led two waves of attempts to alter Dominion Day from 1945 to 1971, both of which failed in the end. The division between the two waves appeared in 1957, when the federal government decided to prepare the Centennial celebrations of Canada officially to enrich Canadianness in the ideological sense, which inspired the politicians to recall the renaming of Dominion Day. The second wave then paralleled the Quiet Revolution in Québec, the establishment of the RCBB and the preparation of the Centennial celebrations, and was devoted to the great debates in the parliament on Canadianness in that period. The most problematic barrier of renaming Dominion Day, as this section will show, was how to signify the British heritage and the colonial past in Canadian national identity.[451]
The First Wave of Transformation (1945 - 1957)
The authority of the former British Empire began to change the attitudes to Dominion Day in 1944, which unveiled the period of the first wave of transforming the most momentous Canadian national holiday. It marked the separation of the jointed Dominion-Empire sense of belonging. This change was also reflected in Canadian political elites’ doubt about the name of ‘Dominion’ Day by moving a bill in early 1946 but failed in the Senate owing to the public opinion, which displayed a bottom-up attempt of re-defining the national holiday in a changing political context.
This failure then motivated other attempts to alter Dominion Day. Following bills aiming at moving Dominion Day to a fixed Monday first appeared in 1947 in the parliament failed again and again, especially in the Holidays Act 1952, due to the public’s question of its potential harm to the commemorative value of this holiday. These failed attempts, according to the following discussion, implied changing political context motivated the alteration of national identity and national holiday while the successful promoting of the previous national holiday in the public sustained the name and ritual of this holiday.
After Canada achieved full rights in the external affairs in 1939, other governments sent increasing number of congratulation letters for Dominion Day to the Canadian government that all respected Canada as a nation, not a part of the British Empire.[452] The British government’s interest in Dominion Day began to reduce in the last two years of the Second World War which reflected the same change. In 1942, the Archbishop of Canterbury gave a sermon in a Dominion Day service in Westminster Abbey, which highlighted the unity of the Throne and re-affirmed Canada as the daughter of the British Empire, while such positive responses disappeared in the political arena thereafter.[453] Contrary attitudes of the British government and other nations demonstrated an interest in dismemberment of the British Empire and Dominion in the mid-1940s.
Correspondence between the Dominion Office, London, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Ottawa, is one example. On 5 August 1944, Eric Gustav Machtig, then Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, sent a letter to Ottawa and said the British government would cancel the annual message for Canadian Dominion Day except for the jubilee years, to prevent other dominions such as Australia and Southern Rhodesia asking for the same message in each and every year.[454] In the response, staff in Ottawa attached Dominion Day greetings from China and Australia to assert the Canadian government’s desire for a message from Britain as it could illustrate the tight relationship between two entities, while Machtig still rejected this request and defined sending these greetings as a heavy burden on the Dominion Office.[455] Machtig stuck to his previous position in 1945 when Canadian officers again asked for greetings from London, which expressed the British government’s understanding to its new relationship to Canada.[456]
In the House of Commons, politicians started to question the identity of ‘Canada’ by moving a bill to rename Dominion Day. Antoine-Philéas Côté (Independent Liberal, Québec) first tabled Bill No. 8 on 27 March 1946, namely the Canada Day Act, for changing the previous act had enforced in 1927 in order to ‘a better identification of Canada outside the country’ and create ‘another element conducive to a greater patriotism towards Canada by Canadians all’.[457] The second reading of Bill No. 8 on 4 April focussed on the connotation of Dominion and Canada. Côté pointed out that Canada was the proper word to help foreigners to tell it from other British Dominions such as New Zealand and South Africa, which treated other members of the former Empire as ‘others’.[458] Other members such as John Eachern Smith (Liberal, Ontario), John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott (Liberal, Manitoba) and Eugène Marquis (Liberal, Québec), to name but a few, all supported Côté’s idea, who regarded ‘Canada’ as equivalent to the state. Smith suggested that ‘[regarded] the name change could make a real contribution to Canadian national life [...] and taking this step [...] can be made the basis of a crusade for a revitalized national spirit which can contribute a great deal to the future well-being of Canada’.[459]
A remarkable party line separated the two sides of the debate. Alfred Johnson Brooks (Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick) and Thomas Langton Church (Progressive Conservative, Ontario) opposed Côté’s bill for two reasons. First, there was no advantage but disadvantages if changed the name of the holiday to highlight the identity of the nation. Second, Dominion Day was part of Canadian tradition and part of Canadians’ personal history, which should be maintained to preserve the personal and national history.[460] George Russell Boucher (Progressive Conservative, Ontario) also regarded dominion as synonym of ‘unity, cooperation, amity and friendship’, which Dominion Day should represent.[461]
The key disagreement between two sides was how to define the past of the previous Empire in the assimilative and unified Canadian identity. Liberal members’ statements separated the Dominion-Empire identity by using Canada as the replacement to fully discard the heritage left by the British Empire. Conservative members, on the contrary, integrated Canadians’ past to the Empire as the contemporary identity. At last, the Liberal government led by William Lyon Mackenzie King passed Bill No. 8 with division after the third reading, although a member from the opposition questioned the federal parliament’s power on this issue as it related to the constitutional core of the nation.[462]
The bill was then tabled before the Senate on 24 June 1946.[463] Before the Senate made the decision, then Secretary of the State received letters from individuals and representatives of some institutions that rejected to Bill No. 8.[464] Journalists and readers of the conservative print media strongly disagreed with the bill and thought their ideas stood for the voice of the mainstream.[465] Igartua believed the discrepancy between the supporters and rejections was the recognition of the British heritage and the colonial past.[466]
Controversy over Bill No. 8 motivated some politicians, who respected the potential renaming of Dominion Day as a ‘Dominion Affair’, sent an enquiry to London. Wilfrid Garfield Case (Progressive Conservative, Ontario), who once declared his preference on renaming Dominion Day in parliament, inquired of Viscount Addison, the then Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, what he thought about the bill. He quoted the result of a national questionnaire as supportive evidence, which said ‘in Canada, 46% approved of the proposed change [from Dominion Day to Canada Day], 29% disapproved and 21% were indifferent; excluding Québec, however, (where 78% approved) the figures showed that 34% approved and 37% disapproved’.[467] Case’s quotation implied the majority of Canadians, especially the Francophone, preferred Canada Day while it contradicted to the ideas published on a Conservative national newspaper mentioned above. Addison responded that he felt a previous suzerain should not give a statement or suggestion on a Dominion’s affairs, reflecting the changed status of two political entities.[468]
Lack of support from both the higher and lower levels of politics pushed Bill No. 8 to a dead end in the Senate. The conservative newspaper believed senators rejected it as they regarded such change could abandon Canadian’s past and make people feel rootless, which was the same to the Conservatives.[469] Besides, from 1947 onwards, the Canadian government treated the absence of Dominion Day greetings from the United Kingdom as ‘customary’ and increasing greetings from other nations all regarded Canada as an independent nation, indicating the growing recognition of the latest status of Canada.[470]
The continuous fading of the Dominion-Empire identity was showed in the following bills aiming at change the rituals and name of Dominion Day. In 1947, Douglas Gooderham Ross (Progressive Conservative, Ontario) asked the House of Commons to observe Victoria Day and Dominion Day on Monday, not on the exact date, which partly absorbed the bill moved by Gordon Graydon (Progressive Conservative, Ontario) in 1938 that intended to move the date of Victoria Day, as discussed in Chapter Two.[471] Then Liberal Prime Minister King rejected this motion, which showed Liberal members who intended to rename the national holiday only for stressing ‘Canadianness’, not devaluing its commemorative feature.
Senate’s rejection of Bill No. 8 pended confusion of the official name of the most momentous national holiday in the public. Numerous Canadians and Canadian institutions wrote to the Secretary of the State with respect to the official name for 1 July with their own opinions, for and against the two options, Dominion Day and Canada Day.[472] After the Liberal government led by Louis St. Laurent ‘stopped using the word “Dominion” in referring to the name of the country, replacing it with “Canada”’ in late 1949, it even raised more confusion in the public that led to debates in the mass media and parliament about the ‘proper’ name of the nation, which encouraged politicians’ continual efforts on renaming Dominion Day.[473]
On 20 February 1950, Côté moved Bill No. 4 to parliament with the same content to Bill No. 8 in 1946 and encountered rejection, especially from Liberal members, in the first and second readings.[474] Members for British Columbia, a province with a tighter conjunction with the previous Empire, were more active than others. Edward Turney Applewhaite (Liberal, British Columbia) believed ‘dominion is now synonymous with an autonomous member of a Commonwealth’ that connected the new Commonwealth to Canada.[475] Angus MacInnis (CCF, British Columbia) once supported Bill No. 8, argued that ‘attempt to make this change at the present time is bordering on the ridiculous’.[476] William Carroll (Liberal, Nova Scotia) treated the public’s unison on this particular matter as the precondition of passing this bill.[477] The previous failure of the same attempt and the recognition of the Canadian identity including Canada’s membership of the British Commonwealth were the major reasons to keep Dominion Day. Pressures from a patriotic and imperial institution, the IODE, one of the co-organisers of the Diamond Jubilee celebrations, also declared its preference to Dominion Day.[478] The national president of the IODE once argued that the word Dominion ‘indicates the status of Canada as a free, self-governing nation among the other dominions of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and Canada’s greatest strength lies in her association with the Commonwealth, which stands for complete freedom of the individual within the law’ shortly after the debates of Bill No. 4 had started.[479] Bill No. 4 ended with an overwhelming rejection, which then chief editor of the Ottawa Journal regarded it as ‘petty nationalism loses’.[480]
Côté’s second failure, however, did not pull other members away from changing rituals of Dominion Day. On 28 June 1950, Graydon re-emphasised the reasons of moving Dominion Day and Victoria Day on the closest Monday and highlight the desire of the ‘public’ about this change.[481] John Lorne MacDougall (Liberal, British Columbia) repeated Graydon’s bill in his Bill No. 2 and tabled it on 1 February 1951.[482]
In the second reading of Bill No. 2 of 1951, Ellen Louks Fairclough (Progressive Conservative, Ontario) explained that Dominion Day should be celebrated on the same date every year to show its commemorative value and Canadianness.[483] Ernest George Hansell (Social Credit, Alberta) worried of a long weekend would push Dominion Day away from ‘the spirit of loyalty and patriotism for king and for country that has characterized our people over the ages’.[484] James MacKerras Macdonnell (Progressive Conservative, Ontario) opposed the long holiday with his concern about workers need longer time to rest up again as a waste of the time for manufacture.[485] Besides, Gordon Francis Higgins (Progressive Conservative, Newfoundland) mentioned the provincial differences on Dominion Day activities by emphasised the importance of another historical day on the first day of July – Memorial Day – in his home province. Celebration on a fixed date of an historical holiday, from his perspective, displayed the tradition and sentiment to the nation.[486]
The second reading stared to show the rejection of the part related to Dominion Day and approval to the section related to Victoria Day.[487] Debates signified that rituals of two holidays which proved their Canadianness were in different aspects: the recreational function was the uniqueness of Victoria Day while the commemorative function was vital for Dominion Day; deconstructing Dominion-Empire sense of belonging further devalued the commemorative function of Victoria Day while promoted that of Dominion Day due to their originations.
Meanwhile, the IODE and other commercial institutions from both Anglophone and Francophone provinces declared their grievances to Bill No. 2, which argued that a long holiday would add too much recreational feature to Dominion Day.[488] The print media, especially those in the Conservative stance, also echoed the voices of patriotic entities.[489]
After two years’ cooling down, Canadian parliament passed the third reading of Bill No. 2 with an amendment according to the debates of the second reading, which then became the Holidays Act 1952.[490] It changed the date of Victoria Day while the date of Dominion Day was kept. This centralisation suspended future ideas on changing the date of Dominion Day and pointed out the uniqueness and differences of two national holidays.
Altering political context and former suzerain’s attitude to Dominion Day reflected the shrinking sense of belonging to Empire in Canadian national identity and the desire of the politicians to look for a new narrative to express the assimilative national identity. Canadian politicians thus moved bills to rename Dominion Day which implied that the separation of the previous Dominion-Empire identity caused various opinions to redefine Canadianness; their key difference was how to define the role of British heritage and colonial past in it. Liberal members highlighted the Canadianness for an independent nation while the Progressive Conservatives asserted the British heritage as a part of Canadian identity. Eventually, the successful promotion of the joint and assimilative identity led some Canadians of the imperialist institutions such as the IODE to support the name of Dominion Day, and this idea was shared by the Senate and therefore rejected the change. This two-way redefinition of Dominion and Dominion Day implied adding Canadianness to the national identity was continued from the 1920s, and ended with a simple substitution of Canada-Commonwealth identity while stimulated future changes on the same issue.
Other bills aimed to change the ritual of Dominion Day and Victoria Day, influenced by party politics, focussed on the main function of Dominion Day. The Progressive Conservatives’ intentions of diminishing the commemorative feature of Dominion Day for preserving the value of national holiday in constructing citizens’ shared memory was rejected by the Liberal government. In the first wave of transforming Dominion Day, a demand of change stemmed from the altering political context though a proper substitution to the previous assimilative Dominion-Empire identity has not incubated yet.
The Second Wave of Transformation (1957 - 1971)
The second wave of changing Dominion Day paralleled three momentous events in Canadian history – the Quiet Revolution, the establishment of RCBB and the celebrations of the Centennial of Confederation – which were all influential to the new ideology. Discussion of this part will end with the proclamation of Official Multiculturalism in 1971 which marked the fundamental shift of Canadian national ideology. It will examine the interaction of three events and attempts to change Dominion Day to analyse the dynamic and mutual cooperation of shifting ideological context and the national holiday. Growing influences of the public opinion in revising the rituals and events of the national holiday was another remarkable change of this period. Yet attempts to renaming Dominion Day failed to achieve after the principal shift of national ideology immediately.[491]
The Quiet Revolution and the Establishment of the RCBB
The year of 1957, in J. L. Granatstein’s words, was the beginning of ‘Uncertainty and Innovation’ era of Canada, when new national symbols were generated to redefine the nation and dramatic social changes began.[492] Chapter One has mentioned that Isaiah Berlin delivered the speech called ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’ in 1958, which unveiled numerous controversies about liberal nationalism and multiculturalism in academia. Shifting theoretical context of nation-building and Canadian’s practices of constructing new national ideology and identity occurred simultaneously; Canada’s pioneering experiences became an interpretation of the newly emerging political philosophy which greatly influenced the future debates on nationalism and nation-building. Following discussions will take the Quiet Revolution and the founding of RCBB, two tightly connected events in the political arena, as the background of innovation of the national ideology, and move to analyse the invention of national symbols in the Centennial celebration and intentions of renaming Dominion Day in this period.
The Quiet Revolution started with the change of Québec’s political situation in 1958. Former Conservative member Jean Lesage became the party leader of the Liberals of Québec and won the provincial election in that year, which interrupted the rule of Union Nationale in Québécois government for the previous decades. After his premiership began, Lesage claimed economic and social rights for Québec, namely the Quiet Revolution.[493]
The then Minister of Hydroelectric Resources and Public Works of Lesage’s government and later Minister of Natural Resources, René Lévesque, deepened the revolution by first nationalised some industries of Québec under his economic policies, which aimed at fostering the welfare of the Québécois.[494] He claimed more recognition from the federal government and promoted political reform afterwards, which gained great achievements and regional popularity with increasing Québec nationalism. In 1966, although the Liberals lost the election in Québec, Lévesque maintained his seat but soon resigned his membership of the Liberal party and built a provincial, political and nationalist party – the PQ – in 1968, which was more aggressive than the Liberal, devoting itself to Québec economic, political and cultural rights.[495]
From the federal government’s increasing part of view, the claims of the PQ were the illustrations of party’s ideology, which was Québec separatism, and Lévesque was the leader who conducted the Québec Separatist movement in the 1960s and 1970s.[496] The Québécois widely accepted Lévesque’s ideas and addresses, which helped his young party rapidly expanded. The PQ thus defeated the Liberals in the provincial election in 1975, and Lévesque started his ten-year-premiership with sustained Québec nationalism.[497]
During the Quiet Revolution, the federal government defined the connotation of Canadian nationalism and national unity by taking the survival of French heritage in the cultural and linguistic aspects into consideration.[498] The new Liberal government, which won the 1963 election led by Lester Bowles Pearson, suggested to establishing a new commission to help social integration after taking ethnic groups’, especially the immigrants’, ‘needs and aspirations’ into accounts.[499] In this circumstance, the RCBB was founded to analyse the status quo of culture and language in Canada for the solution to the threat of Québec separatism via listening to public opinion.[500] On 22 July 1963, then Prime Minister Pearson declared the personnel of the RCBB in parliament and nominated its co-chairmen – editor in chief of French newspaper Le Devoir of Québec, Andre Laurendeau and Davidson Dunton, president of Carleton University.[501]
Then leader of the opposition John George Diefenbaker asserted that establishing the RCBB was not an effective way to handle with the separatist movement in Québec, unless the federal government rewrote the constitution of Canada, the British North America Act, 1867, and lack of provincial and ethical representation in the commission was another demerit.[502] This critique stemmed from Diefenbaker’s unsatisfied experience on establishing similar commissions, which failed to give solution on the same issue from the explanation of Guy Marcoux (Social Credit, Québec), although it did not shake the root of RCBB.[503] The commission began its investigation in ‘inflaming racial animosity’ and planned to ‘promote national unity in Canada and to save confederation’ hereafter.[504]
During its six-year operation, the RCBB submitted one preliminary report (1965) and one final report, which promoted legislating of new bills concerned minority rights, especially language rights of Francophone Canadians in the federal level, while Québec separatism developed simultaneously.[505] After the submission of the first volume in the last month of 1967, named ‘The Official Languages’, the newly elected Liberal Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who contributed his rest of political career for promoting multiculturalism in Canada continued Pearson’s earlier efforts, stated the first reading of Bill C-120, namely the Official Languages Act on 17 October 1968, in the House of Commons, as the response.[506]
In the debate, Trudeau explained the necessity and the reason why one state needed and could contain two official languages in the first stage as ‘we believe in two official languages and in a pluralist society, not merely as a political necessity but as an enrichment’.[507] Bill C-120 extended a former policy made by Pearson, announced in parliament on 6 April 1966, to practice bilingualism in the public services of Canada. It aimed at implementing the recognition of English and French as official languages in the jurisdiction of parliament to ‘guarantee the fundamental language right of our citizens, and this is one of the subjects which is before the continuing conference on the constitution [… while will] not affect provincial jurisdiction over the administration of justice, nor can it do so’.[508]
When questioning this bill, its effectiveness in promoting national unity, the fiscal costs of practicing official bilingualism, its influences on existing constitution, as well as the recognition of other languages and other cultures nationwide, were the key points. David Lewis (New Democratic, Ontario) worried that ‘the neglect of this basic fact [cultures and languages other than English and French] of Canada ha[d] resulted in a great sense of insecurity across this country’.[509] His view point implied that the government intended to find the solution of national unity and national security by seeking of fairness, equality and recognition of all ethnics and minorities’ cultures and languages while the exact polities have not been fully established.[510]
Although some members believed provincial differentiation might affect its effectiveness in the second reading, the Official Languages Act received the Royal Assertion on 9 July 1969, which enforced it on 7 September 1969.[511] It was the first step of recognising French as Official language in federal level by practicing bilingualism in legislative sense.
The RCBB’s following reports became politicians’ crucial references in the House Debates, which covered aspects such as ethnic groups’ (especially French Canadians) rights in education and public services.[512] Their continuous influences on constitutional reform first reflected in the early 1970s, when then Prime Minister Trudeau tried his efforts on declaring Official Multiculturalism as national policies.
After reading the fourth volume of RCBB report, ‘The Cultural Contribution of the Other Ethnic Groups’, tabled before the parliament in December 1969, Stanley Haidasz (Liberal, Ontario) asserted that ‘the history of Canada truly is composed of multi-ethnic and multi-cultural contributions, and this is Canada’s unique identity’.[513] He thus claimed of explicitly constitutional recognition of ‘the multi-cultural nature of Canadian society […] by adopting measures such as a bill of rights which would have the effect of protecting minority rights’.[514]
Other members’ approval of Haidasz’s suggestion of recognising the multicultural heritage of the nation was presented in Prime Minister Trudeau’s declaration of ‘Announcement of Implementation of Policy of Multiculturalism within Bilingual Framework’, namely the proclamation of Official Multiculturalism, before parliament on 8 October 1971.[515] From the RCBB and the government’s point of view, it was ‘the most suitable means of assuring the cultural freedom of Canadians’.[516] It argued previous assimilation policies would force ‘our citizens to forsake and forget the cultures they have brought to us’ and Canada would lose the valuable cultural diversity, which was part of its treasured heritage according to politicians’ explanation.[517] Nevertheless, ‘ethnic pluralism can help us overcome or prevent the homogenization and depersonalization of mass society [… and] the special role of the government will be to support and encourage those cultures and cultural groups which Canadians wish to preserve’.[518]
After that, the federal government designed new practices and institutions to achieve the expected target of the latest nation-building policy. The Political and Social Affairs Division of Canadian Parliamentary Information and Research Service began to ‘assisting cultural groups to retain and foster their identity and to overcome barriers to their full participation in Canadian society; promoting creative exchanges among all Canadian cultural groups; and assisting immigrants in acquiring at least one of the official languages’.[519] Other governmental organisations such as Multicultural Directorate within the Department of Secretary of State, Ministry of Multiculturalism and Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism (and later Canadian Ethnocultural Council) established in 1971, 1972 and 1973 receptively, as the practices of the official multicultural policy with fully financial support of the federal government.[520]
Although Québec separatism motivated the establishment of RCBB, the Québécois rejected bilingualism and Official Multiculturalism which the RCBB promoted. Robert Bourassa, the leader of Québec Liberal party and the Premier of Québec from 1970 to 1976, objected the federal multicultural policies for the ‘fear of becoming minority’ based on the content of the national policy.[521]
The construction of the RCBB and the proclamation of Official Multiculturalism, as the Liberal government’s response to the Quiet Revolution in Québec, signified the ideological change of Canada from assimilation to multiculturalism. Critiques of this approach’s effectiveness in promoting social integration and nation-building indicated it lacked the support of constitutional change and practices in the early 1970s. The connotation of the new ideology was abstract and different to the public’s idea of the definition of the nation at that time. Following analysis will clarify the interaction between the new ideology and public opinion on Canadianness from the late 1950s to the early 1970s.
The Centennial Celebrations
Preparation of the centralised Centennial celebration and decision of annual official Dominion Day celebrations were two crucial resolutions the government made, to enhance citizens’ sense of belonging to the nation in 1958. It integrated into the establishment of the RCBB and devoted to the definition of Canadianness and renaming Dominion Day afterwards. These interactions reflected the forming of the new ideology in this period and its competition to the previous one in the public and political domain.
Matthew Hayday noticed that the then Prime Minister John George Diefenbaker’s ‘Cabinet authorized Secretary of State Ellen Fairclough’s proposal for a formal Dominion Day event on Parliament Hill’ in the Cabinet meeting on 20 May 1958, and thus regarded this year as the turning-point of the official organisation of promoting national-identity through Dominion Day.[522] Although he had noticed other preparative discussion on this issue in 1957 – for example, the documents of Privy Council on 2 July 1957 first mentioned that Diefenbaker ‘secured cabinet approval in principle to have “some suitable public celebration” held on Dominion Day 1958’, Hayday treated the year when the government declared the authorisation as the real starting-point.[523] This concern seemed to neglect another debate in parliament in the end of 1957, which included other politicians’ view on the same issue.
In the debate on 9 December 1957, members of parliament focussed on the nation’s achievement in the past nine decades, which assembled patriotic speeches with suggestions reconfirmed the theme.[524] Stanley Howard Knowles (New Democratic, Manitoba) moved a motion to establish a committee for planning economic and social development in Celebration Canadian Centennial, which centred on unity and freedom, including the preservation of French tradition in Francophone Canada.[525]
Debates on 1 July 1959 continued the 1957 discussion that concerned presenting provincial and cultural heritage in the Centennial celebrations.[526] Hazen Robert Argue (CCF, Saskatchewan) believed the celebrations should put English and French cultural heritage at the same level for all Canadian to cherish and commemorate. Then Prime Minister Diefenbaker and leader of the opposition, Liberal Lester Bowles Pearson, also reminded other members the commemoration of Memorial Day in Newfoundland as a significant event.[527] This debate eventually confirmed the main themes and arrangements of the 1967 Centennial celebrations, which accounted for provincial and cultural differences. The enforcement of the Canadian Bill of Rights in 1960 further recognised anti-discrimination against ethnic minorities in Canada with quasi-constitutional force that highlighted the recognition of minority rights as the focus of the Centennial celebrations.[528]
Consensus of preparing the Centennial celebrations with recognition of minority rights was thus achieved through politicians of all parties, which was earlier than the declaration of Official Multiculturalism. Maurice Lamontagne (Liberal, Québec) once pointed out the RCBB’s role in the Centennial celebrations: there was ‘no better way to prepare for such celebration [the centennial celebration of Canada] than to collectively wake up our minds about our present identity, and about what we want to become in the future and to collectively take decisions which will be inspired by our consideration of those matters’.[529]
In the commemorative aspect, increasing construction of new symbols of the nation, which cooperated to other instruments of nation-building, was supported by the federal government. Ottawa, as the capital city of Canada and the site of Parliament Hill, gained the funding to rebuild Sussex Street for creating ‘mile of living Canadian history’ which cost 8,000,000 Canadian dollars.[530] Towns such as Charlottetown, organised Confederation meetings, built new commemorative constructions as part of official arrangements in the early 1960s.[531] Since then, the government fully centralised the arrangement of the official Centennial celebrations. When then Associate Minister of National Defence Joseph Pierre Albert Sevigny suggested he hoped ‘all French Canadian organizations, without exception, will join in the preparations for the centennial’ in 1961, other members such as George James McIlraith (Liberal, Ontario) and Heath Nelson Macquarrie (Progressive Conservative, Prince Edward Island) argued that ethnic cultures could enhance Canadianism at the same time, just like the French one.[532] Prime Minister Pearson asserted that the event would call ‘on the nation to show the same spirit in resolving the issue of centeralization versus separatism as did the Fathers of Confederation’.[533]
In 1963, the federal government passed a bill to distribute its financial support to each province for constructing and organising the Centennial events, by creating symbols such as building constructions related to the confederation included monuments and historical sites.[534] Centralised arrangement of local events cooperated with other instruments of nation-building by expanding the rituals of Dominion Day and showing the diversity of the nation, which implied the government’s intentions of setting a unique and impressive image of Canadianness.
The national competition for the symbol of the centenary in 1965 and selected an eleven equilateral triangles maple leaf as the winner. It represented the eleven provinces and territories to ‘epitomise the prestige of the state’, which later widely appeared in the official publications of the Centennial.[535] Designing the national flag for centenary events was another crucial representation of national identity. The government made the final choice in 1965 after a long debate.[536] Writer James Mavor Moore suggested that:
a flag ceremonial showing in historical sequence perhaps then or a dozen actual historic Canadian flags, concluding with our new national flag. These flags might include the earliest discoverable fleur-de-lis, the earliest union jack we can find, and other flags of historical importance in the development of our country. They would be borrowed for the purpose from various museums and archives and will be included in the ceremony of Dominion Day in 1965.[537]
This statement reflected that Canadians at that time believed a collective representation of national flags could crystallise the national history and identity, and should continually be represented in national events. From 1966 to 1967, the government unveiled other Centennial symbols such as English and French version of Centennial hymn, Centennial Rose and new stamps, which shared the function of the symbol of the centenary.[538] According to the content and explanations to the new symbols, the narrative of Canadian history formed and promoted a Canadianised identity, which was different to the assimilative Dominion-Empire one.
Meanwhile, members for Québec claimed to add organisations and participations of French Canadians in local and federal arrangements, to represent French cultural heritage. Maurice Allard (Progressive Conservative, Québec) asked ‘whether French Canadian organizations have been invited to be represented in the council in charging of planning the celebrations for the centenary of the Canadian confederation’.[539] Then Acting Secretary of State Léon Balcer responded that the Canadian Council for the Centennial celebration was a government body set up in May 1960 by non-governmental associations, and thus the federal government could not do anything to this issue.[540]
Moreover, Québec Separatists decided to parade against English speaking people in the day followed Dominion Day in 1965.[541] Considering this event, Yves Gabias, Québec’s provincial secretary, believed Francophone Canadians would not be interested in the centenary.[542] Other ethnic groups, which the government invited to participate in the celebrations as the representation of this multi-ethnic nation, accepted the national ideology, ‘diversity in unity’, in the celebration before the declaration of Official Multiculturalism.[543] Some local activities, for example, displayed the ethnic differences in ‘played in the formation of Canada as it is today’, which was part of national plans for the Centenary.[544] Additionally, the First nations’ participation in the Centennial celebrations inspired political elites to designate National Indian Day in Centenary year.[545]
Besides, from the early 1960s onwards, print media popularised the past of the nation and details of the celebrations to creating the shared memory of Canadians, including English newspapers’ illustration of celebrities’ contributions to Confederation, the history of Confederation, and historical sites which witnessed Confederation.[546] Publications of national financial institutions such as the Royal Bank of Canada discussed the meaning and ceremonies of the Centenary as well as the past, present and future of Canada.[547] Unity was the only key word of these publications to emphasise Canadian identity and Canadianism.[548]
Like its ancestors, the latest developed media, television, also contributed to the spread of Dominion Day events with new ingredients of national identity. After the Canadian Broadcast Corporation’s (CBC) first televised of Dominion Day in 1963, it considered the ethnic difference illustrated in the 1964 Programme with the financial support from the federal government. It hoped to feature ‘artists of different ethnic backgrounds chosen from each of the ten provinces’ in 1964 while organisers wished artists could ‘know they are attending a special event and that they are helping the government celebrate Canada’s birthday’, and was achieved finally.[549]
The growing Canadianness, as discussed above, was excluding the past related to the previous British Empire while it still included the monarch in the national identity to highlight the connection with the Commonwealth. Photographer Yousuf Karsh prepared the Canadian Queen’s portrait for Centennial in 1966 as a remarkable symbol of the nation.[550] The government also invited the Queen to participate into the Dominion Day celebration in 1967 for fostering a better relationship between Canada and the other member nations of the Commonwealth, especially the United Kingdom, under Anglophone and Francophone politicians’ expectations.[551]
In the 1967 Royal visit, Queen Elizabeth II not only participated to the events on Parliament Hill but gave an address in Parliament on Dominion Day. Then speaker of the House of Commons, Lucien Lamoureux, delivered the welcome speech, which expressed the loyalty to the Queen and the Commonwealth in the very beginning, and moved on to emphasise the theme of the Centennial celebrations, promoting the unity and diversity of Canada. He stated that the Queen’s words:
contribute to bind our people together, to encourage them in the pursuit of their ideal and to strengthen their will to enrich the Canadian mosaic, reflecting move particularly their dual origins. [...] In a very real sense, the Canadian experience with unity of political purpose in a rich diversity of cultures provided a meaningful precedent for the evolution of the Commonwealth, and expression of international neighbourhood perhaps unique in the history of man.[552]
In the Queen’s speech, she said that ‘I am sure that the contributions of French Canada to the life of the country as a whole will prove even ampler in the future than they have been in the years gone by’.[553] The two speeches agreed with the significance of the Queen in Canadian identity and a difference in defining the character of the nation. The Queen’s speech only mentioned early European immigrants while the speaker included ethnic groups and the First nations as Canadian citizens, who contributed to Canadian culture.
Preparation and events of the Centenary celebrations indicated a growing Canadianness to replace the Dominion-Empire identity which included presenting the French Canadian and ethnic cultures as crucial parts to promote the new one. Such recognition of the cultures other than the mainstream one appeared earlier than the declaration of Official Multiculturalism and was getting obvious after the Quiet Revolution and the establishment of the RCBB. The federal government centralised the enhancement of the commemorative aspect of the Centennial by encouraging the construction of new national symbols and utilising new media to broadcast the national event, as well as the recreational aspect by supporting local events. Centenary celebrations, therefore, represented the emerging new national identity via the federal government’s centralisation. Nevertheless, French Canadians still rejected part of its rituals which reflected the ongoing Quiet Revolution. Moreover, as the Canadian government respected the monarch as part of its identity, the dismissing of the previous Dominion-Empire identity did not simply disappear but became a problematic factor in renaming the national holiday.
Renaming Dominion Day
Some official and unofficial publications for the Centenary used ‘Confederation Day’ as a name for Dominion Day, which re-initiated debates in parliament in 1958.[554] When the ministers of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics sent congratulations to the Canadian government on Dominion Day, which called it ‘Confederation Day’, it inspired Herbert Wilfred Herridge (CCF, British Columbia) to inquire in parliament about correcting designation of this national holiday.[555] Then Prime Minister Diefenbaker, however, suggested that the name had been fixed for a long time, and no change should be made.[556] Others members mentioned the same issue in the following years, which attached it to the debates on how to call the nation.[557] Meanwhile, letters to the government from the public questioned about the official name of 1 July.[558] Political discussions even contained unconscious use of Canada Day to call the Canadian national holiday in the early 1960s.[559]
If analysed, the political elites who made more effort than others on this naming issue, Liberal and New Democratic members for Québec, which was the same group of politicians who moved bills on renaming Dominion Day in the early 1950s, played the leading role. On 4 June 1965, Jean Chrétien (Liberal, Québec) moved Bill C-6, which said ‘due to the confusion which exists throughout the country, and considering that it is necessary to create an essentially Canadian Day and ensure the uniformity of such a symbol’.[560] Yves Forest (Liberal, Québec), Herbert Eser Gray (Liberal, Ontario) and Stanley Howard Knowles moved similar bills in 1966 and 1967.[561]
Additionally, on 22 June 1967, Auguste Choquette (Liberal, Québec) tabled Bill C-139, which was the first bill that concerned the integration of Dominion Day and Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.[562] It intended to respect a French-speaking equivalent to Canada Day on 24 June each and every year as ‘Canadianism cannot be defined other than on the basis of the two great linguistic communities’. Nevertheless, the Canadian parliament rejected it, in the name of protecting the unification of the nation and the unique Canadianised symbol.[563]
After a whole year’s grand celebrations of the Canadian Centenary, parliament received increasing number of bills concerning the name-change and date-change of Dominion Day, which promoted this issue to the climax with the leading of Gilles Marceau (Liberal, Québec) in Pierre Trudeau’s Liberal government. On 20 November 1968, Marceau moved Bill C-132 to name the national holiday of Canada as Canada Day and celebrate it on the first Monday of July.[564] On 30 October 1969, James Elisha Brown (Liberal, Ontario) moved Bill C-29, which respected renaming Dominion Day as Canada Day for the first reading.[565] When the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs reported Bill C-29 after its second reading, it changed the name of the bill as ‘An Act Respecting Confederation Day’.[566] This change suggested the three potential changes on Dominion Day combined: changing the name of Dominion to Canada; changing Dominion Day to Confederation Day; and changing the date of celebration to the first Monday of July.
Debates on Bill C-29, however, caused more chaos in calling this holiday from the view of the public.[567] Common Canadians and the represents of various institutions persisted sending rejections to call 1 July as Canada to the federal government.[568] Women seemed to have more interests in expressing disagreements to Bill C-29 than men.[569] On the contrary, most of the enterprises and economists preferred Monday as the new holiday, which was friendly for trade and business.[570]
In the mean time, the Pointe Claire Jaycees of Québec considered the public opinion to the name of 1 July when analysing the feedback of the Centennial celebrations. It sent a resolution, attached with its public opinion survey in 1968, to many members of parliament, which was the first unofficial survey on the effects and influences of Dominion Day in Canada.[571] It indicated that ‘the name “dominion” carries little historical meaning other than to denote we at one time formed part of the British Empire. With the decline of that world community, the name is now nothing more than an anachronism’.[572]
Regard to the content of the survey, investigators chose Kirkland Lake as the best community to release the questionnaire. The result suggested that ‘less than 1 percent of the total sample […] were opposed to the change […] who conceded the name was “outdate” but a part of Canadian heritage, and as such should not be tampered with’.[573] It thus concluded that:
‘Dominion Day’ no longer carries any real significance for most Canadians; ‘Canada Day’, on the other hand, would not only have a meaning for all Canadians, but would portray to all citizens of the world that it is the day on which we celebrate our nation’s birthday, and the anniversary of the confederation of our Canadian Provinces.[574]
Other institutions and the news reports shared a conclusion with the Pointe Claire Jaycees.[575] Debates on the newspapers presented different public opinions and lasted for month-length. The majority of the people, who agreed with Dominion Day, worked for the government, while the supporters of Canada Day mainly originated from Québec.[576] When presenting their preferences, both of the two sides traced the etymon of Dominion with different interpretations. Their disagreement still locked on the connection between the word ‘Dominion’ to the British Empire as well as colonisation. Eventually, Canadian parliament refused Bill C-29.
After the proclamation of Official Multiculturalism in 1971, increasing number of Liberal members expressed their preference for Canada Day as the official name, who believed the name-change could show the connotation of a multicultural Canada and reduce the resistance to the celebration of this national holiday in Francophone Canada, which implied their assumption that a new name could protect the unity and stability of the nation while this was not fully accepted by the public.[577]
Official Multiculturalism also inspired members of parliament to emphasis the relationship between Canada and the Canadian monarch, Elizabeth II. They planned to invite Queen Elizabeth II to visit Canada on Dominion Day in the early 1970s.[578] After two years preparation, the Queen Mother visited Toronto, instead of her daughter, for Dominion Day for a six-day trip, and participated in numerous ceremonies and events.[579] This visit, however, did not pull Canadians’ sense of belonging back to the previous Empire; on the contrary, the events the Queen Mother joined were named as ‘Canada Day’, not ‘Dominion Day’.[580] Controversies about the name-change were the theme in parliament and mass media, which concentrated on the connotation of ‘Dominion’ and ‘Canada’ after Queen Mother’s visit.[581]
Attempts at altering Dominion Day from 1957 to 1971 continued to enhance the Canadianness of this national holiday with similar approach to the previous ones including renaming it as Canada Day or move it to a fixed Monday and all failed in the end. One of the key points of the debates was how to deal with the British heritage, which was the same to the debates in the first wave of renaming Dominion Day. The other one was the competition of its counterpart in Québec, Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, which will be discussed in the next section. Temporary maintenance of Dominion Day was also supported by public opinion owing to the Canadian government’s concern of the feedback from the participants.
According to the two waves of renaming from 1945 to 1971, crisis and challenges, which traditional national holiday experienced, stemmed from the changing and expanding national identity from regional, national and international directions. It transformed Canadians’ existing Dominion-Empire sense of belonging to the nation by adding Canadianness. Shifting political context and the mega-events of Dominion Day both stimulated the forthcoming definition and debates on the national identity. How to define the Empire’s past in the new Canadian national identity was the key theme of related debates, especially in those from 1945 to 1957. The sense of belonging to the Commonwealth replaced the one to Empire and remained in the Canadian identity with a less significance.
This desire met shifting national context after 1957. Three leading events, the Quiet Revolution, the establishment of the RCBB and the Centennial celebrations, motivated the public and the politicians to rethink the national identity for nation’s unity. In this stage, related debates not only paid attention to the British heritage but the uniqueness of Canada – diversity – and encountered disagreements from Québec. New symbols and expanding centralised events implied Canadian politicians’ continuous efforts of promoting the national identity via national holidays. Meanwhile, the government started to take the public opinion, which had influenced the result of the first wave of transforming, as the reference to adjust its arrangements. In other words, the transformation of Dominion Day was also a two-way approach.
All attempts that appeared in the age of transformation failed due to the lack of ideological support, while the ingredients of the emerging nation ideology – recognition of cultures other than the mainstream one – presented in the debates and practices related to national holiday at that time with the assistant of other new instruments of nation-building or national symbols. Supports from the Anglophone public opinion, especially those who had Conservative stance, and some politicians, sustained the name and rituals of Dominion Day, which implied the Canadian national identity promoted before 1945 was accepted, at least partly, by the public. Other failed attempts intended to decrease the commemorative significance of Dominion Day signified this aspect was crucial to the most momentous national holiday of Canada. After the ideological change in 1971, attempts of renaming Dominion Day moved to a different stage and will be discussed in the next chapter.
Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day
In the same transforming political context, celebrations of an alternative to Dominion Day, Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, also developed. Increasing Québec separatism promoted its extending celebrations in the province, which deepened the politicisation of this holiday to enhance the sense of belonging to Québec. This section will first analyse politicians’ view of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day in the federal government, and then move to the politicising of its celebrations during the Quiet Revolution for encouraging the Québécois’ sensation to Francophone Canada. The Québécois’ practices of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day showed the counterparts to the national holidays actively responded to the changing ideological and political context by improving their own rituals and recognitions.
Although Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day had extended to Anglophone, the parliament ignored this issue from Confederation to 1943. Members of parliament first mentioned the commemoration of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day on 24 June 1943 to show their awareness of a religious and Francophone holiday.[582] Elie-Oscar Bertrand (Liberal, Ontario) encouraged other members to celebrate French Canadians’ patron saint’s day to ‘crave his protection for the members of our armed forces who are fighting in the air, on land and at sea, and we beseech his help in behalf of racial unity and good government in this country’.[583] His lonely voice, however, gained no positive responses from others.
After another eleven years’ silence on the subject of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day in parliament, Maurice Boisvert (Liberal, Québec) reminded other members to commemorate the patron saint of Francophone Canadians on 24 June 1954.[584] He believed this holiday ‘is inspired by the best traditions of this country and which is such that we never fail to put the interest above everything’, and thus was important to all compatriots.[585] Then Speaker Louis-René Beaudoin (Liberal, Québec) admitted his negligence on this issue after Boisvert’s announcement, and encouraged other members to commemorate this holiday. Both Bertrand and Boisvert described Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day as a patron saint’s day, which only noticed its religious feature. Their reasons of commemorating this holiday were for the unity of the nation and they took this holiday as part of the nation’s heritage.
Leaders of leading parties sent increasing number of greetings to French Canadians and Newfoundlanders for commemorating Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day on 24 June or date close thereafter during the parliamentary debates, especially after the Quiet Revolution, for the same reasons to Bertrand’s and Boisvert’s.[586] Concerns for Newfoundlanders’ sensation on this holiday were much less than that to the Québécois but with a similar intention: to show the unity and diversity of the nation. After Diefenbaker’s government declared to arrange official celebrations for Dominion Day in 1959, then leader of opposition Pearson suggested that all Canadians should recognise Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day for the Francophone Canadians’ great contributions of the nation and ‘the flowering of a strong and free nation united in diversity’.[587] Moreover, he asserted that ‘The Queen of Canada is present on the occasion of the celebration of French Canadians’ patron saint’s day’ in the House Debates on 24 June 1959 as the example of his expectations quoted above.[588] It showed that Anglophone members respected Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day’s presenting of diversity, the emerging essential and basic characteristic of Canadianism, as the sign of equality and freedom of the nation.[589]
Although some members of parliament started to equate Saint-Jean-Baptiste as an icon or hero for the unity and freedom of the whole nation in the greeting speeches, members for Québec and other Francophone part of Canada claimed more recognition of French cultural heritage for Canada’s ‘flourish without hindrance’ in their addresses in the early 1960s.[590] New Democratic member Knowles, for example, asked the parliament to give federal civil servants a holiday on the closest Monday to Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, as the recognition of the Québécois’ contribution, with other members’ unanimous acceptance.[591] Others such as Gérard Girouard (Social Credit, Québec) claimed to recognise Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day as a national holiday, and encouraged ‘the government to hoist immediately on the Peace tower the fleur-de-lis flag as a tribute to French Canadians’.[592] What he asked for was extra attention to Francophone Canadians’ heritage, not the recognition of cultural diversity that the federal government promoted.
In short, from 1945 to the early 1960s, Anglophone and Francophone politicians’ targets of celebrating Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day in the centre of national politics were different due to their own identities. Although the Anglophone politicians recognised Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day to enrich Canadianness and Canada’s past in the cultural sense, the Francophone politicians respected it as the equivalent to other national holidays for highlighting the sense of belonging to Québec with political feature.
Events of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day demonstrated that the Québécois shared Francophone politicians’ understanding that it was a political holiday. The Quiet Revolution further politicised Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day events with growing Québec nationalism. After 1960, the SSJB entitled the annual celebrations of this holiday. The one of 1964 entitled as ‘French Canada, the Real Reality’ and extended for a whole week just after the year the RCBB established.[593] The SSJB also constructed a new symbol of this holiday, ‘a sculpture wrought in solid metal, has replaced the sheep to show our solidity, our vitality and our energy’.[594] Changing symbols and expanding events in Québec were simultaneous to parliament’s debate on re-arranging statutory holidays. It considered nine statutory holidays in the federal level including Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, although some Anglophone politicians were afraid of this recognition may erode the importance of Anglophone Canadians’ national identity.[595] Deepening Québec Separatism and its connection to communists pushed the reports of the Anglophone newspapers regarding the activities of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day as the disturbance to the whole nation, not a recreational, regional and religious celebration anymore.[596]
In the late period of the Quiet Revolution, then Prime Minister Trudeau decided to join the events of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day to narrow the relationship between the federal government and the Québécois. One separatist, Pierre Bourgault, even of warned Trudeau’s potential attendance by saying he would organise the protests to the Prime Minister in the celebrations.[597] Trudeau, however, suspected Bourgault’s words were only intimidation. He came to Québec as planned and appealed the Québécois to share their national holiday with the rest of the nation in 1968. He believed that his participation would encourage Canadians to join the events. In these tense circumstances, Trudeau’s speech focussed on encouraging more Anglophone Canadians to join events of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day to promote the diversity of Canadian society as well as encouraging Francophone Canadians to accept the culture of Anglophone Canadians. Many Québécois showed dissatisfaction to his speech and organised protestors to gather in the place where Trudeau’s speech would take place for demonstration.[598]
A disturbance happened in the city of Sherbrooke one week before Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day 1969, which worsened some Anglophone politicians’ understanding on Québec separatism.[599] When Trudeau again accepted the SSJB’s invitation to join the celebration, some separatists bombed the place of ceremonies in advance and the SSJB had to cancel the invitation.[600] Meanwhile, the federal government asked the leaders of Québec not to invite politicians and members from foreign embassies to keep the separatist movement as a domestic issue.[601] The provincial government followed this suggestion, cancelled protests and demonstrations, while the Québécois were unwilling to participate without these events.[602]
The declaration of Official Multiculturalism and expanding cultural, not political, celebrations of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day in the early 1970s, both improved Anglophone Canadians’ impression on this holiday.[603] Organisers of the celebrations invited the First Nations of Québec to show the diverse culture of the province.[604] The Francophone politicians prepared further politicisation of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day in the late-1970s, which will be discussed in Chapter Four.
Discussion of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day in this section argued the contextual change inspired the Francophone counterpart to Dominion Day added its political feature, especially during the Quiet Revolution. The Anglophone politicians started to respect this Francophone holiday as part of Canadian heritage, which neglected its political feature, as the approach to enrich Canadianness. Although the maintenance of Dominion Day implied the success of promoting the previous national identity in some degree, Francophone Canadians preserved their own identity by enriching their events of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day from 1945 and 1971, even including some extreme methods.
May Day
From 1945 to 1971, Labour Day celebrations were getting recreationalised and commercialised in local and provincial level to maintain its Canadianness.[605] As discussed in Chapter Two, its initial function for rights claim transferred to May Day from the early twentieth century, and this function then turned as the major function of May Day in Canada.
Before 1945, Anglophone journalists had already noticed that ‘May day is not Labor Day. It is more political than industrial; the agitator’s opportunity to make himself heard’.[606] This understanding continued after 1945. When the iron curtain fell, the Conservative stance national newspaper The Globe and Mail expressed its hostility to May Day events.[607] In some parts of Canada, May Day was a Moving Day – as 1 May was the first day of the new house rent contracts – which Hobsbawm had also noticed in his ‘Mass-producing traditions’, a tradition stemming from the working class culture.[608] The political aspect of May Day was thus ignored temporarily.
As early as the early twentieth century, and up to the 1930s, as mentioned in Chapter Two, Socialist associations in Québec published booklets to review the history of May Day with the ongoing Marxist movement.[609] After the Quiet Revolution, increased strikes emerged on May Day in Francophone Canada and combined with other socialist movements which showed the cooperation of socialism and Québec nationalism.[610] It was an example to show the alternatives to the national holidays with different ideological background could collaborate with each other for a mutual development.
Victoria Day and Its Alternatives
When the British Empire downplayed after the Second World War, Victoria Day faced more challenges than other holidays owing to its connection to the former monarch of the Empire. This section will study the changes of Victoria Day and its alternatives to further elaborate the Canadian government’s efforts in adjusting national holidays for increasing Canadianness.
The approval of the Holidays Act 1952 reaffirmed that the uniqueness of Victoria Day mainly stemmed from its recreational, not commemorative function, as the reaction to the changing political context. On the international level, the sense of belonging to the Empire promoted by Empire Day was replaced by the ‘Commonwealth’: a new entity has twenty-one member nations ‘of freedom and righteousness’.[611] This shift altered Empire Day to Commonwealth Day officially with the efforts of Canadian politicians. In Québec, riotous Victorianism rose in the 1960s, which took Victoria Day as the stage to display a counterculture.[612] In short, the same political shift motivated varied changes to Victoria Day and its counterparts, which signified the identity and ideology these holidays promoted.
Although Douglas Gooderham Ross (Conservative, Ontario) once asked the government to ‘consider the restoration of the celebration of Empire Day, May 23, as a holiday where possible, since the day now has special significance for a great many people in this country’ in 1943; and significance of the Empire failed to revival after the Second World War ended.[613] Canadian politicians’ intention of changing rituals and dates of Victoria Day and Empire Day increased in the last two years of the Second World War, which was the same condition faced by Dominion Day. Progressive Conservative member Church suggested the government to enhance Victoria Day celebrations and members to adjourn, which reaffirmed its recreational feature.[614] Then Liberal Acting Prime Minister James Layton Ralston argued that ‘the best contribution to the Empire and the Commonwealth’ was to dealing with the business of the House, which disagreed to Church’s idea.[615] Church repeated his suggestion in 1946 and the result was the same, which showed the commemorative feature of Victoria Day was still approved in the centre of politics at that period.[616]
In 1947 and 1949, Ross suggested moving Dominion Day and Victoria Day to a fixed Monday holiday that the first section had mentioned.[617] Leaders of the association of small enterprises in Montréal and Ontario said they hoped the government could consider of celebrating Victoria Day on Monday, instead of Tuesday, in 1949, who attached with this resolution in their letters to the government to support Ross’s motion.[618] Others even requested not to recognise Victoria Day as a statutory holiday in Québec owing to the British heritage it contained.[619]
Parliament heard similar bills to Ross’s in the late 1940s, which then extended to the 1950s. As mentioned above, Bill No. 2, moved by Liberal member MacDougall, which aimed at changing Victoria Day as a fixed day holiday, was passed in 1952. Pressures from patriotic associations such as the IODE in Anglophone and Francophone provinces sent letters to oppose this bill during the debates, although the result ended with some amendment, which moved Victoria Day to the ‘immediately preceding the twenty-fifth day of May’ to make sure the holiday was as close to 24 May.[620] The Prime Minister received many of letters from citizens in Ontario, Québec, Manitoba and New Brunswick opposed to Bill No. 2, although the legislation came into force as planned.[621]
This change of Victoria Day highlighted its recreational and commercial function on the one hand. On the other hand, ‘some commonwealth representatives are in favour of celebrating The King’s Birthday in preference to Empire Day in 1951’, which indicated the popularity of Victoria Day’s equivalent in other part of the world, even though the Empire had dismissed. The Canadian government then declared Victoria Day as the official birthday of Elizabeth II, the new monarch of Canada, which was different to her real birthday and official birthday in the United Kingdom, to stress its Canadianness.[622]
Local practices of Victoria Day varied after 1945. Annual parades in Victoria, British Columbia, were huge and cheerful.[623] In south-central and western Ontario such as Hamilton and Toronto, in the early 1960s, however, ‘Victoria Day [...] was marred by riotous crowds of urban youths throwing firecrackers, lighting bonfires in city thoroughfares, torching sheds, and battling cops and firemen for control of the street’.[624] Such subdued Victoria Day hooliganism also happened in Montréal with violence from 1959 to the 1960s, the same period of the Quiet Revolution.[625]
Victoria Day thus became a collective symbol of all Canadian monarchs, not Queen Victoria only, as a Canadianised holiday mainly for recreational purpose after the centralisation process finished in 1952.
Empire Day also encountered changes in the same context. As the internationally celebrated holiday throughout the British Empire, previous territories of the Empire had confirmed its commemorative and recreational function, in the first half of the twentieth century.[626] Post-war decolonisation, however, pushed the members of Commonwealth to think of dropping Empire Day and founding ‘a more suitable day […] for demonstrating Commonwealth solidarity on which all Commonwealth Missions would be prepared to send appropriate messages for publication’.[627] On Victoria Day 1947, both Britain and Canada celebrated that day as the recognition of Commonwealth Day for the new way of unifying the former daughters of the Empire, and the official designation of Commonwealth Day began to operate in the early 1950.[628]
Similar to other Canadians’ suggestion of renaming Victoria Day as Commonwealth Day, then Ambassador of Canada in Lima, Peru, Emile Vaillancout declared himself as ‘the first person to propose that the name of “Empire Day” be changed to “Commonwealth Day”’ in the beginning of the 1950 Empire Day message.[629] Redefining old holidays to satisfy the latest international context was practiced in the change of Empire Day.
On 18 December 1958, the Westminster parliament received a bill to rename Empire Day as Commonwealth Day; two months later, the Canadian parliament gained a similar bill on 25 February 1959.[630] The British bill believed the name Commonwealth Day was a ‘new title that has been given an old institution’, which could link the nation to her partners as the successor of Empire Day.[631] Then Prime Minister Diefenbaker pointed out that the change was from Empire Day, not Victoria Day, to Commonwealth Day in the parliament, which predicted that Commonwealth Day would not be a statutory holiday in Canada.[632] According to the news release of Office of Prime Minister, 23 May 1959 became the first officially claimed Commonwealth Day in Canada as the substitution to Empire Day which only had the commemorative function.[633]
After the federal government had proclaimed Commonwealth Day in 1959, politicians expressed increasing acceptance to this holiday. For example, on 14 March 1964, the Joint Commonwealth Societies’ Council, London sent a letter to the High Commission for Canada, London, enclosing a message for Commonwealth Day by the Chairman of the council, De La Warr.[634] It suggested that ‘if the Prime Minister [of Canada] would kindly give it the widest circulation possible in your country’ and ‘use in schools, by the press and radio’, it ‘may help in some small way to greater Commonwealth unity and understanding’.[635] As soon as received the message, then Canadian Liberal Prime Minister Pearson showed appreciation for it.[636]
On 2 September 1964, Philip Bernard Rynard (Progressive Conservative, Ontario) moved Bill C-117 to ‘establish by statute a sovereign’s birthday and Commonwealth Day to pay our respects to the Queen and head of the Commonwealth and to celebrate our Canadian membership in the Commonwealth of nations’, although it failed shortly afterwards.[637] Remarkably different roles of two holidays displayed in this process: Victoria Day was a Canadian holiday mainly for recreation; Commonwealth Day became the connection between Canada and the Commonwealth.
Division between Victoria Day and Commonwealth Day was getting obvious after the centralisation of Commonwealth Day. In the level of Commonwealth, the Canadian monarch’s message lifted the significance of Commonwealth Day. Queen Elizabeth II’s first message on Commonwealth Day 1965 was sent to the member nations on 30 April through the network of Joint Commonwealth Societies’ Council, which mentioned the points Warr’s previous messages contained.[638] Warr also asked the Canadian government to realise ‘fullest publicity’ for this message on 24 May in the cover letter.[639] Prime Minister Pearson then read Queen’s message in the parliament, and pointed out that ongoing Queen’s Birthday celebrations included ‘association with the Commonwealth by the raising for the first time conjointly the Union Flag as the symbol of our association with the Queen and the Commonwealth at the same time as the Canadian maple leaf flag’.[640] He added ‘through the commonwealth and through the crown represents the continuity of our history and the depths of our roots’.[641] Using two symbols of two political entities implied Canadians’ sense of belonging to them was integrated, and the previous one to Empire shift to Commonwealth after the official recognition of Commonwealth Day.
The most significant counterpart to Victoria Day which Chapter Two discussed, la fête de Dollard, continued its role in anti-Victoria Day in Francophone Canada, during the Quiet Revolution. Patriotic and religious organisations published pamphlets to encourage the young generation to follow the behaviour of their hero by reviewing the history of Dollard.[642] Since East Montréal appeared anti-Victoria Day demonstration in 1964, Gilles Grégoire (Ralliement Créditiste of Québec) added the SSJB of Montréal to organise celebrations of la fête de Dollard to refuse Commonwealth Day, the latest manifesto of Empire Day, in this province.[643]
Other suggestions, which respected 24 May as ‘Provincial Day’ or ‘Macdonald-Cartier day’, moved to the federal government in the 1960s, in honour of the two principal architects of Confederation, failed as well.[644] Combined with separatist movements and crumbling foundation of Victoria Day, radical nationalist demonstration in Montréal illustrated ‘riotous Victorianism’, termed by Bryan D. Palmer, as the counterculture of growing multiculturalism.[645]
Additionally, when the living conditions, welfare and cultural recognition of the First Nations had dramatically improved owing to the government’s polities after the Second World War, they transformed the day off of Victoria Day to their own celebrations. For example, in 1970, the First Nations devoured a great amount of cheese and bread for the Victoria Day celebration as their annual ‘Bread and Cheese Day’, as the alternative.[646] This tradition originated from the residence in Six Nations Reserve near Brantford, Ontario, on 24 May 1837, when Queen Victoria ‘thanked Canada’s Native people for being Great Britain’s allied in many battles’, by sending bread and cheese as the gifts.[647]
As a legal holiday carried imperialism and nationalism and included the joint identity to Empire and Dominion, Victoria Day illustrated the complicated role of the sense of belonging to the British Empire played in Canadian identity in the twentieth century. The changing political context after the Second World War motivated the politicians to reaffirm Canadianness in Victoria Day to response to the decaying sense of belonging to the previous Empire by enhancing its recreational aspect, which led to more alternatives in regional and ethical entities after the government recognised the minority cultures as national heritage. Replacing Empire Day by Commonwealth Day was another reaction to the same contextual change, which showed the sense of belonging to Commonwealth, the substitution to Empire, still remained in Canadian national identity. The shifts of Victoria Day and its counterparts presented different practices of the Canadian government to define and deal with the British heritage in the new Canadian identity.
Remembrance Day
Challenges, which Remembrance Day faced from 1945 to 1971, were much fewer than other national holidays. Although some politicians attempted to add recreational features to it and regard it as a day of leisure in some regions, Remembrance Day’s significance of commemorating the fallen soldiers to highlight the Anglophone patriotism sustained in this period. In the mean time, when politicians emphasised the value of Remembrance Day, they started to mention the minority groups’ contribution in the great wars to echo the growing discussions on multiculturalism in the political sphere.
Although some politicians attempted to reverse the date of Remembrance Day to the first Monday of November for the convenience of holding ceremonies, the general public had accepted its linkage to commemorate certain historical event on a fixed date, which defeated these attempts.[648] Others claimed to the House to add Remembrance Day as a day of rest, which was accomplished in the Holidays Act 1963 for motivating more participation in the ceremonies.[649] The same intentions also showed in politicians’ attempts to recognise more ex-soldiers as the hero to memorial ceremonies by counting the veterans serviced in the wars other than the First World War into ceremonies.[650] Besides, Newfoundland had ceremonies for fallen soldiers on 1 July, not 11 November. It originated from the ceremonies before Newfoundland became part of Canada and thus continued to celebrate on the same day in each and every year after the end of the Second World War, for commemorating their own heroes.[651] All these changes or attempts aimed to highlight the commemorative function of Remembrance Day in Canada and expand the scale of ceremonies.
The enforcement of the Holidays Act 1963, however, stimulated the public’s grievance, which believed it would reduce the commemorative significance of Remembrance Day while the official ceremonies of this holiday was expanding in the 1950s to encourage participants’ nationalism and patriotism to the nation.[652] Such circumstances motivated two different attitudes to this national holiday: one was for abolishing this holiday as a day of rest, and the other was to enhance Remembrance Day ceremonies in order to re-emphasis national identity.[653] Conflict between the two attitudes ended with the overwhelming confirmation of Remembrance Day as a Canadian statutory holiday in the federal legislation. The government also supported national and local ceremonies to promote Anglophone patriotism, to compete with increasing Québec Separatism, in the late 1960s.[654] Remembrance Day, similar to Dominion Day and Victoria Day, contributed to breed Canadianness and defeat Québec separatism. Its future development still followed the changing national ideology and condition for the representation of national identity to promote the building of the nation via commemoration.
Conclusion
When the Commonwealth replaced the British Empire after the end of the Second World War, the part of Canadian national identity which directly linked it to the Empire was thereby diluted. In the transformation period of nation-building this chapter discussed, debates in the political sphere about national holidays contributed to find out the substitution of the Empire, which continued the trend appeared from the 1930s, and ended with the official promoting of bilingualism and multiculturalism and the recognising of the Commonwealth.
On this way to approaching the new Canadianness, three events were significant inside the political arena of the nation: the Quiet Revolution, the establishment of the RCBB and the Centennial celebrations of Confederation. Their influence on and interactions with Canadian national holidays epitomised the political elites’ attempts of changing, and encountered rejection and grievances among the public. Changes of national holidays from 1945 to 1971 were also practiced in a two-way approach.
When replacing the assimilative Dominion-Empire identity, politicians first turned it to a Canada-Commonwealth one with developing Canadianness. This shift was shown in the first wave of renaming Dominion Day and the designation of Commonwealth Day. The new Canadianness showed a trend of increasingly recognising of the French and minority cultures as part of the Canadian heritage, which was displayed in the legislative changes of national holidays with the efforts of public opinion. The exact change in legislation indicated the ‘Canadianness’ of each national holiday by promoting its commemorative or recreational feature. Those failed attempts of change also reflected the contemporary understanding of certain national holidays and national identity, which partly affirmed the success of previous centralisation of national holidays. Changes to national holidays, therefore, not only reflected the shifting political background but also represented and contributed to the emerging national identity.
After the legislative change, the federal government further centralised the events for national holidays via inventing new national symbols, organising grand celebrations and constructing new political narrative to enhance their effectiveness in nation-building and present the national identity. Yet counterparts to national holidays added political features or combined with other ideologies for motivating the participants’ sense of belonging to the entity other than the nation. These challenges showed the existing disagreements to the past and present national identities and its instruments of nation-building, which led to the forthcoming alterations of national holidays and the political context, after the new national ideology was declared by the federal government in 1971. The next chapter will move on to analysing how national holidays indicated the ideological change and how the participants understand the new ideology in their practices of national holidays.
Chapter Four: Multiculturalism and National Holidays: From 1971 onwards
The declaration of Official Multiculturalism in 1971 by Pierre Trudeau’s government endorsed national policies for building a tolerant and diverse country, which was consequently absorbed in the Constitution Act 1982. Such new political context motivated continuous debates and changes of national holidays for displaying and popularising multiculturalism in the third phase of Canadian nation-building, and inspired the shifting of the counterparts to national holidays to reject the former national ideology. Chapters Four and Five will argue that, as the instrument of nation-building, national holidays not only contributed to present the national identity from 1971 onwards, but also became the arena where the participants criticised the new ideology. This chapter will examine the changes of existing national holidays and the next chapter will analyse the national holidays designated after 1971 and one minority festival.
As mentioned in Chapter Three, enriching the connotation of Canadianness and the replacement of the previous Dominion-Empire identity was the theme of debates related to national holidays covering ritual, name and arrangement. Ideological change in 1971 recognised multiculturalism as the new ideology for national holidays to promote. These holidays then presented the new ideology via different centralised commemoration and recreation and challenged by counterparts. In the same context, those counterparts enlarged their political significance to respond to the new ideology.
The contribution of public opinion to these changes also increased spontaneously after 1971, which indicated the changes to national holidays maintained a two-way approach. As the public had accepted national holidays’ role as an instrument of nation-building, they criticised the new ideology in their feedback of national holidays and expressed their own understanding to the exact function of a national holiday. In this sense, national holidays assembled public opinion as the reaction to the national ideology and related policies.
Meanwhile, as Official Multiculturalism aimed at recognising the rights of ethnic groups, these groups of people started to construct their own historical narrative as the practice of the new national ideology around the debates of changing rituals of national holidays. This narrative, as the following chapter will show, eventually motivated the government to designate new national holidays to recognise the minority rights.
Nevertheless, constitutional crisis in the late 1980s and early 1990s demonstrated the difficulties of the new ideology in uniting all Canadians. National holidays thus maintained their role as the reflection of the political context, and this role was also taken by other minority festivals as the reaction to national politics that will be discussed in Chapter Five.
This chapter will begin by analysing the final change of Dominion Day to Canada Day and its constitutional background. Discussion of the change of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, Labour Day and May Day, Victoria Day and its counterparts as well as Remembrance Day will be followed. The conclusion will summarise the functions of national holidays in the post-1971 period to explain the complexity of this instrument of nation-building.
The Designation of Canada Day
After the declaration of Official Multiculturalism in 1971, politicians’ attempts to rename Dominion Day returned to the centre of politics to stress Canadianness (including multiculturalism) in the name and celebrations of the most significant national holiday, which were eventually achieved in 1982 after the passing of the Constitution Act 1982, with the efforts of Liberal members, especially those for Québec. Challenges and dilemmas Canada Day faced after 1983, especially after the failure of the Meech Lake Accord in the early 1990s, promoted other adjustments to Canadian national holidays. This section will begin with a brief review of the changing political context of Canada in 1982 and move to analyse the final transformation of Dominion Day from 1971 onwards to point out the politicians’ and public’s perspectives to the new national ideology via their practices and feedback on Dominion Day and Canada Day.
Constitutional Change
The crucial constitutional amendment in 1982 was no doubt the final drive of renaming Dominion Day with signifying multiculturalism as one of the key parts of Canadianness after the declaration of Official Multiculturalism in 1971. The Québec referendum in 1980 stimulated Trudeau’s Liberal government to put forward a new constitution to take back all the constitutional power from Westminster. The British Parliament’s approval of the Constitution Act 1982 on 25 March 1982 was central to the debate related to national identity. Although the provincial government of Québec did not sign the act as it failed to fully realise the Québécois’ claims for special rights, it replaced the British North America Act 1867 and was proclaimed by Queen Elizabeth II on Parliament Hill on 12 April 1982.[655]
The Constitution Act 1982 declared the colonial origins as well as the protection and recognition of ethnic cultures in Canada as the new national ideology: This act ‘shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians’, which constitutionally approved multiculturalism as a key ingredient of Canadian national identity to lead the national policies for social integration.[656] Consequently, such policies practiced in national holidays by changing their rituals and activities to suit the new constitutional status, and received varied feedback from the participants.
The federal government continued its efforts on constructing a multicultural Canada via institutional improvements. For example, parliament passed the Canadian Multiculturalism Act in 1985 and 1987, and its revised version, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act 1988 to re-affirm the new national character gradually formed since the 1960s.[657] All these efforts aimed at protecting and preserving minority cultures and minority rights to build a more cohesive and unified nation.[658]
Although the constitutional transformation was one of the consequences of Québec Separatism, the Québécois’ grievances to the Constitution Act 1982 and their referendum in the late 1980s and early 1990s implied its failure. The Québécois’ reaction to Canada Day also illustrated the disability of national holidays in stimulating Francophone Canadians’ sense of belonging to the nation. The federal government then moved the Meech Lake Accord to deal with the Québécois’ grievances.[659] Increasing resistance of the Québécois to Canada Day celebrations, however, emerged in the Francophone province, which implied the dilemma faced by Official Multiculturalism and national identity in the legislative arena.[660]
From Dominion Day to Canada Day
In 1974, another bill aimed at renaming Dominion Day had been moved in parliament which reopened the debate in the centre of politics. When the 110th anniversary of Confederation arrived in 1977, the federal government arranged great events called ‘Festival Canada’ nationwide for presenting multiculturalism, and started to receive annual surveys evaluated the effects of these events. Public awareness of the terminology increased at this time, which was shown in the increasing number of ordinary Canadians accepted the name ‘Canada’ via centralised and depoliticised events. The key disagreement of renaming Dominion Day still focussed on the interpretation of Dominion and the definition of Canadianness. The constitutional amendment eventually lowered the curtain on a four-decade debate on the official name of Dominion Day after a dramatic turn in 1982. Although Liberal members for Québec made the most contribution to renaming Dominion Day, this change failed to be accepted by the Québécois after 1982. The final change of Dominion Day, therefore, did not achieve its ultimate target, which indicated the paradox of Official Multiculturalism.
Shortly after the Official Language Act, 1974, which recognised French as the only official language in that province, was enforced in Québec, Harold Thomas Herbert (Liberal, Québec) moved Bill C-231 to rename Dominion Day in parliament on 15 October 1974 that started his decade-long efforts on this issue.[661] This bill broke the silence of renaming Dominion Day after the failure of Bill C-29 in 1969 and tried to redefine Dominion by adjusting the Holidays Act 1952.
In the second reading of Bill C-231 on 14 March 1975, disagreements from members of other parities were loud. Herbert first questioned the ‘divisiveness’ caused by the word ‘Dominion’, and explained that his bill aimed at clarifying the uniqueness of the name of the state, and suggested ‘Canada’ as the alternative to ‘Dominion’.[662] Although Donald W. Munro (Progressive Conservative, British Columbia) admitted the name Canada Day ‘has been gathering a certain amount of recognition through customary use’, he believed the government should not replace ‘Dominion’ with ‘Canada’ in this case as the British North American Act used both of the two words in the first sentence. He agreed ‘Dominion’, an old French word, had several meanings in different times and contexts; he did not take this point as the reason to pass the bill.[663] Allan Bruce Mckinno (Progressive Conservative, British Columbia) suggested choosing another day as ‘Canada Day’ and keeping the name of ‘Dominion Day’ on each and every 1 July.[664] Yet setting from the same point, members from two parties failed to achieve the unanimous approval of Bill C-231. Although the then Secretary of State James Hugh Faulkner said that ‘the government feels that the majority of Canadians accept the terminology Canada Day/ fête du Canada’, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs rejected this bill on 24 February 1976.[665] Party division on this issue focussed on the interpretation of the two-layered meaning of ‘Dominion’, which was the same point appeared in the previous debates mentioned in Chapter Three.
Concerned with Faulkner’s feeling on the usage of ‘Canada Day’, politicians and officers of the federal government increasingly named the national holiday in this way in the late 1970s, and a Progress Conservative member and former Prime Minister Diefenbaker asserted that such usage was improper several times in parliament.[666] Even so, some official programmes and reports used ‘Canada Day’ – the unrecognised name – to replace the legislation approved ‘Dominion Day’.[667] Meanwhile, when receiving letters from common Canadians who asked the ‘official name’ of Canada’s national holiday, government officers’ answered that Dominion Day was the correct one.[668]
Chaos and confusion over the name of the national holiday of Canada were further grown simultaneously. Some minority groups expressed their preference to Canada Day for the reason that ‘Canada’ was originally from the concept native Canadians called the village they live, was less religious, imperial and political than ‘Dominion’.[669] Their preference stemmed from Canada Day’s profound root in Canada, which excluded the connection to the previous British Empire but included the one to the French heritage.
Herbert’s first failure of renaming Dominion Day led to further attempts at the same issue following the Montréal Olympic in 1976. He moved Bill C-373 on 22 October 1976 and Bill C-30 on 21 December 1976 respectively with the same content to Bill C-231, yet neither of them became an act.[670] On the contrary to these failures, when the 110th anniversary of Confederation arrived in 1977, the federal government promoted even grander Dominion Day celebrations by establishing serial events near the dates of Dominion Day called ‘Canada Week’ or later ‘Festival Canada’.[671] Using ‘Canada’ to name the official celebrations while maintained Dominion Day as the official name implied the Liberal government’s preference; ‘festival’, which signified the recreational feature became the main focus of centralised events.
Besides, the federal government introduced reports and consultancies after 1977 to evaluate the consequences of serial events of Dominion Day celebrations, which had been expected to promote social integration and national identity, and the evaluators officially recognised the connection between national holiday and national identity. The government and the organisers of events thus gained the access to public opinion on this connection and celebrations, other than receiving letters from participants or cropping local and national newspaper clippings contained similar feedback.
The 1977 report included participants’ understanding of the name Canada Day and its events as well as the exact number of participants.[672] Its positive conclusion said that ‘Festival Canada is of direct benefit to citizenship promotion; to the Canadian identity; to multiculturalism; and to bilingualism development’.[673] The ‘Canada Day’ committee also submitted a report with similar conclusion in 1977 which said ‘70% [of the participants] said they felt very strongly about personal identification with being a Canadian’.[674] The Globe and Mail had a different view to the official reports that believed Canadian national identity and Canadians’ daily life had already included diversity, and thus regarded the governmental strategy of creating and adjusting national holiday for social integration as unnecessary, merely provoking further controversies in the public sphere.[675]
Before the practices of 1978 ‘Festival Canada’, Byward Consultants Company did a national survey on ‘the principal reason why a continuing need exists for maintaining a federally sponsored July 1st program’ for the Department of the Secretary of State.[676] The survey noticed that ‘both Canadians and the holiday have an identity problem’ that:
only 25% nationally associate July 1st with Canada Day while 50% recognize and identify July 1st as Dominion Day; two out of three Canadians was rarely or never celebrated the national holiday of Canada, and this majority was disproportionately male, Francophone, Québécois; 70% rarely or never celebrated Canada or Dominion Day recently, principally young Canadians and the Francophone.[677]
Different feedback indicated contrasting expression in the public’s attitudes on Canada Day in the same national context.
Moreover, Byward’s report summarised that young participants expressed their preferences for locally organised celebrations; others, especially those in Québec, chose special radio or television programming for celebration with the help of expanding mass media coverage nationwide. It thus suggested establishing an expanded organisation to promote the ‘awareness and understanding of the significance of July 1st as Canada’s only federal political holiday’ and to increase participation to promote the unity of the nation.[678]
The government received another report on the same issue in 1979, which clarified that the government should arrange ‘depoliticized, decentralized and democratized’ Dominion Day activities to encourage more Québécois participants and expected that such arrangements could ‘promote Canadian identity and feeling of belonging by no-political means through non-governmental means’.[679] In the years followed, therefore, the government established numerous local and national organisations to take charge of Dominion Day celebrations for representing bilingualism and multiculturalism.[680] It proved that the Canadian government enlarged Dominion Day events by a new approach of centralisation that put extra attention to local and recreational activities.
After celebrating ‘Festival Canada’ of 1978, Herbert moved Bill C-232 on 30 October 1978, the reproduction of his earlier attempts, believed ‘Canada’ was a fait accompli worthy of respecting.[681] Many other Liberal members expressed their consent to Bill C-232 in the debates by building the connection between renaming national holiday and recognising national identity. For example, then Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Gilbert Parent (Liberal, Ontario) supported this bill as Canada needed new identity to suit the changed status.[682] Yvon Pinard (Liberal, Québec), then Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council, urged the importance of solving the problem of Canadian unity. He regarded renaming Dominion Day as a proper opportunity to enhance Canadians’ sense of belonging to the nation and the unity of the nation. The word Canada could remind him that the history of two founding nations and the benefits of Official Multiculturalism.[683] Dennis Dawson (Liberal, Québec) asserted this bill ‘in effect encourage[s] the “Canadianization” of our institutions’ as this national symbol would help the Canadians, especially the Québécois, to feel that they belong to this entity.[684] Other members such as Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin (Liberal, Ontario), then Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State, and Samuel Victor Railton (Liberal, Ontario) also showed their approval.[685]
Rejection of Herbert’s bill mainly stemmed from the members of the opposition. For example, John Raymond Ellis (Progressive Conservative, Ontario) denied the existence of the fait accompli.[686] In the second reading, Thomas Gordon Towers (Progressive Conservative, Alberta) worried that this bill could ‘separate the nation from the commonwealth of nations’ and ‘a new name will not keep the nation together’ as one nation was ‘without question when her people realize what they have in this country’.[687]
Members from other parties supplied compromising suggestions. Leonard C. Jones (Independent, New Brunswick) indicated the government should change the name of the holiday and the new name would challenge the history of Canada, separate Canadians and create more disharmonies.[688] The Liberal parliament rejected Bill C-232 finally, and Herbert continued his attempts on 2 May 1980 by moving Bill C-201.[689]
Meanwhile, the Secretary of State nominated Yvon Des Rochers from Montréal, who believed the celebrations belonged to the citizens, as the Chief Executive Officer of the National Committee of Canada’s Birthday on 9 May 1980. It implied the federal government intended to attract the Québécois’ attention to the events.[690] The target of the National Committee was to ‘provide scope and opportunity for spontaneous manifestation by Canadians, in their own style, in their own locations, in whatever way they choose, of their pride in being Canadians’.[691] The priority of local celebrations displayed in ‘highlighting the 75th Anniversaries of the province of Alberta and Saskatchewan and the 375th anniversary of the settlement of Acadia’.[692] Local and recreational celebrations, with the support of the federal government, represented the culture-oriented national ideology by emphasising on the own past of Canadian people for the national unity.
Meanwhile, Maurice Adrian Dionne (Liberal, New Brunswick) moved a similar bill to those of Herbert on 13 May 1980.[693] As the House did not achieve a unanimous consent, it rejected Dionne’s motion on 20 May.[694] Following Dionne’s failure, other Liberal members made the same efforts on renaming Dominion Day and started to gain support from the opposition. Jesse Philip Flis (Liberal, Ontario) requested the government to ‘introduce legislation as soon as possible to designate the statutory holiday, July 1, as Canada Day’ to react the referendum in Québec on 22 May 1980.[695] Pierre Raymond Savard (Liberal, Québec), then Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works, and Donald Alex Blenkarn (Progressive Conservative, Ontario) both seconded to Flis’ bill, who believed the change could represent the majority of Canadians’ preference for Canada Day and respected public opinion as the legitimacy of this change.[696]
Flis quoted a letter of Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, then chairman of the Canada Week, which said at least 99% Canadians agreed with the name Canada Day, to support his motion.[697] Ian Gardiner Waddell (New Democratic, British Columbia) questioned such high percentage and believed Flis’ statement was the ‘deliberate misrepresentation’ to the position of opposition parties, although the then Speaker of the House, Jeanne Sauvé (Liberal, Québec), disagreed with this charge.[698]
The public also questioned the high percentage of acceptance Korwin-Kuczynski stated. Citizens from Ontario and Saskatchewan sent dozens of letters to the Secretary of State to show their preference for Dominion Day.[699] The only feedback they received was the duplicated explanation of then head of the Secretary, Francis Fox, who noted the existing usage of Canada Day, the legitimacy of Dominion Day and evaded the exact percentage of Canadians’ general acceptance as well as the government’s real attitude.[700] Meanwhile, Fox expressed his personal support to Canada Day and regarded the potential name change as the result of ‘a natural evolutionary process’, and hoped the receivers could understand that use the word ‘Canada’ did not equal to eliminate the root of the nation.[701]
Other than rejecting the renaming of Canada Day, Dave Nickerson (Progressive Conservative, Northwest Territories) and A. Daniel McKenzie (Progressive Conservative, Manitoba) argued pyrotechnics in Dominion Day celebrations was an inappropriate ritual.[702] They believed ‘northern games, education, public works, and needed programs to combat personal economic hardships’ were the aspects for using funding of celebrations, while this motion was failed.[703] This failure implied the Canadianness of Dominion Day had connected to its recreational events after decades-long practices; these invented traditions had been transformed into an historical tradition.
Despite submitting the annual evaluation of Dominion Day celebrations, Fox moved Bill C-37 on 29 June 1981 to parliament to rename Dominion Day.[704] His well-prepared speech aimed at indicating ‘a modern and accurate description of the national self’ by quoting numerous definitions of ‘Dominion’ in different reference books such as Encyclopaedia Canadiana or academic statements, which was a similar approach that Harold Thomas Herbert had used in the debates on Bill C-231.[705] Walter David Baker (Progressive Conservative, Ontario) reviewed the historical meaning and contemporary connotation of ‘Dominion’ while suggested neither of ‘Canada Day’ or ‘Dominion Day’ was an appropriate choice as they could not highlight ‘a moment of glory or a decision from the nation’s past’.[706] He asserted that ‘first, [Dominion] is no longer in common usage in most of its meanings; second, most of the meanings refer to domination rather than freedom; third, for its usage in the Canadian sense, Canada itself is listed as the example’, which indicated the contemporary Canadianness should replace the trace of the colonial past.[707] Lorne Edmund Nystrom (New Democratic, Saskatchewan) pointed out another interpretation of Canadianness by arguing national symbols were crucial to the relationship between the British Commonwealth and Canada and should present multiculturalism and bilingualism, which emphasised the new national ideology’s key role in national identity.[708]
When Liberal member Herbert joined in this debate, he used varied public opinions and customary uses of Canada Day as the supportive information. He partly quoted reports and newspaper articles in Anglophone and Francophone provinces from the early 1960s to the early 1980s to show the popularity of Canada Day.[709] The same piece of newspaper Herbert quoted, however, published other citizens’ disagreements on potential changes.[710] Using public opinion as the reference to a political issue implied the demand and legitimacy of renaming Dominion Day embedded in the below. Besides, other members mentioned the local events of Dominion Day and ethnic groups’ participation and contribution in these events to prove that these representations of multiculturalism were getting visible in the local level, which highlighted the uniqueness of this official multicultural nation.[711]
Meanwhile, the Canadian Gallup Poll reviewed Official Multiculturalism guided Dominion Day events and Canadians’ sense of belonging to the nation in 1981 to present the most recent status of this national holiday. It pointed out that Canadians’ ‘awareness of the date of Canada’s birthday is significantly higher, at 85%’ and the percentage of participation was much higher than years before, at 74 percent, owing to the higher percentage of participation in local events, especially the most popular event, fireworks.[712] Mass media, including newspapers, radio and television, gained approximate one third each of the whole population as the approach to catch the local or national celebrations.[713]
Surveyees’ acknowledgement of Canada’s birthday also illustrated provincial differences. From the poll’s view, successful federally funded celebrations achieved over 80 percent of the surveyees’ acknowledgement of Dominion Day, and the highest awarded region was Québec while the lowest was British Columbia.[714] About half of the surveyees who were aware of Dominion Day noticed that ‘people show “too little enthusiasm”’ in the celebration, and about two-fifth of them regarded ‘the level of enthusiasm is appropriate’.[715] Respondents agreed that ‘promoting patriotism among the general public’ was the target of Dominion Day events while less respondents in Québec and the Prairie Provinces – Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba – agreed with this.[716] Compared to the surveyees in the Anglophone provinces, those in the Francophone one preferred the government to pay for the regional events. Paradoxically, respondents, especially Francophone Canadians, expected that these government-funded events should keep away from the influence of the government: the ‘federal government should not be seen as an agency planning and producing activities for Canadians. With the wise expenditure of seed money and development of a volunteer framework, Canadians will understand that the 1st July is their celebration and not a federal exercise’.[717] This poll also contained participants’ expectation for future events. It suggested that about half of the participants believed activities should show more enthusiasm for the nation, and more than half believed the organisers should encourage more representation of patriotism.[718] This 1981 poll generally affirmed the participants’ acceptances to the government-funded, local and recreational events of national holiday, and the target of these events was motivating their sense of belonging to the nation.
Besides, minority lobby groups presented expanding interests and supports to the legislative designation of the national holiday of the host nation. For example, the Congress of Polish and Italian immigrants strongly supported Canada Day and appreciated the government’s recognition of multiculturalism in the discussion of the Constitution Act.[719] Their support, vice versa, was evidence of ethnic groups’ contribution of multiculturalism.
After the Queen of Canada approved the Constitution Act 1982 on 17 April 1982, it inspired more Canadians to be concerned with the official name of Canada’s birthday. After taking charge of arranging Dominion Day celebrations in 1980, the National Committee of Canada’s Birthday received numerous letters which expressed support for or opposition to the name of Canada Day. The proportion of supporters of Canada Day was higher than those who rejected it, and both sides believed the other one could harm the unique identity and unity of the nation.[720] The standard replies to these letters declared that the word ‘Canada is preferred over Dominion after the Centennial 1967 and has been employed more frequently’, which predicted the possibility of the real change.[721]
The crucial constitutional change fundamentally supported the renaming of Dominion Day and inspired Liberal members to move motions on it.[722] The dramatic turn of the four-decade-long debate on renaming Dominion Day took place on 9 July 1982 when Herbert tabled Bill C-201 to the House of Commons.[723] There were 13 of 282 members who participated in the debate and most of them supported this bill. Only five minutes’ debate ended with approval to Bill C-201.[724] Critiques from all walks of lives of Canada doubted the justification and the legitimacy of the whole process in the following days when the House adjourned.[725]
Politicians’ grievances focussed on the disadvantages of the change and the five minutes’ debate. Previous Liberal Senator Eugene Alfred Forsey, who had resigned from the party after the enforcement of the Constitution Act 1982, asserted that ‘Canada Day’ could not prove the social fact of the nation in The Globe and Mail.[726] His position was the same as his expression in ‘The Meaning of Dominion Day’ as a party member of the CCF in 1956.[727] In a television interview on CTV in 1982, the most popular private television company in Canada, Forsey mentioned that ‘most of the pressure for this change has come from Québec [… which was] mainly the result of gross ignorance or deliberate and systematic and prolonged mis-education’.[728] This ‘long propaganda’, therefore, ‘based on a series of fairy tales, complete nonsense [and] demonstrable false statements about what it amounts to’.[729] He concluded that, to respect the name chosen by Founding Fathers from the verse in the Bible, Dominion Day ought to be the only name of Canada’s national holiday.[730]
Besides, Gordon Edward Taylor (Progressive Conservative, Alberta) defined the short debate on 9 July as ‘a sneaky, arrogant way of governing the country’ in parliament on 12 July 1982.[731] Then Speaker of the House Sauvé criticised this statement that the whole process was ‘entirely in line with the procedure of the House of Commons’ and defeated the legislative effect of the bill.[732]
Like what had happened in 1946, the Senate became the final decision-maker on renaming Dominion Day, which declared to open a public hearing for the bill to collect as many public ideas as possible.[733] Although the critics and political analysts suspected the bill would not pass smoothly in the Senate, then Speaker of the Senate, Raymond J. Perrault, left a hint that the Senate might support this bill in a public speech before the public hearing. He suggested that according to the poll he had read, 70 percent of Canadians agreed to use Canada Day as the name of Canadian national holiday, and 80 percent of the citizens younger than 30 years old liked Canada Day more than Dominion Day.[734]
Another Senator criticised Perrault’s speech by quoting ‘flood of mail the [National] Committee [of Canada’s Birthday] has received [… w]ell over 1,000 letters and telegrams had poured in from across the country, [and] [r]oughly 95% of them were against the name change’ while the public expressed their preference to Canada Day at the same time.[735] Liberal stance national newspapers foretold that the Senate would recognise Canada Day after the debate.[736] Some national organisations complained about the endless debates on this issue that ‘people who have time for such matters are either very rich or very silly’.[737]
On 25 October 1982, the Senate opened the debate on the amendment of Bill C-201. Then Prime Minister Trudeau first announced that members should take advantage of this chance to practise the new constitutional system, and create a new national identity with the same passion they expressed in the debates of the Constitution Act.[738] Senators from both sides strongly disagreed with Trudeau’s statement by emphasising that as more than 2,000 people and 1,700 letters from all works in Canada expressed their opinions in the past several months, and more than 98 percent of them rejected Canada Day.[739] Such disagreements failed to affect the result, and this debate ended with 23 members approved and 44 members against (42 of them were Liberal members) amending Bill C-201, which meant the Senate accepted the entire content of Bill C-201.[740]
Shortly after the Royal Assent to the new name of Canada’s national holiday, The Globe and Mail continued to publish articles with dissatisfaction of the name change.[741] Columnists such as Michael Valpy suggested the oddness of using Dominion Day in the preamble of the Canada Day Act.[742] On the contrary, the government received letters from Francophone Canada and Nova Scotia which expressed appreciation to the change.[743]
Canada Day celebrations in 1983 highlighted the relationship between Canada and the Commonwealth. Prince Philip’s visit to Toronto and his joining in Canada Day celebrations was the silent Royal approval to the renamed holiday.[744] In the United Kingdom, there was a religious service for praying a glorious future of Canada to show the connection between the two entities by using a traditional, religious and commemorative way.[745]
In the centre of the politics, a Progressive Conservative member Taylor moved a bill to designate 17 April each and every year as ‘Canada Day’ and rename 1 July as ‘Dominion Day’.[746] In the second reading, Taylor suggested that the government should restore Dominion Day as the founding Fathers ‘founded [the nation] on a belief in god, on Christianity’, and ‘Dominion’ was the best evidence of that.[747] The then Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State Maurice Louis Bossy quoted the report of the National Committee of Canada’s Birthday, which said ‘the title Canada Day is three times more popular than Dominion Day’, and believed a newly recognised national holiday could reduce citizens’ confusion on the name of Canada’s birthday and promote continuity and the unity of the nation.[748] After this debate, Taylor’s attempt of restoring Dominion Day to Canadian calendar was failed.[749]
The newly amended Holidays Act 1985 act listed Canada Day as one of three most prestigious national holidays.[750] The House later adopted the Standing Order 43 in 1982 which confirmed that parliament should adjourn on 1 July, which ended another decades-long debate on Canada Day rituals by recognising its recreational function that was continuous increasing after 1977.[751]
After the government had renamed National Committee of Canada’s Birthday as National Canada Day Committee, the new organisation declared that Canada Day ‘is becoming a national tradition’ as the instrument of motivating Canadians’ sense of belonging to the nation.[752] Matthew Hayday recently argued that extending Dominion Day or Canada Day celebrations, encountered centralisation, depoliticisation and decentralisation, and recentralisation from the 1960s to the 1980s, as various multicultural approaches to motivate the participants’ sense of belong to the nation, which showed the function of these events.[753] This process featured as the fully financial support of the federal government and the arrangement of localised volunteer committees. Local projects and fireworks became the most money-consuming and significant events in all part of the nation with occupying more than half of the whole funds.[754] Such operation clearly aimed at offering diverse celebrations with the visible role of the federal government’s support.[755]
To evaluate the effects of government-funded Canada Day celebrations, the federal government brought services of the national survey such as Gallup Poll.[756] The Secretary of State revised the questionnaires of the survey by putting much attention on the outcome of local celebrations.[757] Organisations arranging Canada Day celebrations also submitted reports after the events.[758] These assessments became the references of adjusting forthcoming celebrations to attract more participation. Intention of promoting interpenetration of the events was to construct a multicultural nation.
Conservative print media also started to propagate the events of Canada Day and respected patriotism, multiculturalism and national unity as the themes after the official name change.[759] They reported aboriginal people’s participation in recreational events, including picnics, religious services, sports, games and musical events, as evidence of their willingness to integrate into the mainstream society.[760] As the government arranged new citizens’ ceremonies for taking an oath as a Canadian on 1 July, newspapers defined it as the contribution of national holiday which presented the national ideology.[761] In the legislative and practical aspects, newly designated instrument of nation-building and social integration promoted the representation of cultural diversity in the society with nationally arranged local events.[762]
Yet positive and optimistic expectations of the outcomes of Canada Day celebrations in terms of social integration quickly lost their popularity in the political arena. Politicians criticised the federal government’s generous budget towards the costs of celebrations as a waste of public welfare and the taxes without catching expected attentions of the participants.[763] The 1988 National Survey reported that more than half of the surveyees believed Canada Day was nothing more than a public holiday to take a day’s rest.[764] Both the reducing commemorative function and increasing recreational function of Canada Day extended simultaneously in post-1982 Canada.
The public’s interest to Canada Day activities was declining in the late 1980s. Compared to the connotation of ‘Dominion’, the definition of the essence of multicultural Canada seemed vague which added the difficulty to attract followers.[765] Although the celebration was part of the diplomatic activities, the consulates prepared nothing for Canada Day celebrations in nations other than the United Kingdom. Overseas Canadians, therefore, had no chance to celebrate their own national holiday for encouraging their senses of belonging to the homeland owing to the lack of support of their own government.[766] Although they had participated in Canada Day celebrations, new citizens still encountered an identity crisis in the host nation.[767] Nevertheless, newly and numerously emerged critiques of Canada Day celebrations in the national survey or print media both failed to inspire the political elites to amend the name or rituals of Canada Day.[768]
Although members of parliament for Québec had worked hard to rename Dominion Day, as they believed this change could promote social integration, their constituencies stood in the same position to the transformed national holiday in the following years. After several years’ cooperation and acceptance of the federally funded celebrations, as soon as the federal government decided to amend the Constitution Act to satisfy Francophone Canadians in 1987, the Québécois began to ignore Canada Day celebrations again. What the Québécois and their provincial authorities claimed was something more than a renamed national holiday. This was the social background of the Meech Lake Accord.
The Québécois’ reaction in the end of the 1980s patently rejected Canada Day celebrations. Members of the PQ organised activities such as protests to push the federal government release more rights than they had. They also asked to re-discuss the Meech Lake Accord and cancel Canada Day celebrations in Québec.[769] The common Québécois, like those in the 1970s, still used Canada Day holiday as the chance to move house.[770] In the federal government, members for Québec tried to persuade other members to combine the celebration of Québec’s national holiday with Canada Day as the approach to lift the recognition of the former one.[771] In Québec, the provincial government renamed Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day as la fête nationale du Québec to turn it into the counterpart of Canada Day in the province. The next section, therefore, will discuss the Québécois’ efforts to enhance their own national identity and national holiday.
The shift of Canada’s ideological context in 1971, as discussed in Chapter Three, was integrated with the debates and events of Dominion Day; this shift, as this section showed, promoted changes of rituals and interpretation of Dominion Day from 1971 onwards. After the enforcement of the Constitution Act 1982 which provided the constitutional support of promoting multiculturalism in Canada, decades-long debate on renaming Dominion Day accomplished with the designation of Canada Day.
In the final stage of renaming Dominion Day to Canada Day, how to interpret the past and definition of Dominion was the theme of related debates, which was the same to that of the previous debates discussed in Chapter Three. The two-fold meaning of Dominion became problematic which indicated the dismissing of the assimilative Dominion-Empire identity. A clear party line sustained in the interpretation of Dominion that the Liberal members showed appreciation to Canada while the Progressive Conservatives respected Dominion had already all the contemporary meaning of the nation. Debates about the name-change also implied the growing Canadianness in the new ideological context which highlighted unity, diversity and social integration as its values. Besides, as the substitution to the previous Empire, the Commonwealth maintained a part of Canadian national identity as the preservation of the British heritage. After the designation of Canada Day, the problematic word ‘Dominion’ was swept into history and the contemporary connotation of Canada was fully clarified.
In this centralisation process, the importance of public opinion was increasing with the effort of the government, especially after 1977, which became the key references of the politicians to support their ideas. The government also noticed the participants’ demands showed in the annual reports and questionnaires, and improved the arrangements of Dominion Day and Canada Day celebrations by centralising the local and recreational events to satisfy these demands. Changes of national holidays from 1971 and afterwards, therefore, sustained a two-way approach with increasing significance of the public.
Meanwhile, the expanding of recreationalised events of Dominion Day and Canada Day, as the reflection of the new national ideology, encountered rejections in Francophone Canada. Although the members from Québec led the change of Dominion Day, new political context after 1982 and the following constitutional crisis motivated the Québécois to refuse centralised, government-funded Canada Day celebrations. Rejection of the target group of renaming Dominion Day, therefore, reflected the changing and unstable political context and the critiques of the newly emerged national ideology.
The Designation of la fête nationale du Québec
The Francophone counterpart to Dominion Day and Canada Day maintained its previous ideology with expanding events after the declaration of Official Multiculturalism in 1971, and was renamed as la fête nationale du Québec in 1977, which challenged the promotion of the national holidays. This section will analyse how the Francophone Canadians responded to the changing ideological context from 1971 and afterwards to preserve their own identity as the critiques of the Official Multiculturalism.
The proclamation of Official Multiculturalism also motivated politicians to revise the status of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.[772] Roch La Salle (Independent, Québec) moved a bill which tried to observe Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day and Dominion Day on Mondays and was rejected by the House of Common on 21 June 1972.[773] Three years later, Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert (Social Credit, Québec) asked the then President of the Privy Council Mitchell William Shape to pass ‘a motion amend the house procedures […] when the commemoration day of June 24 falls on a Tuesday and when Confederation day is also a Tuesday, those two Mondays preceding those two commemoration days shall be holidays for the house’.[774] Although this motion passed on 27 June 1975, it only operated on parliamentary issues and members’ timetable.[775] Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day has not been recognised as a ‘national’ or statutory holiday after these efforts in the federal legislation.
Meanwhile, when he received a letter from Lise Payette, the chief organiser of 24 June celebrations asking to use CBC broadcasting facilities for spreading the scene in 1975, then leader of Social Credit party David Réal Caouette strongly supported this claim.[776] He hoped the government could realise Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day celebrations belonged to all Francophone Canadians, not the Québécois only, to extend the coverage of this holiday.[777] This suggestion that intended to expand the participation of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day nationwide, however, failed to be approved in the parliament.
To compete with the federal Official Languages Act, the National Assembly of Québec passed Bill 22, the later Official Language Act, 1974, proclaimed that French would be the only official language in Québec. English, conversely, would not be permitted to appear in the official notice-board, governmental documents and schools. Immigrants and children who lived in Québec could only study French, not English, and thus Francophone Canadians could maintain a superior position to English in the province.[778] It showed that Francophone Canadian leaders dissatisfied with the recognition of French as one of two official languages in the federal legislation and Official Multiculturalism, and thus enforced a new provincial act as the response.
During the years of the Quiet Revolution, the SSJB annually declared a theme of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day celebrations to highlight its political features, which was mentioned in Chapter Three, while this ritual paused during 1971 to 1976.[779] After about ten years’ silence, the SSJB again announced the « J’ai la mémoire en fête », ‘Celebrate my memory’, in 1977 to show the significance of the 300th anniversary of the establishment of Québec.[780] From then on, themes of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day celebrations shared the key word fête which emphasised the recreational aspect of this holiday.[781]
Two months before the celebrations arrived that year, the then Cultural Affairs Minister of the PQ Louis O’Neill, encouraged the Québécois to join the celebrations to renew ‘feelings of belonging to a collectivity homogeneous’ in French culture and traditions.[782] This announcement stressed a homogeneous French identity which was contrary to Official Multiculturalism.
On 24 June 1977, among the magnificent celebrations, the then Premier of Québec René Lévesque declared the renaming of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day as la fête nationale du Québec.[783] Events, including dancing, waving flags and listening to the musicians from Québec in the Olympic Stadium in Montréal and other 274 Québec municipalities, were held at midnight.[784] English journalists such as Richard Cleroux argued these events implied Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day was ‘a highly political holiday – an expression of the culture and pride of a people – without being necessarily partisan in favor of, for example, federalist or independentists factions’.[785]
After Lévesque had declared the name-change, provincial legislation quickly approved legislative recognition of la fête nationale du Québec to replace Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.[786] In the next year, parliament re-affirmed 24 June in Québec as a public holiday.[787] After the declaration, the provincial government supplied sufficient financial support to the events of la fête nationale du Québec while concurrently limited their forms by only supporting parades and cheerful celebrations while the separatists’ did not have the chance to claim which caused their boycott of celebrations.[788] Moreover, the provincial government decided to establish le Comité organisateur de la fête nationale du Québec, as the counter-creation to the National Committee of Canada’s Birthday in 1978, to expand the celebrations.[789] The « Programme gouvernemental d'assistance financière aux manifestations locales », published in 1978, declared that the provincial government determined to fund celebrations of la fête nationale du Québec like what the federal government did to Dominion Day.[790]
In the same year, when the federal government was arranging the 1978 ‘Festival Canada’, according to the record of cabinet decision, although
the lack of agreement among Ministers […] as to the desirability of designing a program that would minimize the competitive nature of the celebrations sponsored by the government of the Province of Québec in that province on June 24 and the celebrations sponsored by the federal government on July 1,
the cabinet agreed that ‘the Secretary of State to establish means, within existing programs and resources, of contributing to the celebration of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day in Francophone communities outside Québec’.[791] Although the federal government tended to support Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day celebrations with the ignorance of the provincial official name of the holiday, it recognised the ‘competitive nature’ of the two holidays while it rejected to narrow the gap. Anglophone print media also appealed for cultural-oriented celebrations for Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day as part of French heritage to integrate these events into Official Multiculturalism.[792]
Moreover, the Québécois utilised the federal financial support for the events of Dominion Day in their own way to reject the intention behind. After acquiring half of the Federal Government’s budget for the whole nation on celebrating Dominion Day in 1981, the Québécois expected that ‘large extravaganza presented on July 1st in Québec’ could become ‘a free performance without any meaning’, which was not the same to the federal government’s initial expectations.[793]
Competition between celebrations of 24 June and 1 July extended to academia from the late 1970s, which represented the identity battle between multiculturalism and Québécois nationalism. As the counter-memory to national surveys on Dominion Day, the Québécois constructed Francophone Canadians’ narrative of their identity by exploring the past of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. As noted in Chapter One, several postgraduate dissertations submitted in the universities of Anglophone and Francophone provinces, which reviewed the history, rituals, and ideological and religious importance of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day celebrations from the nineteenth century to the early twentieth century. Richard Handler argued that Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day celebrations contributed to establish Québécois nationalism, which was the counterpart to Anglophone Canadians’ patriotism.[794] Daniel Latouche evaluated the influence of nationalism in the young Francophone Canadians, and concluded that la fête nationale du Québec was the most prominent symbolic identification to the Québécois in all age groups and more than half of the Québécois surveyees treated it as their ‘priority identification’.[795] He also noticed that compared to the acceptance to the subjective identifications, such as the Québec government, in the 45 years old and plus age group, more suveyees recognised la fête nationale du Québec as their identity than the Québec government.[796]
Transformed constitutional context and the designation of Canada Day encouraged the provincial government of Québec to enhance the authority of organisations prepared events of la fête nationale du Québec after 1982. The provincial government signed the ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ with le Mouvement national des Québécoises et Québécois (MNQ) on 7 April 1984, which declared that the MNQ would be in charge of the celebrations from 1984 by absorbing nineteen nationalist groups and the SSJB to establish the most influential nationalist organisation in Québec.[797] The MNQ’s cooperation with the provincial government identified it as a provincial political instrument of Québec nationalism.
In the federal government, politicians’ attitudes to Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day were more positive in the late 1980s than in decades before. Some members of parliament asked other members to join in this Francophone national holiday or re-emphasised the importance of French cultural in Canadian heritage for encouraging multiculturalism, though these voices were weak and echoless.[798]
Coincidently, the expiry date of the Meech Lake Accord was on 23 June 1990, the night before la fête nationale du Québec. Conservative Anglophone newspaper editors worried the result of the Accord could inspire the Québécois’ anger and the holiday could become the gathering spot of the grievances.[799] Potential nationalist fervour rooted in la fête nationale du Québec was what concerned Anglophone Canadians.[800] As the provincial and federal government had foreseen possible violence before the deadline of the Accord arrived, they appealed for peaceful celebrations to the public.[801]
After the Meech Lake Accord’s failure, the political feature of la fête nationale du Québec was getting noticeable. Then leader of the PQ Jacques Parizeau regarded la fête nationale du Québec celebrations as the way to expand Québécois nationalism and speed up the autonomy of Québec.[802] Anglophone print media defined these celebrations as aggressive as it displayed increasing violence protests and the Québécois’ declining to Canada Day celebrations.[803] Columnists wished Francophone Canadians could separate the celebration of their national holiday as well as Québécois nationalism to violence and riots for the safety and unity of the whole nation.[804]
Meanwhile, members of parliament still sent greetings and best wishes to Francophone Canadians to affirm its significance in Canadian history as the approach to recognise this holiday.[805] Some members mentioned Anglophone Canadians’ participation as an evidence of national unity or an example of ‘successful’ representation of multiculturalism to keep it away from Québec Separatism.[806]
This section demonstrated that events, arrangements and connotations of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day actively responded to the changing ideological context from 1971 onwards. Although both the federal and provincial governments promoted the recognition and celebrations of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day after 1971, their different expectations to this holiday led to competitive arrangements. The federal government intended to promote the Official Multiculturalism via supporting recreational events of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day and thus did not approve legislative recognition to it as a ‘national holiday’. The provincial government tried to highlight and promote the homogenous Francophone Canadian identity via the events of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day to react to Official Multiculturalism. It renamed the holiday as la fête nationale du Québec and enhanced its recreational events from the early 1970s to the early 1980s by adding financial support, arranging organisations and reusing the federal funding which was originally distributed for Canada Day.
The constitutional change in the early 1980s stimulated the provincial grievances arising from the new Constitution, which were reflected in the expanding scale of events for la fête nationale du Québec and expanding the political feature of this holiday, and the constitutional crisis and the debates of the Meech Lake Accord in the late 1980s further motivated their political feature. In short, the Québécois continued to use Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day and la fête nationale du Québec from 1971 and afterwards, as the critiques of the emerging new national ideology and changed their strategy to react the changing political context.
Labour Day and May Day
As discussed in the first section, the federal government continued to add Canadianness to national holidays as the way to clarify and promote the emerging new national ideology after 1971. One of the practices was the change of official spelling of ‘Labour’ in the early 1990s. Additionally, the counterpart to Labour Day sustained its cooperation with other identity and ideology for presenting the critiques of the national ideology, while never got recognition as a Canadian holiday from the federal government.
‘Labour’ Day
Despite the increasing recreationalisation of Labour Day events as its approach to show Canadianness, the print media recognised ‘Labour’, not ‘Labor’, as the standard spelling in their publications to highlight the Canadiannisation of this holiday.
The official spelling of ‘labour’ in Canada follows the spelling of British English although Canadian newspapers simultaneously used two spellings: the one with an -or end is the American spelling, and the one with an –our end is the British spelling. Although Canadian English – both the oral and written form – is one branch of North American English, which has different regulations in spelling and pronunciation to those of American English, Canadian English also integrated some British spellings. As early as 1890, John A. Macdonald issued an Order-in-Council which clarified that all official documents should uniformly follow the English practice of spelling.[807] According to the quotations in Chapter Two, most of the newspapers used ‘labor’, not ‘labour’ to call this holiday. From M. H. Scargill’s view, ‘[Canadian English] exists in its own right and owes its existences to the Canadian who have made it what it is’.[808]
In 1990, John Allemang declared –our endings as the standard spelling of The Globe and Mail for the reason that ‘British strain of spelling has always been used by most of the Canadians’.[809] Canadians’ daily newspaper should take the spelling with which most of the Canadians felt familiar.[810] It reflected the resistance to American spelling to defence Canadian culture from the increasing American culture by keeping ‘the “u” of their British forebears, just as they keep the monarchy’.[811] The Toronto Star took the same change on 15 September 1997 that aimed to satisfy readers’ experiences of reading and to enhance Canadian national identity in North America.[812] One columnist Michael Kesterton once used ‘Labour Day: A Canadian Idea?’ as the title of his article to assert the uniqueness of Labour Day in Canada.[813]
Recognising a British spelling clarified the Canadian national identity did not fully remove the British heritage to enhance a unique Canadian identity post-1971. These re-affirmation to the spelling of labour showed that Canadianness which Labour Day contained accordingly expanded in the post-war period, especially after the constitutional change.
May Day
As Labour Day’s function in protesting and claiming working-class rights transferred to its counterpart in the post-war context, as discussed in Chapter Three, the natural relationship between May Day and the Socialist movement turned this holiday to play the previous role of its counterpart, Labour Day, in Canada. The combination of May Day activities and Québec Separatism in the post-1970s lowered Anglophone Canadians’ opinion of it. In Francophone Canada, however, May Day also encountered difficulties.
In 1978, Québécois socialists organised a movement for an ‘Independent and Socialist Québec’ which had shared and different targets to that of Québec Separatism.[814] Québec Separatism put more emphasis on recognising French culture in Canada, while socialism paid more attention on creating a labour part and a ‘workers’ republic of Québec’.[815] The ultimate realisation of socialism worldwide, therefore, was the goal of socialist movements.
Differences between the targets of socialism and Québec nationalism led to the unsuccessful collaboration of two sides to establish an independent Canada in the late 1970s. As the enemy to a democratic and liberal nation, the provincial government of Québec refused to encourage the movements related to ‘Marxism or Socialism’ for maintaining social stability.[816] The mainstream discourse in Québec even regarded working class right claims raised on May Day as a ‘radical movement’.[817]
Judgments to May Day events after 1982 were getting friendly especially in the reports of Liberal stance national newspapers. The Toronto Star, for example, went into the details of the claims of protestors displayed on May Day activities and encouraged workers to celebrate this holiday, which weakened it ideological aspect and recognised its value in rights affirmation.[818] Journalists of this newspaper also honestly reported violence and conflicts on Labour Day to show the shared origin of the two workers’ festivals, which unveiled the other side of expectedly peaceful and recreational Labour Day activities.[819]
The weak point of May Day activities in Canada was their lack of connection to Canadian national or local ideologies and heritage. Although it played a successful role in other nations as the ‘invention of traditions’ in the late nineteenth century, Canadians excluded May Day from the official calendar of holidays in all circumstances. Although May Day activities tried to cooperate with those of Québec nationalism, its socialist feature obstructed the integration. As a rootless counterpart to Labour Day, May Day’s experiences in Canada, especially in Québec, reflected the importance of ideological significance of a holiday in gaining local or national authorities’ recognition.
Re-affirming Canadianness of Labour Day and the unrecognised May Day in Canada both indicated that national holidays had to link with the profound heritage of the nation to preserve its uniqueness as a Canadian holiday in a changing ideological context.
Victoria Day and Its Alternatives
Ideological transformation after 1971 also motivated the Canadian government to adjust Victoria Day and its alternatives in legislation, date and rituals. This section will first review the provincial alteration to the legislative recognition of recreationalised and localised Victoria Day. It will then move to the change of date of Commonwealth Day in 1975, which renewed the representation of the sense of belonging to the Commonwealth. In the third part, this section will consider the politicisation of la fête de Dollard, the Francophone counterpart to Victoria Day, by renaming it as la journée nationale des patriotes for uniting the Québécois. Before the sectional conclusion, the last part will review other alternatives to Victoria Day. The reason of emerging counterparts to Victoria Day embeds in its recreational feature as a Canadian national holiday, although, as the conclusion will argue, this feature motivates other ethnic groups to reuse it for their own purposes, especially in the post-1971 context.
Victoria Day
Although the Holidays Act 1985 confirmed Victoria Day as one of the three national holidays in Canada, the provincial legislation updated the status of it in various ways.[820] The Atlantic Provinces, including Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island which have a high percentage of non-Anglophone population, denied recognising Victoria Day as a statutory holiday in their provincial Codes, in the post-1980s.[821] The Interpretation Act of Newfoundland regarded Victoria Day as a holiday but not a paid holiday like Remembrance Day, which the Public Services Resumption and Continuation Act affirmed.[822] The Interpretation Act of Nova Scotia confirmed Victoria Day as a holiday while the Labour Standards Code excluded it from the list of general holidays.[823] Victoria Day’s situation in Prince Edward Island was the same as Nova Scotia that it was a holiday but not a paid one.[824] These changes meant Anglophone Canadians could have Victoria Day as a holiday freely in these three provinces while the non-Anglophone could reject it. The most significant feature of Victoria Day as a national holiday, in short, was rejected by provincial legislation after the 1980s.
Survived celebrations for Victoria Day maintained its significance for Canadianness. Publications for introducing Victoria Day highlighted its uniqueness as a Canadian holiday and the official birthday of the Canadian monarch, which preserved the British heritage as part of Canadianness.[825] Extraordinary celebrations in Victoria, British Columbia, were the high spot among all, as the British colonist named it after the Queen, with a ten-day festival.[826] The Royal anthem, God Save the Queen, was Canadians’ tribute to the monarch by singing it before Victoria Day ceremonies.[827] An integrated introduction of royal symbols and Victoria Day celebrations, which the official discourse supplied, represented the sustaining British heritage in Canadian identity. In the mean time, public discourses considered provincially different Victoria Day celebrations and it alternatives to display Official Multiculturalism as the reuse of this nation-building instrument.[828]
The recreational feature of Victoria Day led to the various amendments to its legislative status in provincial legislation in the post-1971 Canada while the mainstream discourse still emphasised its function in preserving and displaying British heritage in Canadian identity. The uniqueness of Victoria Day as a Canadian holiday, therefore, relies on its recreational feature and the representation of British heritage after the ideological change.
Commonwealth Day
The date change of Commonwealth Day in 1975 implied the influence of renewing relationship between Canada and Commonwealth, when Commonwealth became a crucial connection between previous members of the British Empire. This change also displayed the weak historical roots of Commonwealth Day in Canada, which was expressed in the public’s lack of interest in it. As the substitution of Empire Day, although the Canadian government recognised Commonwealth Day as a day for commemoration, its importance in Canadian national identity was much less than that of Empire Day.
At the 1975 Heads of Government Meeting, all forty member countries of the Commonwealth assembled in Jamaica. Following the lead of Canadian politicians, the meeting decided to designate the second Monday in March in each and every year – a school day in all the member nations of the Commonwealth – as Commonwealth Day.[829] Similar to Empire Day, the Queen, head of the Commonwealth, gives annual address for Commonwealth Day by repeating the value and uniqueness of this holiday to unite the increasing numbers of member nations.[830]
When choosing the date of Commonwealth Day, Canadian politicians declared that its target was ‘for educational purpose, and especially to make Canadian students more interested in the Commonwealth and its many activities throughout the world’.[831] From the view of politicians of other member nations, they hoped this holiday could evoke their relationship to each other.[832] These expectations reaffirmed that Commonwealth Day is the heir of Empire Day in rituals and aims throughout the Commonwealth.
As diversity is a value of the Commonwealth, it coincidently echoed to Canadian Official Multiculturalism.[833] When discussing how to face an era with ‘hardening ideologies, increasing economic disparities and growing cultural nationalism’, the then Secretary of State for External Affairs Charles Joseph Clark (Progressive Conservative, Alberta) noted that ‘the Commonwealth could cut across all these barriers’ as the member nations have many aspects in common in the Canadian parliament.[834] The Commonwealth hence preserved the connection between Britain and Canada by recognising British heritage as a specificity of Canada compared to the United States.[835] Moreover, although Commonwealth Day inherited the educational function of Empire Day when it was designated, Canadian politicians ignored this character when mentioning this holiday except for the arrival of Commonwealth Games.[836]
The reason why Canadian politicians were willing to cherish the link to the former suzerain via recognising Commonwealth Day is to claim the uniqueness of the nation in North America. What they concerned was to make influence on this association or play the leading role in the international affairs, not a constant recall to the colonial days, although the significance of Commonwealth Day was much less than its ancestor in the context that an independent and palpable sense of belonging to multicultural Canada became the heart of Canadian national identity.[837]
From la fête de Dollard to la journée nationale des patriotes
As a similar regional and political holiday to Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, la fête de Dollard was politicised by Québécois politicians at the federal level after the constitutional change. Members for Québec demonstrated the patriotic and nationalist features of la fête de Dollard in parliament to designate it as la journée nationale des patriotes in own historical rhetoric. This part will first review the events of la fête de Dollard from the 1970s to the early 1980s, and proceed to Québécois members’ attempts to gain federal recognition of la journée nationale des patriotes in the 1990s. It will then analyse Québécois politicians’ creation of new la journée nationale des patriotes by revising its rituals and contents in the early 2000s as the critiques of Official Multiculturalism.
The practises of la fête de Dollard presented its role in promoting Francophone Canadians’ identity after 1971. For example, the Québec government cancelled Victoria Day observances in the schools of Montréal and only celebrated la fête de Dollard instead in 1974.[838] After the Quiet Revolution in the early 1970s, there were no more celebrations for la fête de la Reine, which literally means the Queen’s Holiday and is the French translation of Victoria Day, in Québec uniformly replaced by la fête de Dollard.[839]
After April 1982, when the Constitution Act had been approved, Anglophone and Francophone Canadians’ understandings of the events of la fête de Dollard in Québec were quite different. On 5 June 1982, a female resident of Ontario called Shirley Drummon sent a letter to Gerald Augustine Regan, then Secretary of State of Canada, concerning French Canadians’ commemoration events of Adam Dollard des Ormeaux on Victoria Day.[840] She asserted that the federal government had not devoted enough to promote national identity in Victoria Day celebrations in Québec.
On 6 October 1982, then Québec Governor-in-Council Gilles Laporte suggested commemorating the battle of Saint-Denis of the 1837-1838 rebellions throughout Québec to recall the Québécois’ memory to a battle with blood and death.[841] He claimed to construct the history of French Canadians by designating la journée nationale des patriotes on each and every Sunday closest to 23 November, a significant date of the battle of Saint-Denis, which clarified commemorating Adam Dollard des Ormeaux and the 1837-1838 rebellions were two separate issues with a shared aim in the 1980s.[842]
After the failure of the Meech Lake Accord and the Charlottetown Accord, members for Québec moved motions to claim federal recognition of their regional patriotic holidays to express their dissatisfaction with the result. It started with Stéphane Bergeron’s (Bloc Québécois, Québec) motion which designated la journée nationale des patriotes as a legal holiday in the House of Commons.[843] In debates on his motion No. 257, Bergeron claimed for a new narrative and evaluation of Francophone Canadians’ history in the pre-Confederation era by equalising the contribution of Patriotes in Lower Canada and the reformers in Upper Canada.[844] He criticised that ‘federal government was stumbling blocks in the way of slow progress toward regaining respectability for the Patriotes’, although the House had passed a resolution of 29 May 1992 to ‘recognise Louis Riel as one of the founders of Manitoba and the Canadian Confederation’.[845]
Nonetheless, members from other parties did not support Bergeron’s motion. Although Robert Bertrand (Liberal, Québec) argued that it was unnecessary to designate a holiday to commemorate certain individuals, his agreed Canadians needed another national holiday during the winter time based on the existing calendar.[846] Monte Solberg (Reform, Alberta) believed the scale of la journée nationale des patriotes celebrations was too narrow to be recognised as a national holiday. Benoît Sauvageau (Bloc Québécois, Québec) pointed out that the difference between Bergeron’s claim and Solberg’s rejection was the recognition of Francophone ancestors’ anti-Britain movements in the 1830s.[847] To what extent could the federal government tolerate the ‘rebellions’ as recognise it as the same as other reformers in Upper Canada, not highlighting an individual or a group of people who had made a greater support of contribution to the nation, was Bergeron’s point, which related to the interpretation of the colonial past and the British heritage in the official narrative of Canadian history.
Debate on motion no. 257 was deferred to 1 November 1994 after its failure to achieve unanimous support on 20 June 1994, and disagreement on how to recognise Francophone Patriots’ contribution in constructing Canada was the sticking point.[848] Rejecters argued that existing national holidays’ contribution to commemorate the glory of the Patriotes and Reformers throughout the nation seemed enough to respect the ancestors this motion planned to commemorate.[849]
Politicians’ concern of the potential separation which this motion might promote was the focus of the next debate in December. Pat O’Brien (Liberal, Ontario) argued the recognition of the 1837-38 rebellions was ‘the dismantling of the state apparatus and the legitimization of the use of force’.[850] If parliament agreed to recognise Québécois Patriotes, it should give similar respect to ‘some important Canadians from the maritime region or Atlantic Canada’ and their contribution to Confederation. The House of Commons divided on Bergeron’s motion in the end, and no members moved the same motions afterwards.[851]
Defeat of recognising la journée nationale des patriotes in parliament did not harm the Québécois’ enthusiasm for its celebration. On the contrary, it promoted the reinvention and centralisation of this holiday. As some patriotic and religious associations such as the SSJB hoped the Québécois would commemorate the early stage of the 1837-38 movement, it moved the starting point of this movement to spring time.[852] Meanwhile, as Gilles Laporte pointed out, the story of Dollard and the creation of la fête de Dollard was based on an idealist and invented story to motivate Francophone Canadians’ sympathy to its own history and hero.[853] He moved to replace the base of la fête de Dollard to a clear historical event. Laporte’s idea then practiced in the provincial recognition of new la journée nationale des patriotes as the counterpart to Victoria Day in Québec. This change renamed la fête de Dollard and transferred Patriotes’ contribution in the 1837-38 movement as the historical base of the Francophone counterpart to Victoria Day.
On 24 November 2002, then Premier of Québec, Bernard Landry, declared la journée nationale des patriotes as an official holiday in that province to commemorate the patriots who fought for political liberty and democratic government in Lower Canada from 1837 to 1838.[854] Pioneers such as Democratic members John Neilson and Louis-Joseph Papineau made contributions to this Patriotic movement and eventually established a democratic and free government in Québec.[855] The provincial government of Québec, therefore, renamed the official name of Victoria Day as la journée nationale des patriotes via reconstructing a narrative of Francophone Canadians’ struggle with British colonists as their rejection to the national holiday.[856]
Increasing Québec nationalism inspired politicians to ask for the official recognition of la fête de Dollard after the ideological change, and the federal government’s rejection of this attempt motivated the Québécois to politicise this counterpart to Victoria Day to present their own identity. As a result, the Québécois designated la journée nationale des patriotes after the constitutional change. Its failure in the federal government and the constitutional crisis in the late 1980s inspired the Québécois to construct their own narrative of the national history by reusing the date of la fête de Dollard as la journée nationale des patriotes. This name-change was different to that of Saint-Jean-Bapstiste owing to the growing new historical narrative of the nation in the post-1971 Canada. It not only illustrated continuous conflicting of two identities in a changing ideological context but showed a new approach of inventing traditions as the critiques of the new national ideology.
Other Ethic Alternatives to Victoria Day
Ethnic groups took Victoria Day holiday to celebrate their own festival in the post-1971 context. Compared to Francophone Canadians, they did not ask the federal government to declare their festivals as ‘official’ holidays in the legislative sense. Despite Bread and Cheese Day in Six Nations Reservations discussed in Chapter Three, other aboriginal peoples played their traditional games such as Lacrosse on Victoria Day.[857] In Nunavut, Victoria Day holiday celebrations mark the beginning of Omingmak Frolics, which is a festival celebrated by Arctic games.[858] Provincial celebrations also display regional differences.[859]
Meanwhile, the federal government operated Official Multiculturalism by funding ethic groups’ celebrations on Victoria Day. When the minority groups accepted financial support, some politicians and journalists argued that this indicated their willingness to be Canadians.[860] For example, the First Nations once suggested 18 May as their ‘la fête of clay’ – a combination of all holidays celebrating in different parts of Canada around 24 May – to illuminate multicultural Canada.[861] The lack of controversial and controversial historical past was the distinction between these ethic alternatives to la journée nationale des patriotes. Reusing the recreational features of Victoria Day for promoting the Official Multiculturalism was the reason why such alternatives with culture-orientation were supported by the federal government.
Changes of Victoria Day in the post-1971 Canada indicated its Canadianness as a recreational holiday was challenged by provincial legislation while its symbolic value as the representation of the British heritage sustained. Date change of Commonwealth Day implied Canada’s membership of the Commonwealth was part of its national identity as a weaker replacement to Empire Day. These two cases both revealed the Canadian government re-integrated the British heritage as part of its national identity after the ideological change.
In Québec, shifts of the counterpart to Victoria Day reflected the Québécois’ own identity to criticise the newly emerged national ideology. The politicisation of la fête de Dollard to la journée nationale des patriotes by declaring the concrete history of Patriotes in the 1830s as its root to defence own historical narrative showed a remarkable commemorative feature, which intended to motivate the participants’ sense of belonging to a political entity other than the nation.
Other alternatives to Victoria Day, on the contrary, highlighted the cultural and recreational significance to gain the support from the federal government as the representation of the new ideology. To sum up, Victoria Day and its alternatives took varied approaches by increasing the commemorative and/or recreational features in the changing ideological context for sustaining their uniqueness as a holiday for integrating certain groups of people.
Remembrance Day
The transformed political context extended it efforts on rituals and interpretation of Remembrance Day. As the only one of several nations which binds it with a holiday with pay, Remembrance Day enhanced its Canadianness after 1971.[862] After the proclamation of Official Multiculturalism, the federal government enhanced the commemorative function of Remembrance Day to add Canadianness to it by expanding centralised events. The same change and the constitutional crisis then motivated the aboriginal people to construct their own narrative of the founding of the nation and claim for the official recognition of their ancestor’s contribution. Moreover, intentions of emphasising the commemorative aspect of Remembrance Day also encouraged some politicians to remove the recreational function of this holiday. Although these attempts failed in the federal government, several provincial governments made this change. This section, hence, will argue that the new national ideology stimulated the construction of new narratives to national history via increasing commemoration to nation’s past.
Rituals of Remembrance Day, two minutes’ silence and poppy appeals, both survived and expanded in the post-war period.[863] In the 1970s and 1980s, political elites turned their focuses back to discuss rituals and commemorative function of Remembrance Day to motivate the young Canadians to respect the fallen soldiers of the great wars via appropriate events.[864] Public opinion also claimed to expand the ceremonies for Remembrance Day, which encouraged politicians to move these resolutions to the parliament.[865] Although the House of Common decided to have a regular adjournment on Remembrance Day from 1981, this change aimed at promoting the commemorative, not recreational, aspect of this holiday.[866] Moreover, increasing members of parliament introduced gender, personal memory and the international influence of Canadian soldiers in the wartime in their speeches on the dates close to Remembrance Day.[867] They emphasised immigrants’ participation in Remembrance Day ceremonies to show the success of this holiday in promoting their sense of belonging to Canada.[868] Narratives of the past and present of Remembrance Day extended to the group of people other than Anglophone males through enhancing the commemorative function of this holiday.
Just like members for Québec who claimed official recognition for their ancestors’ contribution in the early nineteenth century, members for the constituencies which had a large population of the First Nations claimed recognition for their ancestors’ deeds in wartime from the early 1990s. Such claims echoed to the developing lobby groups of the First Nations which Chapter Five will discuss. For example, Leslie Gordon Benjamin (New Democratic, Saskatchewan) reviewed the First Nations’ braveness in ‘Canada’s first overseas military expedition, which was the Nile expedition of 1884-85’ in a speech to respect Remembrance Day.[869] He suggested that ‘it was also the first time that Canadian Indians volunteered for an overseas war’, and thus the government should give praise to these services and appeal to commemorate this history.[870]
Benjamin’s speech broke the silence concerning the First Nations’ deeds in nation-building. Other members followed Benjamin’s contribution by equalising the First Nations’ contributions to those European origin Canadians.[871] These speeches functioned as the realm of rewriting and expanding the national history by adding the past related to the aboriginal peoples to show Official Multiculturalism. Benjamin thus claimed ‘aboriginal veterans are entitled to the fullest veterans’ benefits and to any benefits denied them. They must be given the most sympathetic review and reconsideration retroactively’.[872]
Similar to the aboriginal veterans, Canadian merchant mariners were another group of people which had not gained proper recognition and rights after the Second World War. Benjamin then extended the scale of recognition of ‘full veterans’ benefits [should] be extended to them’, and encouraged ‘the construction of a suitable monument to honour the memory of Canada’s wartime merchant mariners’.[873] He formed an integrated consideration to certain groups of Canadian veterans as the practice of recognising minority rights. Other members re-affirmed Benjamin’s claims and recognised the achievement of the First Nations in the years followed without a party line.[874] The mass media also paid increasing attention to the First Nations’ commemoration of their ancestors among Remembrance Day ceremonies.[875]
Also in the 1990s, political elites turned back to recognise Remembrance Day as a public holiday by passing a new Remembrance Day Act. Ronald MacDonald (Liberal, Nova Scotia) unveiled this process on 23 December 1991 by tabling Bill C-289, which suggested including Remembrance Day as a holiday in Public Service collective agreements.[876] Debates on the pay of Canadian post’s employees on Remembrance Day in the late 1980s motivated MacDonald’s bill, and he thought Remembrance Day should never be a bargaining unit when the government discussed with the Unions.[877]
Although the House of Commons had faced a similar bill in the 1930s, this bill had its significance in a different political and social context. It combined distributing additional financial benefits to veterans with promoting their living condition. Rodney Edward Laporte (New Democratic, Saskatchewan) believed this bill could evoke Canadians’ sensation and respects to veterans, when the recognition of Remembrance Day had been decreasing in the recent years.[878] Alan Redway (Progressive Conservative, Ontario) approved this bill by quoting letters from his constituency.[879] Then Deputy Leader of the Conservative government Marcel R. Trembaly (Liberal, Québec) expected this bill could motivate ‘all Canadians remember our heroes’ valour and the importance of Remembrance Day’.[880] Then Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, Vincent Della Noce (Progressive Conservative, Québec) agreed with Trembaly’s idea.[881] Members from the official opposition also agreed to Bill C-289. Don Boudria (Liberal, Ontario) believed this bill would promote Canadians’ awareness of the war and peacemaking with strong support of local Legions.[882] This bill ended with 95 members’ approval and 46 members’ against which moved it to the legislative committee.[883] To some members’ surprise, Bill C-289 met difficulties in the committee and failed by four to three.
MacDonald then moved Bill C-251 in May 1994 that shared the content with Bill C-289.[884] In the first reading, he clarified the difference between Remembrance Day and other holidays to explain why it deserved legal entrenchment.[885] Maurice Godin (Bloc Québécois, Québec) supported MacDonald’s bill as he believed that:
some guaranty had to be provided to enshrine this sacred holiday in our collective memory. The purpose of this legislation is to eliminate the risk that this holiday might be used as a bargaining tool and be replaced by an additional day elsewhere in the calendar, a measure which would be at odds with the purpose of Remembrance Day, which is meant to be a day of commemoration and respect.[886]
Roger John Gallaway (Liberal, Ontario) referred to the fact that Mrs. Wilma McNeil – who made extraordinary efforts on claiming veterans’ welfare – had asked for the ideas of all ten premiers and ‘the responses have been unanimous in support’ this bill, which supplied the local responses to this issue.[887] Even rejecters of this bill agreed with the necessity of promoting commemoration for Remembrance Day while worried the financial interests this bill concerned might harm its commemorative significance.[888]
When Bill C-251 encountered defeat in the parliament, some provincial legislation chose to remove Remembrance Day from their calendar as a public holiday. The Employment Standards Code of Manitoba unlisted Remembrance Day as a general holiday whiles the Interpretation Act treated it a ‘holiday’.[889] Legislation of Nova Scotia and Ontario regarded Remembrance Day as an optional holiday, although the provincial governments hold annual public service for it just like other provinces.[890] The Québécois’ rejection of Remembrance Day was much more obvious. Both the Interpretation Act and Labour Code in Québec removed Remembrance Day from the texts.[891]
The federal government simultaneously extended Remembrance Day ceremonies from 1995 – the fiftieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War – by declaring ‘Veteran’s Week’.[892] It then shifted as an annual event which the Prime Minister declared to encourage more participation.
Two key rituals of Remembrance Day, poppy appeal and two minutes’ silence, maintained their significance in the ceremonies after the 1970s. Laying poppy wreaths become the essential part of Remembrance Day ceremony.[893] When members of parliament sent greetings on Remembrance Day, they normally mentioned poppy and poppy campaign as the uniqueness of this holiday.[894] The print media criticised that ‘it was vainglorious posturing for members of Parliament to wear poppies, and that it is a[n] hypocrisy in their drama’.[895] Nevertheless, House members such as Arnold John Malone (Progressive Conservative, Alberta) believed the wearing of a poppy was a ‘dignified display of remembrance’ and should continue.[896]
Observance of two minutes’ silence attracted more attention from the political arena than the poppy appeal. Jason Kenney (Reform, Alberta) introduced Bill C-279 to ‘promote the observance of two minutes of silence on Remembrance Day’ on 7 November 1996.[897] This bill was similar to the legislation passed in Ontario and the British Parliament which ‘invite the people of Canada to observe two minutes of silence on Remembrance Day in their places of work, in schools, in any possible way’.[898] In the second reading, Kenney referred to a poll which illustrated that the Canadian young generation did not know much about the past of the nation, and he hoped the enhancing of rituals and ceremonies of Remembrance Day could be the remedy.
Although members from other parties all supported Kenney’s bill in their speeches, this bill failed to pass. Kenney moved a similar Bill C-413 in 1999 with support from ‘some 55,000 Canadians in petitions [...] of the bill’ and the result was the same.[899] In 2002, even Kenney had collected more than 65,000 signatures for support, this bill dropped again.[900] Other members tried to establish new rituals of Remembrance Day or gave more concerns to certain groups of people in federal legislation, which were all failed at last.[901]
At the provincial level, local authority added new features to it with the protection of provincial legislation. For example, in The Remembrance Day Act of Manitoba, engaging in industry prohibited on Remembrance Day.[902] The Québec government still labelled Remembrance Day as a day for commemoration, not a day of rest.[903] The First Nations’ in British Columbia got Aboriginal Veterans Day on 9 November to commemorate the aboriginal soldiers with local authority’s support from 2008.[904] Yet at the federal level, parliament passed no new legislation to give more dignity to Remembrance Day.
As Remembrance Day presents its Canadianness via commemorations, when the political context changed after the 1970s, politicians again raised debates on promoting the commemorative aspect of Remembrance Day to recall Canadians’ sensations towards their ancestors for enhancing their sense of belonging to the nation. The new ideology motivated members had a close relationship to the First Nations generated their rhetoric to ask for the federal government’s affirmation to their ancestors’ contribution, which echoed the Québécois’ construction of their narrative in claiming federal recognition of la journée nationale des patriotes. Although the federal government disapproved of the Québécois members’ bill, it was willing to respect the First Nations’ past deeds without an anti-British stance, as the representation of Official Multiculturalism.
Meanwhile, as the policies of Official Multiculturalism utilised redistribution of social welfare by aiding minority groups, intentions of improving veterans’ living condition presented a similar approach. Debates on Remembrance Day, therefore, were connected to the discussions of social welfare and became the controversial point.
Although federal legislation did not make any change to Remembrance Day after the 1970s, provincial ones rejected to recognise Remembrance Day as a day of rest only to re-affirm its commemorative value simultaneously. Both the federal and provincial governments added their contributions to Remembrance Day ceremonies to respect fallen soldiers. Fixed rituals such as poppy appeal and two minutes’ silence continuously signified Canadianness of Remembrance Day.
Remembrance Day sustained its rituals and federal status with enlarging commemoration to the First Nations. As the instrument for motivating citizens’ sense of belonging to the nation, politicians intended to reinvent the traditions and connotations of national holidays to respond to Official Multiculturalism by expanding the participation.
Conclusion
As discussed in Chapter Three, debates on national holidays promoted the construction of the new national ideology; as this chapter showed, shifting national ideology stimulated politicians’ continuous efforts of changing the rituals and connotations of national holidays in order to enhance the new ideology. When the attempts of altering national holidays had accomplished after the constitutional change in 1982, the public’s disagreements over national ideology displayed in their attitudes and participation of national holidays. As the instrument of nation-building, national holidays kept on changing actively with the shifting ideological context, and functioned as the seedbed, representation and critiques of the emerging national ideology from 1971 and afterwards.
The main bone of contention was the interpretation of Dominion in the debates related to rename or change national holidays after 1971, which was the same as the previous debates analysed in Chapter Three. Eventually, the two-layered meaning of Dominion and its connection to the colonial past decreased its popularity in the centre of politics since it did not show the uniqueness and multicultural feature of the nation. Canadianness and the word ‘Canada’ replaced the previous role of ‘Dominion’ in promoting the sense of belonging to the nation, and partly succeed the previous identity which contained the membership of the Commonwealth with the efforts of Liberal members of parliament. This change, therefore, finalised the definition of the problematic heritage of the previous Empire and updated the relationship between Canada, the Canadian monarch and the Commonwealth by highlighting Official Multiculturalism as the national ideology. In this phase of nation-building, shifts occurred on the name change of Dominion Day, ritual modification of Victoria Day and its ethnic alternatives, date alteration of Commonwealth Day, spelling confirmation of Labour Day and enhancing commemoration of Remembrance Day, presented the process and product of this change.
Despite the name and status of national holidays, their celebrations concurrently experienced amendments as the practices of national ideology. The federal government centralised the expanding events of national holidays via distributing financial support to recreational and local activities for presenting Canadianness and Official Multiculturalism while the provincial governments utilised the funding in promoting their own identities that might conflict with the official one. Besides, some provincial governments approved their own legislation of national holidays to indicate that they preferred those stemming from the provincial past which was different to the national one.
Additionally, the public’s feedback to the changes of ideology reflected in national holidays varied and played an increasingly important role in these changes, especially after the constitutional change and the crisis which followed. Some ethnic groups accepted the national ideology by cooperating with government-funded celebrations for presenting Official Multiculturalism and constructing their own historical narrative for rights claiming. Meanwhile, the failure of recognise the Québécois’ religious and political holidays as ‘national’ holidays – la fête nationale du Québec and la journée nationale des patriotes – illustrated the federal government’s restricted affirmation to the practices for Official Multiculturalism. The provincial government then politicised their own holidays as the critiques of the national ideology. Other counterparts to the national holidays also cooperated with the provincial political discourse when arranging their activities. Critiques and practices of the target groups of Official Multiculturalism, therefore, indicated the paradoxical feature of the new national ideology in Canada. The recreational feature of national holidays was reused by varied social groups to commemorate their counter-history by their own narratives.
Besides, ethnic groups’ active reaction to the changing political and ideological context was also presented in the changes of their own holidays. Chapter Five will concern the experiences and reactions of minority groups including the aboriginal peoples and Chinese immigrants, to clarify other groups’ counter-memory to nation-building. The minority groups’ contribution of designating and celebrating national holidays and ethical festivals was a highlight of Official Multiculturalism after the 1990s.
Chapter Five: Holidays and Festivals of Minority Groups
After reviewing the creation and changes to Canadian national holidays, this chapter will analyse the changes of minority festivals in the three phases of nation-building, especially after the proclamation of the Constitution Act 1982, to explore their roles as the representation of counter-memory in building a multicultural Canada. It will argue that minority groups responded the changing political and ideological contexts via creating and arranging their own holidays to show their attitude and desire of social integration mainly in the third phase of nation-building. These practices, as the minority groups’ adaptation to Official Multiculturalism, revealed the paradox of the new national ideology from the perspective of its target groups.
In the Canadian context, ‘minority groups’ includes the aboriginal peoples – mainly Indians (the First Nations), Inuit and Métis – and the immigrants other than those with British or French origins. Policies which benefited these two groups not only degraded the significance of French heritage from the Francophone Canadians’ point of view, but also encouraged the expanding of other counter-memories to the official narrative of Canadian history. This chapter will concentrate on the roles and reactions of the minority groups in Canadian nation-building.[905]
According to the Canadian definition of ‘minority groups’, this chapter will consider three different holidays and festival to accomplish a complete discussion: they are National Aboriginal Day, Canadian Multiculturalism Day and Chinese New Year. As the following discussion will show, the aboriginal people constructed their own narrative of the nation’s past as the support when asking the federal government to centralise their own holiday as ‘National’ Aboriginal Day as part of their rights claim, which Canadiannised a Pan-American indigenous festival. Events of the new holiday were recreational and culture-oriented to present the national ideology with the support of the government. The government designated a new holiday to highlight the national ideology, Canadian Multiculturalism Day, after the proclamation of National Aboriginal Day, to combine the celebrations of other existing national holidays into a week-long recreation. Nevertheless, their lack of commemorative function limited the popularity in the mainstream society, which indicated the paradox of Official Multiculturalism. Besides, discussions on privately celebrated Chinese New Year will argue the losing specification of immigrants’ festivals in representing the national ideology of the host nation, which also implied paradoxical feature of the Official Multiculturalism.
The last section will conclude that the role of minority festivals – created by the federal government or the minority groups’ own festivals – played in nation-building, especially after the Official Multiculturalism was proclaimed: they were more than tokenism for the new national ideology but reflected the genuine shift in the process of Canadian nation-building in a long run.
National Aboriginal Day
This three-part section will start from the early history of American Indian Day in the first half of the twentieth century, which was ‘the foundation for the contemporary National Aboriginal Day’.[906] After the events of American Indian Day expanded in the first phase of Canadian nation-building, leaders of the aboriginal peoples and members of parliament attempted to further the idea of marking one day to recognise the aboriginal peoples in the Centenary Year celebrations. The second part will analyse this failure which announced that when then new national ideology was emerging, its connotation had not been fully clarified by the federal government. Recognising an additional holiday, from some politicians’ view, could harm the unity of nation.
The third part will suggest that the proclamation of Official Multiculturalism motivated the aboriginal lobby groups to designate a national holiday, which was supported by members of parliament, by constructing the narrative of their ancestor’s contribution in nation-building. Besides, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People (RCAP) of Canada published a five-volume final report focussed on the past, present and future of Canadian Aboriginal peoples and suggested designating a holiday to commemorate the contribution of the First Nations in 1996. Efforts of the aboriginal people, their lobby groups and the federal government achieved the designation of National Aboriginal Day in November 1996 by Queen Elizabeth II’s approval.[907]
Following the historical review, the section will argue although the federal legislation recognised the significance and function of localised American Indian Day, namely National Aboriginal Day, public opinion argued its limited usage in motivating national identity as expected. How political elites and aboriginal peoples established this ‘Cultural Icon’ – defined by news reports in Saskatchewan – under the assumption of its utility in social cohesion and multiculturalism will be the contribution of this section’s examination.[908]
American Indian Day: A Borrowed Festival
In the early years of Confederation, the federal government restricted the rights of the aboriginal peoples to assimilate them to the European-built society. Section 91 of the British North America Act 1867 declared the ‘exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all matters within the class of subjects next herein-after enumerated’ among which was section 24, ‘Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians’.[909] The government enforced the Enfranchisement Act of 1869 to assimilate the indigenous peoples by limiting their rights in enfranchisement.[910] In 1876, the proclamation of the first Indian Act limited the economic and political rights of the aboriginal peoples. Amendments of the Indian Act in the following century shared the aim and the approach of the first one, which reflected the assimilative nation-building in that period.[911]
As the Native Indian peoples’ settlements were distributed throughout the North America, the neighbour nation of Canada, the United States, also had numerous native peoples. Concerning the status of the native peoples, in the early 1910s, the then United States Senator Arthur C. Parker first suggested celebrating American Indian Day to recognise the Native Indian peoples and their cultural heritage.[912] Parker appealed the Society of American Indians to sponsor this festival by organising ‘picnics, parades, Indian games, music, ceremonies, dramas, speeches, orations, recitals of history, exercises by schools, clubs, societies, and out-door lovers’.[913] Both the aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples were welcome to join the events extending from New York, Connecticut to Wisconsin in the early twentieth century.[914] The founding member of the Society of American Indians, Carlos Montezuma, argued that this Pan-Indianism festival would not help the Indians in changing status in April 1916, criticising the effectiveness of the invented tradition and showing the aboriginal peoples’ dissatisfaction with their status and the weakness of these recreational events.[915] A contemporary scholar Hazel W. Hertzberg, however, argued that ‘so suitable was the observance of American Indian Day to the purpose of secular Pan-Indianism that it has continued ever since as a characteristic Pan-Indian activity’.[916] He also believed that ‘American Indian Day was convinced primarily as a means of education the American public about the Indian’.[917]
Local authorities of the United States proclaimed this holiday in the late 1910s that started the centralisation of these local events: New York State in 1917, State of Illinois in 1918 and State of Washington in 1919.[918] Expanding celebrations also gained supports from ‘non-sectarian, non-political, non-profit body’ organisations such as the Indian Association of America (IAA).[919] Recreational events, therefore, extended to the border town of Canada and the United States in the 1920s and became ‘a hardy favorite and an ideal vehicle for Pan-Indian activity’.[920]
Meanwhile, the circumstances of the First Nations were experiencing changes in Canada. The federal government continued to amend the Indian Act and tightened the Aboriginal policies as its nation-building approach. The Indian Act 1927
contained stronger measures to intervene in and control the affairs of Aboriginal societies, including further efforts to develop an agricultural economy in the expectation that social and cultural change would follow in its wake. That act was also notable for its response to Aboriginal political organizations pursuing land issues, especially in British Columbia.[921]
From 1928 onwards, the amended legislation simulated annually event of ‘American Indian Day’ in Canada to expose the aboriginal cultures and presented a counter-discourse, which shared the target and intention of Chinese Humiliation Day in the 1920s. Organisers chose the Niagara frontier as the key venue and invited politicians from the United States to participate in the events.[922] Cultural representations of Canadian aboriginal peoples were published in public space to express their dissatisfaction to the changing national policies by inviting European-origin Canadians’ participation.[923]
Expanding American Indian Day celebrations in Canada continued in the following years which were arranged by their own associations and included both recreational and commemorative activities. The Manitoba-born and raised Great Sachem of the IAA, Dr. Barnabas Skiuhushu, first conducted the celebrations of American Indian Day in Canada on 29 September 1938, the last Saturday of September, with the sponsor of Cayuga Council in the Six Nations Reservation, though Parker regarded these events should be held on 22 June.[924] This semi-official event not only attracted members of Toronto Indian Council and Chinguacousy Indian Council to join the speeches, native dancing and Catholic sermon, but Mayor of Toronto Ralph C. Day invited Indians from all parts of Canada and the United States to participate into the convention in September 1939 which his colleagues arranged.[925] From the view of scholars such as R. D. Francis, local attempts for recognising the aboriginal heritage in the 1939 Convention were the turning point of the aboriginal peoples’ history in Canada, although its achievements were ‘unheard by a Canadian public totally preoccupied by the entry of Canada into World War II’.[926]
Moreover, Canadian print media noticed events of American Indian Day in the United States. In 1939, The Globe and Mail noticed ‘the Massachusetts House passed a measure to make this state’s observance of Indian Day fall on August 12’ as ‘the Indians down around Cape Cod don’t like to be out dancing around in the cold’.[927] In 1942, the same newspaper reported the governments of counties in the United States moved celebrations to 10 April.[928] A reader called Jasper Hill even hoped all mass media in Canada recorded 10 April in their 1942 publications to recognise the aboriginal peoples, which showed the public’s desire of importing a festival to express its own claim.[929]
R. Scott Sheffield argued American Indian Day celebrations in Canada paved the way of designating National Aboriginal Day in later period while it is obvious that the two holidays were differentiated in date, venue, main participants and sponsors.[930] A localised and Canadianised national holiday to commemorate the heritage of the aboriginal Canadians had not yet appeared before the end of the Second World War.
A National Indian Day for the Centenary?
Aboriginal associations’ early efforts of creating ‘National Indian Day’ stemmed from inventing national symbols for the Centennial celebrations nationwide, which reflected the emerging new national ideology focussed on recognising the ethnic cultures.[931] On 4 and 5 March 1965, eighteen Indian leaders from the nationwide associations gathered in Ottawa for a meeting of the Indian Advisory Committee to the Centennial Commission, which advised ‘the participation of the Indians to the Centennial celebrations’.[932] Then president of the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia, Guy Williams, suggested designating ‘National Indian Day’ to ‘recognize the contribution made by the Indians to the Canadian civilization’.[933] Indian leaders from eight provinces assembled in November 1965 for the second national meeting claimed to integrate Indian festivals such as powwow into the Centennial celebrations on National Indian Day.
The Indian National Advisory Council, Indian peoples’ own organisation, received the resolution mentioned above, which ‘strongly recommended to the Indian Affairs Branch to create a National Indian Day’ in early January of 1966, and claimed it in the meeting of the Centennial Commission on 18 and 19 April 1966.[934] Meeting on 19 April aimed at evaluating ‘the progress made with regard to the projects devised by the Indians for the centennial’, which re-suggested National Indian Day as part of its practices. As most of the federal treaties on Indian peoples enforced during the reign of Queen Victoria, the Council chose the birthday of Queen Victoria as ‘the most appropriate and most significant date’ for a National Indian Day.[935] Such intention indicated a similar approach which Chinese Canadians once practiced rejecting Dominion Day from the 1920s to the 1940s that recognised British heritage in Canada by re-affirming the past of the aboriginal peoples.
The federal government soon received feedback from the aboriginal associations. In parliament, Robert Muir (Progressive Conservative, Nova Scotia) moved the resolution of designating National Indian Day to recognise the outstanding contributions of the first citizens on 20 April 1966. He highlighted the aboriginal peoples’ contribution in previous wars and the present government, and believed a day of nationwide commemoration would reduce existing discrimination and neglect to the First Nations.[936] He also suggested that ‘develop the Indians into a well-adjusted community with pride in their cultural heritage’ would take same effort of recognition. Siegfried John Enns (Progressive Conservative, Manitoba) questioned Muir about the details of the arrangements. Muir responded that using the latest techniques of mass media would achieve a national transmission and presentation, and hoped events could continually celebrate with the financial support of the government in the following years.[937]
Members from other parties agreed with Muir’s suggestion and expected a larger scale of celebrations. For example, Ian Watson (Liberal, Québec) promoted ‘National Indian Week’ for recognising the Aboriginal heritage: it was the second and third week of August in each year, when the Fort Qu’Appelle powwow and many Indian-related exhibitions normally took place.[938] He hoped other activities such as establishing more organisations for Indian people and their culture and re-amending the Indian Act could ‘stimulate self-pride and help preserve the various cultures which exist among our Indian population’ and to ‘complete assimilation and integration [of Indian people] into our society, with the disappearance of the reserve system’.[939] Other members such as Frank Howard (New Democratic, British Columbia) and Alexander Bell Patterson (Social Credit, British Columbia), to name but a few, all asserted the historical contribution by the first habitants. These suggestions ended this motion with pursuant to Standing Order with nonpartisan unanimity.[940]
In this Liberal government, the former Progressive Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker expressed his support to Muir’s motion by asking the Centennial Committee to organise a one-day celebration for recognising Indian peoples on 17 June 1966.[941] He also sent a message to Chief Joe Dreaver of Saskatchewan about this issue and hoped the government could accept it.[942] When Diefenbaker required the result of his and Muir’s motions on 29 August 1966, Albert Béchard, then Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State, announced that ‘the idea rejected by the board [of Standing Order] on grounds it would be improper to single out any one group for such honour, and virtually impossible to provide special days for all groups which make up Canada’s social fabric’.[943]
The first failure of designating a festival for performing the First Nations’ cultural heritage implied that most of the politicians argued recognising the First Nations by celebration was not helpful to build a homogeneously united nation (not a multicultural one) during the second phase of nation-building, although the RCBB’s reports had motivated changes in the government to recognise the rights of the minority groups. Celebrations of American Indian Day were also absent in the narrative of designating National Indian Day in the public and the House debates.
The Designation of National Aboriginal Day
Although the proclamation of Official Multiculturalism emphasised the minority cultural heritage as one value to cherish, designating a national holiday to commemorate the history and contribution of the aboriginal peoples was not one of its practices in the early 1970s. Both the failure of renaming Dominion Day and designating National Indian Day from 1945 to the early 1980s illustrated that the connotation of the new national ideology, multiculturalism, was constructing as the previous assimilative approach of nation-building and its discourse had not fully dismissed.
The constitutional change in 1982 reaffirmed the official recognition of the aboriginal Canadians and motivated their lobby groups to make claims including designating a new national holiday. The Constitution Act 1982 officially named the three native peoples – Inuit, Métis and the First nations, not merely the Indian people – as the aboriginal peoples, and recognised their ‘unique heritages [sic], languages, cultural practices and spiritual beliefs’.[944] The official name then stimulated aboriginal lobby groups to change their names. In April 1982, the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) replaced the National Indian Brotherhood as the name of lobby group to claim aboriginal rights.[945] The renaming was followed with the resolution that ‘called for the creation of a National Aboriginal Solidarity Day to be celebrated on June 21, the summer solstice’, although the federal government did not centralise it at that time.[946]
The constitutional crises in the late 1980s motivated the AFN to bring protection of various aboriginal rights to light, as it believed the Meech Lake Accord abandoned aboriginal peoples and led to ‘serious disappointments pervaded in the aboriginal peoples’.[947] In 1989, the AFN declared 31 March of each year as National Aboriginal Languages Day to recognise the value of aboriginal languages. Members of the AFN sent this resolution out to the public to appeal more Canadians’ concern of aboriginal languages and rights.[948]
In 1990, assembly and aboriginal spiritual leaders in Québec asked the AFN to approve a national aboriginal recognition day, with the push of ‘private members of the N[ew] D[emocratic] P[arty…] and the executive committee of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities’.[949] The centralisation of lobby groups’ exertion of their own national holidays was thus reopened by the politicians in the federal government in the early 1990s. Nelson Andrew Riis (New Democratic, British Columbia) moved Bill C-268 to parliament on 19 June 1991 to designate 21 June as the Aboriginal Solidarity Day, the previous manifesto of National Aboriginal Day, while achieved no unanimous in the first reading.[950] Riis blamed members of Bloc Québécois after the failure because of his suspicion of their disagreement.[951]
Before the second reading of Bill C-268, the paragraph 10 of Order in Council P.C. 1991-1597 established the RCAP on 26 August 1991, which implied the government’s initiative in investigating the past and present of the aboriginal peoples.[952] Meanwhile, the AFN, federal and provincial governments, other First Nations and Territorial leaders agreed to release the aboriginal peoples ‘inherent right of self-government within Canada’ in August 1992. Although the Charlottetown Accord included this agreement with the approval of all the groups mentioned above, the Referendum of 28 October 1992 denied it eventually.[953] In the early 1990s, therefore, the federal government turned the recognition of the aboriginal rights and cultural heritage to a two-way process by establishing new institution and cooperation with aboriginal lobby groups.
In the period between of the first and second readings of Bill C-268, members came from the constituencies had large groups of aboriginal peoples picked up numerous petitions from aboriginal communities to support it. Raymond John Funk (New Democratic, Saskatchewan) tabled a petition, ‘signed by hundreds of people from Nova Scotia to British Columbia including many from my own riding’, on 25 November 1992, aimed to designate National Aboriginal Solidarity Day on 21 June to recognise ‘Canada’s original inhabitants’ and ‘honour their native cultures’, which the government had not given enough attention to their diversity and strength.[954] Two weeks later, Riis announced petitions which shared the target of those Funk mentioned, including signatures of the inhabitants ‘from Northwest Territories, Yukon, Ontario, Québec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia’.[955] Steven W. Langdon (New Democratic, Ontario) tabled a similar petition ‘from various people across the country’ on the same day.[956] Other members such as Daniel James Macdonnell Heap (New Democratic, Ontario), Rodney Edward Murphy (New Democratic, Manitoba) and John R. Whittaker (New Democratic, British Columbia) all tabled petitions in parliament on the next day which they had collected nationwide with the same content.[957]
Riis used these petitions to support Bill C-268 in its second reading on 7 December, which showed the increasing significance of public opinion in dealing with public issues related to national identity.[958] He believed that it was the ‘very crucial and critical point in the evolution of our history together’ toward the ‘self-government, self-determination and self-reliance’ of the aboriginal peoples now, and thus parliament should approve Bill C-268 to reflect ‘the renewed and enhanced recognition, understanding and appreciation by non-native people of native people and native cultures generally’.[959]
As the First Nation people had identified 21 June as ‘a day of celebration in terms of their own communities, accomplishments and aspirations’, Riis regarded it as the ‘perfect time out of the 365 days of all of us to say together […] that we move forward in solidarity in the best interest of the aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities of Canada […and it] would be to acknowledge the continuous development of our aboriginal communities from coast to coast’.[960] The then Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment Walter Leland Rutherford Clark (Progressive Conservative, Manitoba) conjoined the national and international context of encouraging recognising the heritage of the aboriginal peoples to support this motion that:
the United Nations has declared 1993 as the International Year of the world’s Indigenous People, […] the government of Canada has […] sponsored the first ever federal aboriginal awareness week from May 20 to May 22, […and] the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development [has] held a Native Awareness Day focusing on employment issues. Other federal departments are preparing to participate to the international year for Indigenous People which begins on December 10.[961]
Clark’s quotations showed increasing recognition of aboriginal rights was an international trend for Canada to follow via recreational events to recognise the economic rights.
Members from other parties with aboriginal origin had different ideas of the proper approach of recognition. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Liberal, Northwest Territories) gave priority to ‘recognizing the languages and cultures of aboriginal people’ with his own language Inuktitut.[962] Ian Angus Ross Reid (Progressive Conservative, Newfoundland), the then Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (INAC), stood on the same side to Anawak, who believed the method of daily recognition of aboriginal rights was solving the educational, cultural, linguistic and economic issues of the aboriginal peoples and compensated their lost interests in the history.[963] Reid also questioned that National Aboriginal Solidarity Day was not merely symbolised the aboriginal cultures and thus lacked of uniqueness.[964] These disagreements suspected the effectiveness of a national holiday by highlighting the cultural and linguistic recognition of aboriginal rights.
Eventually, the House of Commons failed to achieve a unanimous consent on this New-Democratic-lead Bill in the second reading. Nevertheless, Riis and his party fellow Robert Evans for British Columbia tabled several other petitions supported Bill C-268 from December 1992 to the end of this parliament in mid-1993 which covered an extensive territory of the nation.[965] When the new Liberal parliament opened in 1994, Riis moved Bill C-244 for the same purpose to Bill C-268.[966]
In the second reading of Bill C-244, with the support of Leonard William Taylor (New Democratic, Saskatchewan), John Lewis Solomon (New Democratic, Saskatchewan) and Svend Johannes Robinson (New Democratic, British Columbia), Riis stated the history of aboriginal peoples and their heroes, the reversion of cultural extinction and the existing leadership of Minister of the INAC as the supportive evidence for his bill.[967] His usage of the counter-history of aboriginal peoples in nation-building was similar to those narrative aimed at revising Remembrance Day discussed in Chapter Four. Taylor backed Riis’s statement by confirming that ‘the adoption of a day of solidarity is certainly one small step in the right direction’ of Canadians to acknowledge ‘the history, heritage and future of Canada’s first peoples’.[968] Governmental reports which reviewed the status of the aboriginal peoples were other sources Taylor quoted.
Non-New Democratic members started to agree with the symbolic significance of a national holiday in integrating the aboriginal peoples in the debates. The then new Minister of the INAC Ron Irwin supported Bill C-244 and put it at the top of a triangle – ‘at the top of the triangle is dignity, respect and self-government; at the bottom of the triangle are adequate health facilities, adequate housing facilities and adequate economic development’ – to explain the governmental policies on aboriginal issues after reviewed Canadian aborigines’ glorious cultural heritage and miserable past.[969] Then Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister, Jean Augustine (Liberal, Ontario), noted that ‘it would clearly be regressive for us to sit here and legislate a special day for aboriginal people without their explicit support’ in the year when United Nations celebrated for the first United Nations International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples and declared August 9 as an International Day for Indigenous Peoples.[970]
As mentioned above, Riis once blamed members of Bloc Québécois in the first reading of Bill C-268. In this debate, Claude Bachand (Bloc Québécois, Québec) clearly identified his support to Bill C-244. Grounded on his experience in Cancun, Mexico, where he knew that the aboriginal peoples there had ceremonies on the summer solstice, Bachand recommended this date as a ‘national’ day to recognise Canadian aborigines.[971]
John Duncan (Reform, British Columbia) concentrated on the uniqueness the aboriginal peoples brought into Canadian history and Canadian mosaic by stating that ‘a day of recognition [for the aboriginal peoples] is innocuous in that there is no statutory holiday or out-of-pocket expenses associated with this recognition’ while disagreed with the ‘confrontational’ name of the day.[972] In Riis’s closing speech, he agreed to the possible adjust of this holiday.
Supports from members of all the main parties in the second reading of Bill C-244 still failed to gain the necessary unanimous consent. Members from parties other than the New Democrats, who had communication with aboriginal lobby groups, continued Riis’s endeavour. Elijah Harper (Liberal, Manitoba) appealed to House members ‘to show their solidarity with Canada’s aboriginal people’ on 21 June 1995, although he achieved no result in the end.[973]
Riis and his non-aboriginal party fellows believed designating and celebrating National Aboriginal Solidarity Day would have integrated the aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples to respond the constitutional crisis. They chose an extraordinary date in Canadian aboriginal peoples’ calendar, not the date of the imported festival from the United States or a reuse of a former British Empire’s holiday, to achieve their goal, although it was also celebrated by the Québécois as mentioned in Chapter Two as well as aboriginal peoples in other nations. The uniqueness of National Aboriginal Solidarity Day, therefore, was much weaker than existing national holidays. International protection to the aboriginal rights strongly supported the recognition inside Canada while diminished the Canadianness of National Aboriginal Solidarity Day simultaneously. Additionally, when politicians and lobby groups of aboriginal peoples were centralising National Aboriginal Solidarity Day, the Anglophone print media scarcely noticed this issue.
Moreover, the RCAP’s five-year-consultation included a suggestion of designating National Aboriginal Solidarity Day.[974] Its 4,000-page final report ‘concern[ed] government policy with respect to the original historical nations of this country’ both in the short and long terms with giving 440 recommendations for improving the relationship between aboriginal, non-aboriginal peoples and the Canadian government.[975] One of 440 recommendations was to designate an equivalent of National Aboriginal Day for building ‘awareness and understanding’ between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples as part of the strategy of ‘public education’: ‘Parliament and the national Aboriginal organizations jointly designate a national First Peoples Day to coincide with the issuing of a new Royal Proclamation and to be celebrated annually across Canada’.[976]
This report also included the counter-memories of Canadian aboriginal peoples in residential school when national holidays arrived: it was ‘a life ordered by the hourly precision of clocks and bells and an annual calendar of rituals, the festivals of church and state – Christmas, Victoria Day, Dominion Day and St. Jean Baptiste Day – that were the rapid, steady pulse of the industrial world’.[977] Such critiques of aboriginal children’s experience of assimilation by participating into the events of national holidays, followed with the paradoxical encouraging of designating a new national holiday to preserve the aboriginal cultural heritage.
Besides, this report reviewed existing celebrations of Calgary’s Native Awareness Week, Nova Scotia’s Treaty Day, Métis’ Louis Riel Day, Québec’s National Day of the Aboriginal Peoples and the United Nations’ International Day of Indigenous People as the examples of using ‘national day’ for recognising cultural heritage. It believed such usages ‘should be extended to all Aboriginal peoples, on a date designated jointly by the Parliament and the national Aboriginal organisations’ without excluding celebrations of other aboriginal holidays to protect their ‘value and as instruments of public education’.[978] Although the publication of the final report was later than the official proclamation of National Aboriginal Day, the RCAP had recommended a similar idea in 1995.[979]
Meanwhile, leaders of aboriginal peoples re-affirmed their determination for a national holiday and gained a positive response from the government eventually. Harper organised a Sacred Assembly which ‘aboriginal spiritual leaders and elders, representatives of many churches and faiths, political leaders, youth and ordinary Canadians gathered’ and claimed for designating National Aboriginal Day from 6 to 9 December 1995.[980] Taylor moved this resolution to parliament on 11 December 1995 and suggested the government to ‘actually sit down and get some work done on some of the things for which the aboriginal people have asked, particularly the extinguishment clause that aboriginal people have talked about’.[981] On 29 February 1996, then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage Sheila Maureen Copps (Liberal, Ontario) respected the nationwide activities of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day as the reason of designating National Aboriginal Day.[982] Irwin confirmed that the proclamation would soon announce this holiday as the response.[983]
Debates on creating National Aboriginal Day ended with the Governor General of Canada’s proclamation of this holiday on 23 May 1996, the year when the United Nations organised the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples. In the proclamation, the Governor General stressed that all Canadians should share the culture and heritage of aboriginal peoples.[984] This proclamation was approved by Canadian monarch, Queen Elizabeth II on 13 June 1996.[985] The INAC printed English-French, not multi-aboriginal-language, leaflets of National Aboriginal Day as well as advertisements, ranging from history of the holiday to the activities, which represented the official bilingualism for catching the attention from the mainstream society (see next page).[986]
As soon as the proclamation of National Aboriginal Day was made, political elites clearly asserted an appreciation of this holiday, and believed this was a perfect chance to unite aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians.[987] For example, Speaker of the Senate Gildas L. Molgat introduced the events of the first National Aboriginal Day in parliament one day before its arrival and hoped all members could join.[988] Politicians’ optimism and pride in this new national symbol were also expressed in the opening address of the 36th parliament, which respected it as an achievement of the 35th parliament of Canada and a milestone of Canadian history.[989]
[pic][pic]
INAC leaflet for National Aboriginal Day, ‘Celebrating First Nations’.
Concerning the rituals of National Aboriginal Day, it was the same as other national holidays: highlighting aboriginal cultures and recreational events. Barbeques, indoor and outdoor activities for schools and youth, aboriginal sports games such as snowshoeing, tobogganing, dogsledding, kayaking and canoeing, and community events, to name but a few, displayed the sponsors’ intentions of presenting the ethno-cultural features of the nation for educating the young generation.[990] At the national level, all Canadians could watch increasing numbers of television programmes introducing the past and present of the aborigines on dates close to 21 June.[991]
At the local level, the INAC funded activities for schools and youth, which covered the institutions nationwide and included aboriginal and non-aboriginal participants.[992] This centralised arrangement of National Aboriginal Day was the same to that of Canada Day as mentioned in Chapter Four. Sponsors supposed that people who originated from other nations and non-aboriginal communities could learn more about the history and culture of certain aboriginal people through joining in these activities and acknowledging the aboriginal history.[993] In some parts of Canada, aboriginal females, who had less opportunity to interact with the mainstream society from the organisers’ view, gained a day off work on 21 June to join the local celebrations for promoting their sense of belonging to the local society.[994] Local authorities, such as the Northwest Territories government, established provincial legislation confirmed National Aboriginal Day as a holiday when citizens have a day of rest.[995] Ironically, most of the Canadians did not have a day of rest to participate into this holiday while politicians wished they could come.[996]
The Royal proclamation’s affirmation of National Aboriginal Day encouraged members from the constituencies with large aboriginal population to expand the counter-memory of aboriginal peoples. In the House debates, they chose the dates close to 21 June to re-emphasise the history of aboriginal peoples and share their experiences in the celebrations, to indicate this holiday as a successful federal policy for improving the diversity and social integration.[997] They also utilised this holiday as the chance and a positive example to move motions related to aboriginal rights or building multicultural Canada.[998]
The public’s responses to National Aboriginal Day varied. In Ontario, for example, aboriginal peoples organised protests which caused barricades and occupations.[999] Although the Québécois had arranged the earliest celebrations of a National Day of the Aboriginal Peoples which showed their sympathetic to this minority group, they rejected the activities of National Aboriginal Day for the aboriginal’s successful claim of the land, an issue that they had failed.[1000] From a politician’s view point, Québécois protesters expressed their dissatisfaction to the level of self-government by claiming economic and cultural rights in this occasion.[1001] In the following years, Anglophone print media reported protests and demonstrations combined with celebrations on National Aboriginal Day by labelling them as racism.[1002] The target group of National Aboriginal Day neither liked the term ‘aboriginal’ which described various ethno-cultural groups as a whole, nor needed a holiday, but the improvement of living conditions and the redistribution of land.[1003]
Similar to the government’s concerns of the effects of Dominion Day after 1977, the INAC required consultation on the effects of National Aboriginal Day. In July 2003, for example, INAC received Ipsos-Reid Cooperation’s report on ‘Aware of and Participation in National Aboriginal Day’, which gave light on a general picture of the holiday.[1004] It showed that, in 2003, ‘62% of the respondents are either not very (26%) or not at all aware (36%) of National Aboriginal Day’.[1005] Interviewees who had the highest awareness of this holiday were the inhabitants of the Atlantic Provinces (New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland), which were 57%, and the lowest were in Québec, only 10%.[1006] Older respondents, aged over 55, rural respondents, University-educated respondents and middle-income respondents all had higher awareness levels than their counter groups, although none of these groups has a percentage higher than 50.[1007] Fewer than 10% of the respondents had participated in the events of National Aboriginal Day. The most popular events were powwow, which was 35%, and seconded by cultural displays (15%), arts and crafts exhibitions (12%), community events (11%), concerts (9%), festivals or fairs (9%) and others (4%).[1008] After eight years’ celebration and promotion, Canadian citizens’ acceptance and acknowledgement of National Aboriginal Day was inadequate.
Although the mass media’s feedback and the consulting report of National Aboriginal Day failed to prove a ‘successful’ holiday, akin to what politicians had narrated, more participants from other nations joined the celebrations, creating a picture of international coordination in National Aboriginal Day. For example, Brazilian aboriginal people, the relatives of Canadian aborigines, joined the celebration of National Aboriginal Day in Toronto in 2007.[1009] Themes of Brazil aboriginals’ celebration were the same to those of Canada which aimed at displaying their cultural heritage and claiming for land and rights.[1010] Crystal Maslin studied the preconditions and estimations of National Aboriginal Day celebrations and argued it would not satisfy the ultimate claim of the aboriginals, even though the celebrations were a chance for the aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples to learn about aboriginal culture.[1011]
Although the idea of celebrating a festival for the First Nations was originated in the United States, National Aboriginal Day was a fully Canadian holiday. The creation and development of this holiday reflected the changing living condition of aboriginal peoples and the shifting ideological context of the nation. It is expected to play a similar role to other national holidays in nation-building by recognising the heritage and rights of aboriginal Canadians from the view of the people who invented it. The designation and arrangement of this holiday, as this section argues, indicated the paradoxical feature of Official Multiculturalism.
Aboriginal peoples’ desire of a festival to represent the aboriginal culture was the same as Chinese immigrants who had designated Chinese Humiliation Day in the same period of time. Canadian aboriginal peoples borrowed a Pan-American festival as the starting point to show their claims and identities. Recreational events expanded with the support of the associations of aboriginal peoples and some local governments during the 1930s. Although Canadian aboriginal peoples utilised this festival to express their claims in the first phase of nation-building, this festival had not been Canadianised yet.
The bottom-up centralisation of the ancestor of National Aboriginal Day, National Indian Day, began in the second phase of Canadian nation-building when the federal government had revised the previous legislation to expand the rights of aboriginal peoples. When Indian leaders and lobby groups of aboriginal Canadians moved their resolution to ask for the federal government’s support of recognising their heritage via designating a day during the Centennial celebrations, new national ideology, which had not been fully clarified yet, failed to endorse this resolution. From 1945 to 1971, influence of the assimilative nation-building strategy was remained in the centre of politics and aboriginal Canadianness stared to express their willingness of social integration.
As the constitutional change re-affirmed the significance of recognising the aboriginal heritage, it restarted the two-way centralisation of a new national holiday by expanding lobby groups of aboriginal Canadians. Members from the New Democratic Party strongly approved of this idea after the constitutional crisis from the late 1980s to the early 1990s. In the parliamentary debates, elements of the new national holiday were mentioned via negotiation: the aim of American Indian Day, the date of the summer solstice, the need of new national symbols for multiculturalism, the international trend of recognising aboriginal rights, the historical narrative to a pro-Confederation Canada and the interaction between aboriginal peoples, lobby groups and political elites in contributing to nation-building by claiming differentiated rights. Although the resolution failed in the parliament, the federal government established new institution for revealing aboriginal Canadians’ from the top.
The Canadian monarch eventually approved National Aboriginal Day as a representation of multiculturalism in 1996 via recreational and cultural events after analysing the consulting by the RCAP, although its lack of uniqueness and Canadianness faced protests during the celebrations. The centralisation of National Aboriginal Day was not only an approach to nation-building in the context of Official Multiculturalism, but also a re-examination of the invention of new traditions for social integration and the official national ideology. Complicated rituals and contents of National Aboriginal Day, however, weakened its commemorational function and Canadianness. Most of the provinces do not endorse it as a statutory holiday, which decreases its recreational function.
A hybrid creation of traditions localised a politically content-empty festival with the government’s support. Nonetheless, the federal government carried on a similar creation for recognising the entire minority rights nationwide six years after National Aboriginal Day. The next section will explore this new creation, Canadian Multiculturalism Day.
Canadian Multiculturalism Day
Literally speaking, Canadian Multiculturalism Day highlights the most clearly new Canadian national ideology. Neither a parliamentary motion, nor commemoration of memorable moments of the nation created this holiday. It sits in the last week of June which ties National Aboriginal Day, la fête nationale du Québec and Canada Day together to launch the programme ‘Celebrate Canada!’, a serial celebration programme to display Canadian national identity in early summer. Compared to National Aboriginal Day, its commemorative function is even weaker while the recreational function is the same.
The exceedingly short history of Multiculturalism Day means that little historical research had discussed it. This section will glance at this latest invented national symbol’s role in nation-building to bring an integrated view of Canadian national holidays.
Discussions of Canadian Multiculturalism Day will start from different regional celebrations of multiculturalism from the early 1970s, after the declaration of Official Multiculturalism, which indicated the gradual acceptance to this national ideology in local areas. After the then Governor in Council announced Canadian Multiculturalism Day in 2002, politicians, especially the Liberals, believed this new creation was an affirmative example of Official Multiculturalism. The second part will evaluate the public’s responses to this holiday. Analysing to participants’ feedback will comprise of the conclusive part.
In the third phase of Canadian nation-building, the provincial governments made their own decisions on whether to accept this federal ideology or not. The provincial government of Saskatchewan first passed the Saskatchewan Multiculturalism Act in 1974, which approved the national ideology and extraordinarily recognised aboriginal rights.[1012] The government of Manitoba enforced the Manitoba Intercultural Council Act in 1984, which confirmed its responsibility in protecting minority rights and cultural heritage, and updated it as the Multiculturalism Act in 1994.[1013] Amended legislation threw light on the unity of provincial residents with various origins, and the Multiculturalism Secretariat took charge of the enforcement of the legislation. In Alberta, the provincial government passed the Alberta Cultural Heritage Act in 1984 and amended it as the Alberta Multiculturalism Act in 1990 for promoting multiculturalism. The latter laws made more effort to promote the economic, social and cultural benefits for all the inhabitants than the previous one.[1014]
From the report of the federal government, six of the provinces – British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Québec and Nova Scotia – gradually approved the multiculturalism legislation after 1971.[1015] These six provinces, combined with New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, established a ‘multiculturalism advisory council’, which was responsible to the minister for analysing multiculturalism at the provincial level according to the evaluation of Parliament Information and Research Service.[1016] The two provinces remaining – Ontario and Newfoundland – have legislation protecting minority rights and practicing multicultural policies. Thus, at least in the legal sense, all provinces of Canada approved Official Multiculturalism.
Despite the legislative approval, local celebrations of cultural diversity simultaneously represented the national ideology. For example, the ‘Cultural Assistance Program and Multicultural Initiatives Fund 2002-2003’ of Saskatchewan recorded various activities, which celebrated diverse cultures within the province on ‘Multicultural Day’ festival from the end of the 1970s.[1017] Additionally, as mentioned above, the provincial government of Saskatchewan had approved an act to recognise Official Multiculturalism, which also funded celebrations for Multicultural Day.[1018] Similarly, local institutions in East York, Ontario, funded ‘Multicultural Day’ celebrations in early June since 1978.[1019]
Concerning the details of local celebrations, minority groups such as Chinese Canadians participated into unofficial festivals for celebrating cultural diversity of the nation no late than the early 1970s.[1020] Public schools were no doubt a common venue of celebrating Official Multiculturalism to inform the young generation about the contemporary national identity and ideology.[1021] After 1971, the public started to join celebrations of multiculturalism in the local arena with the support of the organisers.
After the designation of National Aboriginal Day, the Governor in Council declared another Royal announcement – Order in Council P.C. 2002-1869 of 31 October 2002 – to designate Canadian Multiculturalism Day on each and every 27 June as a national holiday.[1022] When explaining the reason, it defined Canadian Multiculturalism Day as ‘a celebration of the contributions of Canada’s diverse people to Canadian society’.[1023] It insisted new symbol’s responsibility in recognising all groups of Canadians’ differentiated cultural heritage and achievements while no provincial legislation treated it as a day off work.[1024]
Politicians were optimistic about this instrument of nation-building and believed it could signify ‘Canada’ as an appropriate word to refer the nation through incessant celebrations, although Canada was not the only nation that operated national policies under the name of multiculturalism.[1025] Regarding the name of the holiday, ‘multiculturalism’ was modified by ‘Canadian’ to represent the national ideology in its name as clearly as possible. Liberal members more actively expressed their pride in this holiday and expected more celebrations compared to other members, which was absorbed in national policies.[1026] Norman Moyer, then Assistant Deputy Minister of Department of Canadian Heritage, declared the week starts from 21 June to 1 July as ‘Celebrate Canada!’, a national programme for cultural diversity and multiculturalism in 2006.[1027]
Being different to local funded celebrations of multiculturalism, the Department of Canadian Heritage funded events of Canadian Multiculturalism Day. The local celebrations were different from place to place. In Edmonton, Alberta, the Celebrate Canada Committee organised events there and believed celebrations expressed their proud of promoting multiculturalism, though the events were similar to those of National Aboriginal Day that mainly represented the aboriginal cultural heritage.[1028] The provincial governments of Ontario and New Brunswick also had positive introductions to Canadian Multiculturalism Day celebrations to attract more citizens to join.[1029] In Montréal, although Québec has the highest share of the funds on the celebration of Canadian Multiculturalism Day and ‘Celebrate Canada!’, the Québécois showed little interest in it. Taking the example of 2007, the federal government distributed more than 3.7 million Canadian dollars to Québec for ‘Celebrate Canada!’ which accounted for 55% of the total funds, which motivated critiques of the federal government’s decisions on money distribution.[1030]
The report of the Parliament Information and Research Service analysed the practices of multiculturalism in Canada and suggested that Anglophone and overseas citizens had accepted multiculturalism and Canadian Multiculturalism Day.[1031] Some Francophone residents refused to protect cultural diversity in Québec while others asserted that Québec is a multicultural region.[1032] Francophone Canadians believed French culture was the only main culture in Québec, with the support of separatism, and thus Francophone Canadians did not participate in the celebrations of ‘national’ holidays or multiculturalism the federal government recognised.[1033] The Census of Canada 2001 and 2006 indicated a similar circumstance that this report presented. In the past decade, the percentage of Francophone population reduced in both of the majority and minority groups, which partly explained why Francophone Canadians put more emphasis on preserving their own culture, not an Anglophone ideology promoted such as multiculturalism.[1034] Immigrants who lived in Québec showed less interest in celebrating multiculturalism than their counterparts in other provinces.[1035]
Concerning other immigrants’ responses to Canadian Multiculturalism Day, an occasion clearly connected to the national identity, some of them chose it as a proper date for their oath as a Canadian.[1036] Others integrated their own cultural icons into the events of ‘Celebrate Canada!’ for catching the attention of the public to notice their significant cultural heritage or treated the participation in Canadian Multiculturalism Day as the accomplishment of their integration into the host nation and the official multiculturalism is an attractive value for them to share.[1037]
Provincial authorities in Canada not only enforced legislation to practice Official Multiculturalism after 1971, but also arranged and funded activities to popularise the latest national ideology. Initial celebrations chose one day to represent multicultural environment within the area. Constitutional crisis and the changing of other national holidays were the circumstances surrounding the proclamation of Canadian Multiculturalism Day in 2002, aiming at promoting citizens’ pride of the nation.
With regards to the content of Canadian Multiculturalism Day, this section indicated that it did not commemorate particular date or event in Canadian history, which degraded its historical tie to the nation. As no provincial legislation considered it as a statutory holiday, the recreational significance of Canadian Multiculturalism Day was less than other national holidays. The two most characteristic elements of a national holiday both failed to play main roles in this holiday, although its legitimacy directly linked to the national ideology. The latest approach of Canadian nation-building and the newest designation of national holiday were lack of enough support from the public and the nation’s past.
Although the federal government and politicians believed this holiday would motivate Canadians’ sense of belonging to the nation, participants expressed various attitudes to it. Provincial differences in these celebrations stood for the regional understanding to the national identity with their own focuses. Minority groups presented more interests than other groups of people in participating in related activities. As the designation of Canadian Multiculturalism Day experienced a top-down approach, its connotation was more infertile than those went through a bottom-up one such as National Aboriginal Day. As a result, local celebrations and potential participants are the final decision-makers of the connotation of the holiday.
Despite new national holidays, minority groups celebrated their own festivals to preserve the sense of belonging to their community or host nation. The next part will take Chinese New Year as the example to analyse the changing celebration and connotation of minority festivals in different constitutional context in Canada, especially its experiences in the post-1971 phase of nation-building.
Chinese New Year
As model immigrants of Canada, Chinese Canadians still celebrated their most significant festival, Chinese New Year, in the host nation. In the existing studies on Chinese Canadians, scholars seldom chose Chinese New Year as an approach to explore its interactions with Canadian nation-building and Chinese immigrants’ identities. BanSeng Hoe’s observation is thus peculiar. As a Chinese Canadian historian, Hoe traced the history of two communities in Alberta from the perspective of folklore by recording the celebrations of several Chinese festivals.[1038] His research, however, ended in the early 1970s which did not cover Chinese festivals’ conditions after the proclamation of Official Multiculturalism. Studies after the 1970s showed more interest in Chinese Canadians’ economic and political rights while ignored the cultural and recreational aspects in ‘making’ them.[1039] Others neglected this subject.[1040] Silence on Chinese New Year in academia is contrary to its increasing representations and merrymaking in the Canadian public domain, which left rich sources for this part’s research.
This section will analyse the rituals and changes of celebrating Chinese New Year in Canada from the early twentieth century to date. In the first part, it will review the living status of Chinese immigrants before the twentieth century and the feature of Chinese New Year to set the background of the discussion. Then, it will analyse how the celebrations and rituals of Chinese New Year in Canada respond to the three-phase nation-building of Canada. The publicising of celebrations was the general tendency presented in the process which reflected Chinese Canadians’ identity. In this process, Chinese immigrants gradually interacted with the mainstream society and expressed their shifting attitude to social integration owing to the changing policies of the Canadian government. In the last part, a sectional conclusion will discuss how the transformation of Chinese New Year celebrations interacted with changing ideological context and indicated the paradoxical feature of the new national ideology which recognised minority heritage.
Early Years of Chinese Immigrants in Canada: From the 1900s to the mid-1940s
In the Chinese Lunar calendar, no festival is more important than Chinese New Year. After about 4,700 years’ observance and celebrations, its rituals and performances are polymorphous and stable: one is the observance of the ancestors and gods in the private space; the other is merrymaking for the harvest and New Year in the public domain. Private observance’s decisive role in individual Chinese’s identities is based on its tight connection with participants’ lineage and household. When the Chinese immigrate to new places, they keep this festival in their personal and family calendar to preserve their identity as a Chinese.[1041]
As the Island of Hong Kong had been ‘possessed in perpetuity by Her Britannic Majesty’ in the Treaty of Nanjing, 1842, this harbour became the stronghold where the British colonists gathered Chinese labour forces to send to their colonies worldwide.[1042] By the end of the 1850s, the discovery of rich placer gold beds in British Columbia caught the attention of European adventures. In this Gold Rush, Chinese labourers and merchants, originating from Cantonese towns close to Hong Kong, were shipped from the new British colony in Asia via San Francisco to Victoria under an organised recruitment system.[1043] The word ‘coolie’ was given to these early immigrants who signed contracts with and paid a deposit to the middle-men, to work in British colonies and the United States.
The Qing government and the United Kingdom then signed the Convention of Beijing, 1860 to approve the trade of Chinese labour to British colonies officially, and the Chinese population in British Columbia soared.[1044] Commission Merchant Robert Ward’s report said that, in 1882, his shipping agent ‘had between 5,000 and 6,000 Chinese consigned to them from Hong Kong. These men were under engagement to the contractors of the Canadian Pacific Railroad’.[1045] Persia Crawford Campbell mentioned in his study of Chinese coolies that ‘according to the Census of 1881 there were at that date some 4,350 Chinese in the province [of British Columbia], out of a total population of 49,459, of whom 25,661 were Indians’.[1046]
The Chinese immigrants, from the British Commissioners’ point of view in the 1880s, were ‘a people that will not assimilate or become an integral part of our race and nation. […] They are so nearly allied to a servile class that they are obnoxious to a free community and dangerous to the state’.[1047] The Chinese Immigration Act, 1885 and its amendments in 1887 and 1892 then further disturbed the coolie trade and forced Chinese immigrated workers only to pay high Head Tax to the Dominion government because of their cheap labour force.[1048] In 1900, the enforcement of two pieces of new federal legislation further restricted the rights of Chinese labour.[1049] In the 1901 Chinese Immigration Act, the Head Tax climbed to 500 dollars per person, which was two years wage for a Chinese worker.[1050] Even so, many male Chinese labours did not travel back to China but got a job to stay in Canada, and formed Chinese communities in several cities of British Columbia consequently, especially in Vancouver. Although the federal government intended to assimilate this group of people, Chinese stayed in exclusive communities to preserve their own identity.
From Private Ritual to Public Representation: Chinese New Year in Canada
After settling down in Canada, Chinese immigrants spent Chinese New Year by traditional observances and rituals to maintain their heritage and identity. At least in 1904, English newspapers such as The Globe had noticed these celebrations, though the media did not have interest in the authentic ritual of this festival.[1051] English journalists defined strange, even terrible, aspects of Chinese eating habits as the ‘ritual’ of Chinese New Year feasts.[1052] Very few pieces of news illustrated the principal celebrations of Chinese New Year from the historical perspective, and none of them concerned the local celebrations.[1053] In the early twentieth century, separation of Canadian mainstream society and Chinese immigrants was obvious owing to the feature of Chinese New Year and the federal legislation.
Limited English news reports on Chinese New Year did not leave an empty record of Chinese immigrants’ celebrations in the early twentieth century. Chinese intellectual and political elites published Chinese newspapers in Canada which recorded this history, and these newspapers were the publications for anti-Qing government political societies (Hui Dang, especially Hongmen) in the first place.[1054] Members of these societies devoted to the revolution and development in the home country by publishing their propaganda in the newspapers circulated in their host nation as early as the early twentieth century, and led to the revolution to found the Republic of China in 1912. In Canada, the earliest one was first published in Vancouver in 1907 and called The Chinese Times (Tai Hon Kong Bo). This newspaper preserved the political ambitions of the revolutionaries, presented the life of Chinese immigrants and responded to the changing political contexts in China and Canada.
More than recording the living history of the Chinese immigrants in the early twentieth century, Chinese political societies unofficially organised and controlled the private and political lives of Chinese immigrants. Other less-political associations established in Chinese communities such as Chi Kong Tong and the Chinese Benevolent Association (CBA) played the same role simultaneously. Their dual function rooted in the basic mode of pre-modern Chinese society which was a combination of family, lineage and local politics. Compared to their equivalent in the home nation, these overseas organisations still attracted members from the same birth place or shared the dialect which followed Chinese way of constructing for preserving their own identity. Meanwhile, their interaction with the host nation led to their institutions based on the format of Canadian local institutions.[1055] Leaders and members of these associations actively engaged in the political and private affairs of their communities, which was presented in their continuous arrangements of Chinese New Year celebrations and recorded in their own print media.[1056]
When The Chinese Times first reported Chinese New Year celebrations in the late 1910s, it concerned its public representation by including many nationalists’ activities such as waving Chinese national flag – the latest created political representation of Chinese identity – and many traditional celebrations such as witting firecrackers, watching new films and popular Chinese operas.[1057] It appealed Chinese businessmen to take one day’s break for celebration to follow the Chinese regular, although it broke the norms of Canadian calendar and excluded events in private and semi-private domain such as family observance and association organised feasts.[1058] These reports reflected the exclusive Chinese identity via the public events of Chinese New Year in the first phase of Canadian nation-building.
Additionally, struggle on modernising Chinese calendar was other popular issue discussed in Canadian-based Chinese news reports when Chinese New Year arrived, which was an extension of similar discussions in China. On the tenth anniversary of the Republic of China, The Chinese Times published an editorial suggesting the celebration of Chinese New Year as a decayed tradition and appealed to Chinese people to celebrate the New Year of Gregorian calendar instead as the citizen of a ‘modern’ nation. Continuous reform and development in the new nation echoed the abolishment of the lunar calendar in China.[1059] On the next day, however, another editorial reviewed the history and heritage of Chinese New Year, extending to the anticipation to their homeland on this special occasion, and ended with an annual summary of the year passed.[1060] These two editorials showed that home-nation’s status and tradition of Chinese New Year were key reference to Chinese immigrants in Canada when this special occasion arrived, while local celebrations and private observance neither publicly presented nor transformed. Besides, these events only occurred in the Chinese community and isolated from the host nation.
Transformation of circumstances of the Chinese in Canada soon altered the focus of Chinese newspapers reporting on Chinese New Year celebrations. After the post-war recession, the federal government passed the most extreme act to Chinese immigrants, The Chinese Immigration Act, 1923, which only annually permitted 15 Chinese to come to work in Canada. It caused Chinese workers’ grievance and resistance and led to the designation of ‘Chinese Humiliation Day’ on the date of Dominion Day in Vancouver.[1061] Reactions extended to the celebration of Chinese New Year as well. Various Chinese associations began to arrange a feast to unite the members by highlighting their dogma, presenting their annual review, announcing their new leaders and arranging after-feast firecrackers and Lion Dances.[1062] Meanwhile, private observances were getting visible to preserve the traditional rituals, including feasting, visiting friends and relatives, sending greetings and best wishes to anyone met.[1063] Reports of the following years concerned increasing feasts and typical private observances that showed the private and semi-private activities start to move into the public domain.[1064]
Stricter controls on Chinese immigrants sustained to the rituals of Chinese New Year celebrations in 1926, when the City Council of Vancouver prohibited the firecrackers.[1065] The CBA claimed local authorities’ permission for firecrackers and received the official allowance to this observance for four hours during Chinese New Year. In the decade which followed, the CBA continued claiming the same issue several times.[1066] In 1935, however, the Vancouver City Council considered withdrawing the permission for firecrackers on Chinese New Year.[1067] Although the newspaper did not clearly state the result of this resolution, it did not report firecrackers during the New Year period in that year or in the following two decades while this tradition was maintained in China.[1068] Such restriction not only pushed Chinese associations to negotiate with local authorities, but also motivated Chinese New Year celebrations in Canada to alter rituals and celebrations as the reaction to the political context of the host nation.
After firecrackers were forbidden in the celebrations of Chinese New Year, other observances and activities replaced their symbolic and practical importance in this festival. From the report of The Globe and Mail, the Lion Dance was the key event of Chinese New Year, which was the reason why it was performed in the CNE in 1939 as the representation of ancient Chinese culture.[1069] Chinese media mainly concerned history and meanings of Chinese New Year, explanation of the animal which symbolised the year in the Chinese zodiac, seasonal greeting poems and New Years’ wishes.[1070] Concerns over the Second World War and the condition of the home nation were another key part Chinese Canadians to keep an eye on in the New Year’s Day, which reflected the writers and audiences’ senses of belonging to the homeland.[1071] In 1945, the CBA and several political societies first collected claims to improve the policies related to Chinese business in Canada.[1072] Chinese lobby groups chose the occasion of observance for their own purposes and gradually increasing contacts to the mainstream society from the 1920s.
In the second phase of Canadian nation-building, living conditions and the social status of Chinese immigrants improved, yet the demography of Chinese immigrants did not dramatically change with respect to the new legislation.[1073] Chinese New Year observances thus kept adjust by the leaders of Chinese associations with increasing number of participation from outside of the Chinese community. Events of Chinese New Year became the platform where Chinese and other Canadians communicated and interacted with each other. In 1952, one political society in Vancouver invited Chinese immigrants and several couples of local officers to celebrate the festival altogether by having a feast.[1074] In 1953, the mayor of Vancouver and a band of veterans from the United States participated in the Chinese New Year parade, and a West Vancouver broadcast company transmitted a fifteen-minute programme including an interview of a CBA officer about the history of this traditional Chinese festival and its interpretation of the coming year.[1075]
In the years afterwards, when the festival arrived, local broadcasts transmitted radio programmes making reference to Chinese New Year in Vancouver.[1076] Another new event of the celebrations was the Chinatown Queen parade, which the Vancouver Chinese Association of Commerce first held in 1958 and sustained in the next decade.[1077] Expanding events of Chinese New Year with emerging local activities after 1945 started to show uniqueness due to the changed political context for promoting Chinese Canadians to integrate into the mainstream society.
The Chinatown News, a Vancouver based English fortnightly magazine, included exhaustive historical stories and traditions of Chinese New Year celebrations and recent events in Vancouver, to attract the English readership’s interest in this festival from the 1950s.[1078] Paralleling The Chinese Times’ countless articles and poems recalling the memory and rituals of Chinese New Year celebrations or predictions for the coming year, The Chinatown News pointed out the misunderstanding of the festival such as incorrect count of anniversary appeared in an English newspaper, The Vancouver Sun, in 1959.[1079] Chinese immigrants’ celebrations of their most extraordinary annual festival, therefore, was publicised inside and outside its own communities, which broke the barrier separated the ethnic group and the host nation with Chinese’s own effort.
To make Chinese New Year celebrations a more visible seasonal event, leaders and members of various and numerous Chinese associations laid stress on a ‘merrymaking’. Chinese New Year included description of parades, Lion Dance, musicals, village operas and the newly established Chinatown Queen contest in their English publications. Stories about Chinese feasts in families and associations, house-cleaning, visiting friends and relatives, worship, review of the year passed and so on, preserved in the articles, poems, nostalgia and predictions in Chinese publications. Although Chinese print media promoted and preserved details of Chinese New Year celebrations in private and public domains, two dimensions became ‘the other’ to each other in localisation. Public celebrations, which had significant Chinese features, started assimilating to other national holidays with increasing recreational function which Chapters Two to Four has shown.
With the return of firecrackers in Chinese New Year celebrations in the early 1960s, recreational activities were further extended and expanded in the public domain.[1080] Organisers invited many guests from the outside of the Chinese communities to join the activities.[1081] Chinese associations borrowed facilities from other minority groups, such as the Ukrainian Catholic centre, to hold events.[1082] In 1964, the CBA expected ‘to attract 30,000 sightseers to Chinatown’ – an ambitious number – in its planned two-day public celebration of Chinese New Year, which would include ‘dragon dance, amateur hour, talent quest, fashion show, [and] fireworks display’.[1083]
The expanding scale of celebrations paralleled the federal and municipal governments’ increasing awareness and interest in this festival. For example, the first Chinese House member sent his greetings for Chinese New Year in Cantonese in 1962.[1084] The Citizen, a quarterly publication of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration of the Federal Government, carried an article on Chinese New Year shortly afterwards.[1085] In 1964, sponsors announced that the celebrations would ‘promote Vancouver and its Chinatown as a tourist attraction’ and stimulate ‘our city’s economy’ to gain support from the municipal administration. It included ‘tours of tongs and temples, cultural exhibitions, cooking demonstrations, flower arrangements, Lion and Dragon dances, fashion shows, Oriental revue and a grand street parade’ to bring the tourist a ‘picturesque and exotic’ experience.[1086] The City Council of Vancouver’s reaction to this potential economic cooperation with Chinese communities was the $250-worth financial support of the Chinese New Year parade.[1087] Yet when the festival arrived that year, the mayor of Vancouver showed a lack of interest in participating in the opening ceremony.[1088] In 1966, the then Prime Minister Pearson and Labour Minister Jack Nicholson sent messages to The Chinatown News which responded the investigation of the RCBB.[1089]
Both the Chinese and English print media’s coverage of Chinese New Year expanded in the 1960s. Detailed sensations and reactions to this festival from the Northern American perspective narrated in The Chinatown News with concerns to communications between Canadians and Chinese immigrants on rituals and performances.[1090]
Canadians’ understanding and feelings for Chinese New Year led to increasing discussions of the festival in English publications. In 1965, The Vancouver Sun and The Province suggested changing the date of the celebration to fit the schedule of the Vancouver spring carnival while Chinese immigrants rejected this idea to keep the significance of their traditional festival.[1091] Chinese print media also interested in the mainstream society’s reports on varied Chinese New Year observances by collecting English newspapers clippings from Newfoundland, Ontario, Québec, Saskatchewan, Albert and British Columbia.[1092] Editors of Chinese Newspapers decided to have a day off work on the day of Chinese New Year, which was therefore treated as the equivalent to other national holidays such as Dominion Day in the late 1960s, although it seemed like a commercial decision without any official recognition.[1093]
From 1947 to the early 1970s, Chinese New Year celebrations were remarkably publicised in the mainstream society by leaders of Chinese associations and the federal and local governments’ gradually increasing supports. This change reflected Chinese immigrants’ initiative desire of social integration via presenting their own cultural heritage in the public domain with the support of the changing federal legislation and the local governments for their own benefits. Although the new national ideology was emerging in this phase, it did not directly influence the events of Chinese New Year.
Private observances – the key ritual of Chinese New Year in the earlier period – were less visible during the second phase of nation-building. What influenced the Chinese print media’s focus of Chinese New Year most was not the circumstances of the home-nation, but the attitudes and feedback of public celebrations in the host nation, which revealed the changing relationship between ethnic groups and the mainstream society.
Reconstructing Chinese New Year celebrations in a Canadian context deepened in the early 1970s with growing recognising of multiculturalism at the federal level. The Canadian government established diplomatic relations to the government in mainland China one year after the proclamation of Official Multiculturalism; this transformed political context was reflected in Chinese New Year celebrations in that year. The city government of Toronto permitted fireworks on Dominion Day, Victoria Day and Chinese New Year in 1972 which pulled through the most crucial observance of this minority festival.[1094] Canadian institutions and entities advertised in Chinese newspapers with New Year’s greetings afterwards.[1095] Surprisingly, two groups of Chinese people fought on the early celebrations of Chinese New Year in 1972 due to their different political stances to the ‘official’ Chinese government, and caused the cancellation of the Lion Dance parade in Vancouver.[1096]
Growing support for Chinese New Year celebrations and its related cultural value came from regional, sub-national and national quarters after 1971. Because some the Québécois believed the events of ethnic festivals as challenges to the dominant Anglophone culture, Francophone Canadians expressed appreciation for Chinese New Year in 1974.[1097] In the same year, Chinese lobby groups proposed a new Chinese Cultural Centre for exhibiting and commemorating Chinese cultural heritage in Vancouver. The City Council quickly approved this idea and followed it with the establishment of a committee for constructing the Centre and organising Chinese New Year celebrations.[1098] In 1977, the CBA founded an association for helping the study of Chinese culture.[1099] Chinese Cultural Centre and the association then cooperatively organised numerous events for representing Chinese New Year, which attracted many Chinese and other ethnic participants.
In 1978, the Immigration Officer sent messages for Chinese New Year to promote multiculturalism, which followed with names of politicians such as the then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and the Premier of British Columbia William Richards Bennett, and published in a Chinese newspaper in 1979.[1100] After the proclamation of the Constitution Act 1982, increasing number of greetings from Canadian politicians occupied the pages of Chinese newspapers which also reflected the changed constitutional context.[1101]
Besides, the governmental fiscal support for Chinese New Year celebrations were ten times of the amount in 1982 than 1964: an Association for Elder Chinese Canadians gained $9,000 of funding from the federal government.[1102] Other groups such as Chinese-origin Children received funding from their local governments for the cultural and recreational activities after 1982.[1103]
Other than ideological recognition and financial support, politicians accepted to recognise the cultural dimension of Chinese’s daily life from the 1980s. In 1984, when the South Central Processing Plant of the Canada Post Corporation denied Chinese postal workers’ claim for a holiday on Chinese New Year, Laverne Lewycky (New Democratic, Manitoba) questioned then Minister of State for multiculturalism D. M. Colenette on this issue by asking ‘would he be prepared to undertake briefings in multiculturalism in our major Crown Corporations to ensure more sensitivity and that this type of event does not occur in the future?’[1104] At least from some politicians’ perspective, promoting the national ideology should be undoubtedly practiced in Chinese New Year events. After the mid-1980s, members of parliament, especially those for constituencies of Vancouver, sent greetings for Chinese New Year with admitting previous discriminatory legislation on Chinese immigrants and recognised their contribution to the nation.[1105]
Nonetheless, the transforming demography of immigrants with varied Chinese origins (including mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan) led to increasing diversity within the Chinese community, which caused new crisis for Chinese New Year celebrations. As the largest group of immigrants from 1981, Chinese originating from Hong Kong contributed the greatest number of Asian immigrants from 1987 to the early 1990s because of the uncertain future of Hong Kong after 1997. The opening policies of mainland China in the late 1970s pushed numerous habitants immigrated to North America. The economic growth of Taiwan encouraged residents to explore the wider-world simultaneously.[1106] From 1991 to 2001, mainland China became the largest single source of immigrants to Canada, and Hong Kang SAR ranked the fourth, while Taiwan ranked the seventh.[1107]
The growing Chinese community’s expanding celebrations were publicising increasing details and diversity of Chinese cultural heritage. Patricia Yuen-wan Lin noticed certain Chinese food with specific colours might cause Canadian children’s antipathy when appeared in school, which caused Chinese children’s rejection to these foods. Parents then took the chance of Chinese New Year to introduce Chinese food in schools to accomplish greater cross-cultural understanding.[1108] It showed such representations of Chinese culture, however, were not always welcome.[1109]
Though the Chinese from the mainland, Hong Kong and Taiwan shared the cultural heritage before the end of the Second World War, they developed their own rituals, observances and celebrations of Chinese New Year after forty years’ isolated developments due to the political reasons. Taking the example of words House members used to send greetings on Chinese New Year were a mixed use of Mandarin and Cantonese after the 1980s, which represented diverse origins of Chinese Canadians.[1110] Both the representations of Chinese New Year celebrations and words of greeting could hardly cover the basic diversity of Chinese sub-communities. Additionally, fewer Chinese showed interests in Chinese New Year celebrations after they had settled down for about a decade. Wei-Na Lee and David K. Tse found immigrants from Hong Kong have much lower interest in celebrating Chinese New Year than Canada Day after seven years’ integration.[1111]
Although the Chinese New Year symbolised Chinese’s preservation of their cultural heritage, it experienced gradually Canadianisation after the 1970s with changing rituals and representations.[1112] The second and third generations of immigrants even had difficulties figuring out their identity when participating in the celebrations because of the weakening private observances in the past several decades.[1113] The Lion Dance, Panda Dance and Chinese Opera became the most symbolised representation of Chinese New Year in the public domain while they were also practised in occasions other than this festival, including the opening ceremonies for commercial institutions, and their association with Chinese New Year was decreasing.[1114]
Canadianisation of Chinese New Year was deepened with the attempts to assimilate related events to other holidays. As the date of Chinese New Year is close to Christmas, Canadian print media once suggested celebrating it with Christmas in 1991.[1115] Chinese Canadians asserted that combined celebrations would confuse the participants regarding the meaning of holidays and festivals, thereby reducing their interest.[1116] Other events such as the concerts for displaying multi-cultures in Canada, including traditional Chinese music and other ethnical music with the regional governments’ or Canadian enterprises’ financial support, only showed broken pieces of each cultural group.[1117]
As a crucial ingredient of Chinese identities, Chinese immigrants took Chinese New Year celebrations from the homeland to where they settled down. In Canada, they preserved the private observances and public celebrations of Chinese New Year for conserving their identities during the initial bitter days after immigrating, when the federal government limited their rights as part of the assimilative nation-building from Confederation to the 1920s. Chinese immigrants lived in isolated communities and celebrated their own festivals followed the traditional way, which enhanced their identity as Chinese.
When the federal government enforced new legislation in the 1920s to push Chinese immigrants into a harsher living status than before, they started to negotiate with the mainstream society to persevere their rituals in the events of Chinese New Year with the help of their lobby groups. In the first phase of Canadian nation-building, tough federal legislation united Chinese immigrants to motivate their sense of belonging to the ethnic community via the events of Chinese New Year. Meanwhile, Chinese immigrants began to interact with the host nation to sustain their rituals of celebrating Chinese New Year.
After the federal government abolished discriminatory restrictions in the second phase of Canadian nation-building, Chinese immigrants publicised and localised Chinese New Year celebrations by expanding their recreational features. This was a bottom-up process which contained assimilation to local holiday celebrations and added new activities. Meanwhile, private observances were getting less and less visible which simplified the original rituals of Chinese New Year. Besides, these events started to gain the support from the local government for their economic interests. Emerging recognition of the minority groups in the federal government, however, did not assistant Chinese New Year celebrations in the local dimension during this period.
The ideological and constitutional changes after 1971 drove the change of Chinese New Year celebrations from the top. In the early 1970s, Chinese immigrants were not confident enough about the value of their cultural heritage in gaining recognition from the local government. After coordination with Official Multiculturalism, it turned from the container of Chinese identity to Canadian identity. Ideological and financial support from the government reconstructed the contents of to Chinese New Year celebrations to satisfy the payers’ and organisers’ expectation of social integration by enhancing recreational and cultural activities. Although the federal government believed the celebrations symbolised multiculturalism, watchers such as the Québécois interpreted these activities as the evidence to support their ideology and understanding of the nation.
Symbolised, simplified, homogeneous and recreational celebrations of Chinese New Year were increasingly remarkable in the public domain in the third phase of Canadian nation-building while the private and commemorative observances were shrinking. The top-down forces faced demographic changes inside the communities which brought in new diversities and disagreements. Chinese New Year celebrations, hence, was Canadianised as a tool of the government for enhancing a multicultural national identity, which played the similar role to other national holidays, at the cost of losing its original features and functions of preserving the identity of a ‘Chinese’.[1118] This localised minority festival showed new Canadian national holidays, as the prototype, could integrate heterogeneous counterparts within the framework of Official Multiculturalism, and the changing political and ideological contexts inspired the minority groups to shift their own traditional festivals with time.
Conclusion
Paralleled the designation and transformation of national holidays, minority groups, including aboriginal peoples and immigrants, celebrated their own festivals to preserve or show their identities. Meanwhile, the changing political and ideological contexts of Canada motivated the minority groups to alter the rituals, interpretations and connotations of their own festivals.
In the first phase of Canadian nation-building, minority festivals were designated or sustained for presenting their claims and identities. The federal government’s policies for assimilative social integration encouraged the minority groups to expand the scale of their events and interact with the government, especially after the 1920s. Such changes of minority festivals revealed the influences of the federal policies and the reaction of from themselves and their lobby groups.
When the federal government started to abolish or adjust previous legislation related to minority rights, these groups of people extended their celebrations of festivals simultaneously. As discussed in Chapter Three, in the second phase of nation-building, the connotation of the new ideology was still constructing. Although the government intended to recognise the minority cultures as the approach of promoting social integration, the recognitions and supports of minority festivals were limited that unveiled the remaining influences of the previous identity. Meanwhile, the minority groups spontaneously pushed their festivals into the centre of politics or the mainstream society to show their willingness of social integration, which was encouraged by their changing political and social status. Alteration of the minority festivals from 1945 to 1971 was thus a two-way process.
The ideological and constitutional changes after 1971 further promoted the centralisation and publicisation of the minority festivals. The aboriginal peoples developed their narrative of the national history for promoting the legitimacy of their claims of cultural rights, including the designation of a new national holiday. Eventually, these bottom-up attempts achieved the targets after the centralisation with the support of the reports by the RCAP, the monarch’s approval as well as the promotion of international entity such as the United Nations, and thus a Canadian holiday was created by combining varied previous traditions and the past and present of the nation. The Canadian government furthered the steps in designating a new national holiday to promote Official Multiculturalism from the top. As these two new national holidays did not commemorate any significant events in Canadian history, they implied the paradoxical feature of the national ideology. Their vague connotations tried to include extensive groups of people, especially those have minority background in general, to join, while the non-specification decreased their significance, even though the federal government attached these new holidays with the traditional ones to lift their popularity.
Besides, expanding celebrations of Chinese New Year in the public domain after 1971 led to the fading of the private observance of the same festival. Chinese Canadians who celebrated this festival, therefore, enhanced their sense of belong to Canada by connecting it with the national ideology as one representation at the cost of ignoring the initial tradition of the festival, which showed another dilemma faced by Official Multiculturalism.
According to this chapter, the creation of national holidays to recognise minority groups as well as the celebration of minority festivals reflected the changing foundation of the Canadian nation and its ideological background via their own approach of Canadianisation, which demonstrated that they were not just tokenism in the same chronological context to other Canadian national holidays. In the next chapter, national holidays in differently ideological contexts will be discussed by introducing several international counterparts to Canadian national holidays as the approach to nation-building, and will be followed with a comparative analysis as the conclusion.
Chapter Six: Counterparts in France and in the United Kingdom
As mentioned in Chapter One, Official Multiculturalism, adopted by the Canadian government for post-war social integration, is only one of many approaches; France and the United Kingdom – two nations both historically contributed to the formation and cultural heritage of Canada – have different national ideologies or policies for social integration from the late nineteenth century and afterwards. Although internationally growing concerns for the value of minority heritage have been embedded in nation-building theories and Canadian practices of changing national holidays since the late 1950s, national elites of France and the United Kingdom reacted differently towards holiday provision owing to their own ideological backgrounds. This chapter will examine the French and British national holidays, as the counterparts to those Canadian ones, to contextualise the Canadian national holidays discussed in the previous chapters. It would indicate the crucial role of national ideology in designating and altering national holidays as well as highlight the differentiation of centralising national holidays in three nations, to demonstrate that analysing the commemorative and recreational functions of national holidays enables us to clarify their underlying national ideologies.
Although existing studies of national holidays in France and the United Kingdom have pointed out their complexity and flexibility from international and historical perspectives, they neither explore nor compare the varied national ideologies, centralisation and functionality of national holidays to a sufficient depth.[1119] Yet this comparative chapter does not try to carry out a complete and comprehensive discussion of French and British national holidays but aims to signify the uniqueness and implication of Canadian national holidays according the points above.
Both of the following sections will begin with a brief review of the national ideology or the key political philosophy of France and the United Kingdom to illustrate the national contexts of the national holidays respectively. In France, Republicanism, a homogenous, strong and sustained national ideology leading the nation-building, stabilises the activities and meaning of French national holidays in a long-term, even when the changing demographical circumstance challenged it after the mid-twentieth century. Although the United Kingdom does not have a specified and comparable national ideology to Republicanism for nation-building and social integration, it took the preservation and promotion of a united and multi-national country as the leading principle.
The second parts of the two sections will analyse the centralisation and functionality of the national holidays in two nations to clarify how they reflect and respond the ideas and policies mentioned in the first parts of each section. Discussion of French national holidays will start from the designation of Bastille Day in 1880 by the Third Republic to symbolise Republicanism, and move to May Day, a paid holiday for the working class to celebrate declared by the Third Republic in the late nineteenth century, which later extended its celebrations in overseas colonies as a French ritual. The Third Republic also arranged ceremonies and established rituals for Armistice Day to commemorate the soldiers fallen for the nation after the end of the First World War. All three holidays were created for popularising Republicanism and survived when demographic was changed after the 1950s by the increasing number of immigrants. It will then argue that as the French government persisted with the same ideology for nation-building and social integration in the growing multiethnic society by paralleling civic and religious holidays with French characters, the list of French national holidays remains from the 1950s and the related events are festivalising simultaneously. As Pierre Nora and his Realms of Memory contained outstanding studies of French national holidays, discussions of the first section will mainly rely on these secondary studies.
The second part of the second section will clarify that the multi-national heritage of the United Kingdom operated anti-racism and anti-discrimination policies for social integration after the 1950s without a ‘single’ national ideology in the first part. It will first review the designation of Bank Holidays and other political holidays – including Empire Day, May Day, rituals of the monarch’s official birthday and Armistice Day – as well as the failed centralisation of saints’ days as ‘national holidays’. This analyse will take the enforcement of the Bank Holidays Act 1871 as the starting point and end the discussion at the unsuccessful attempts to designate British Day after 2006, to argue that targets of British public holidays practiced specific ways to cooperate their commemorative and recreational functions from the late nineteenth century to date, which obstructed the creation of a national holiday for Britain as a whole in the early twenty-first century. Although McCrone and McPherson’s work collected several articles about holidays in the United Kingdom from a sociological perspective, this section will mainly examine the parliamentary debates to present a general view of the abortive centralisation of national holidays in this nation.[1120]
The conclusion will argue that unchanged national ideology in France and the undefined national ideology in the United Kingdom maintained the function, value and practice of national holidays in the late nineteenth century and afterwards, which prove the significance of a shifting national ideology in potential changes of national holidays. Also, the festivalisation of French holidays and the unsuccessful creation of new national holidays in the United Kingdom indicate that studying the competitive and cooperative relationship of commemorative and recreational functions of national holidays shed light on the features of national ideology in different nations. Although Canadian national holidays have uniqueness in their own specific national context, the research approach applied in the previous chapters is also applicable in their counterparts in other nations.
Counterparts in France
This section will discuss the origin and challenges of ‘Republicanism’ by elucidating its sustained significance in French national identity from the Third Republic to the late twentieth century. Although the neo-republicans redefined the interpretations of this ideology after the 1970s to respond to the changing demographic reality, Republicanism was still in the centre of French national identity to promote an assimilative model of social integration.
An examination of one representation of Republicanism, namely French national holidays, will show that the continuous and dominated national ideology generally maintained the connotation, value and practices of national holidays such as Bastille Day, May Day and Armistice Day from the Third Republic to the Fifth, with a growing trend of festivalisation after the 1970s.
Republicanism and French Nation-Building
When the Annales School historians Fernand Braudel and Pierre Nora explored French identity in their works, they both suggested Republicanism as the key concept of the Third Republic’s nation-building approaches. Nonetheless, they neglected the then existing diversity within the French nation, which Alec G. Hargreaves pointed out in his Multi-Ethnic France.[1121] This assimilative ideology dominated the public policies and national myth exemplified in history books, education and the designation of Bastille Day as the national day, to name but a few.[1122] These approaches contributed to the ‘belle epoque’ of Republicanism, although the ethnic groups’ identities continued to exist in the shadow. In spite of debates about ethnicity and religion at the time of the ‘Dreyfus Affair’, this assimilative ideology went through the rest of the Third Republic and became more powerful after the First World War. Before the end of the Second World War, Republicanism’s domination in national ideology was unshakable.[1123]
The Fourth and Fifth Republics, however, faced increasing diversity and an expanding scale of ethnic groups, mainly immigrants, after the 1960s, which was similar to the conditions Canada encountered simultaneously. The Far Right challenged the position of Republicanism and existing social integration mode in the 1970s, when Republicanism had infiltrated into the representations of the nation and national identity for about a century.
French neo-republicans picked up the ‘French melting-pot’, or ‘creuset francais’ – a concept which first appeared in the United States in the early twentieth century – to explain the mode of French social integration.[1124] This concept re-imaged France as an immigrant nation built on individual human rights, which embedded in the philosophical tradition of state-centred collectivist civic republicanism.[1125] Gérard Noiriel suggested that ‘French melting pot’ was the synonym to ‘French Republicanism’ when it referred to the immigration policy.[1126] After comparing the socio-historical process of immigration integration in France and United States from different schools of sociology to the history of the immigrants, he argued ‘republicanism’ stood for the historical experience of French cultural and political heritage as well as the formal, institutional imperative of framing questions to achieve the successful integration as part of nation-building process.[1127] Nathan Glazer agreed with Noiriel’s argument that ‘the republican philosophy of “integration” is the peculiarly French political answer to the problem of social integration’, which summarised the mode suggested by the neo-republicans.[1128]
Although neo-republicans began to alter the rhetoric of social integration to satisfy the changing social context, Republicanism drives the direction of public policies by promoting assimilation, which was quite the opposite to Canada’s Official Multiculturalism.[1129] As ‘assimilation’ in the French context is different to homogeneity, which continuously re-shapes the nation by tolerating diversity, it cores at establishing a centric identity of the nation for citizens to share.[1130] Although the French government established the Cité nationale de l’histoire de l’immigration for recognising multiethnic residents in 2007, its potential efforts in motivating Republican France to absorb pluralism as one ingredient of national identity remains a question. As long as Republicanism maintained its overwhelming role in defining a Frenchman – whether the origin, the religion and so forth – difference between assimilative or multi-ethnic Republicanism could not challenge the assimilative intention of national policies for social integration. In such pre-condition, French national holidays sustained the same ideology in a long run for promoting the same sense of belonging to the Republican France.
French National Holidays
Based on the criteria of this dissertation, the division of contemporary French public holidays is similar to the Canadian ones: the first group is religious holidays, which represent the nation’s Catholic heritage, such as All Saints’ Day; the second one is secular and civic holidays, which commemorate and celebrate historical events of the nation, such as Bastille Day. Noah Shusterman argued that ‘there was no significant contestation of the French government’s prerogative in this matter […] France never returned to the Episcopal control over religious holidays that existed under the Old Regime; nor did any other system of regional establishment of official work holidays ever take hold’.[1131] This argument partly explained why there was no French legislation specialised in recognising national holidays, as the counterpart to the Holidays Act in Canada and the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in the United Kingdom.[1132] He quoted the declaration of the latest secular holiday by the French government on 23 September 1981, 8 May (V-E Day, Victoire 1945) for commemorating the allied Victory in the Second World War, to imply that it is a weaker representation of national identity than earlier ones.[1133]
Shusterman’s assertion advanced the period, when French government regulating holiday calendar, to the early nineteenth century, about half-century earlier than Hobsbawm’s definition on the period when new national holidays invented worldwide, which is explainable to the status of religious holidays in France.[1134] Hobsbawm’s conclusion, on the contrary, is applicable to secular holidays, especially those related to the national myth and national identity. Although the religious holidays tightly link to the local and profound culture as well as nation’s Catholic heritage and identity, their events are mainly restricted in the religious and private arena, which are not the main research object of this dissertation.
The following discussions will start from the Third Republic’s invention of traditions such as designating Bastille Day, May Day and Armistice Day from 1880 to the end of the First World War, which were expected to stimulate the citizens’ sense of belonging to the nation under Republicanism . In the inter-war period, the government enlarged the scale of events for national holidays, and local institutions extended Armistice Day ceremonies by building numerous monuments for commemoration. Vichy France enlarged the meaning and celebration of May Day as the instrument for educating colonial residents.
Rising debates on defining Republicanism in the 1960s in academia, as mentioned above, started to include the minority groups’ values and contributions as part of Frenchness but not build a new national ideology to change working instrument for social integration. French national holidays, therefore, sustained their characters in ideological dimension in the post-war period with slight changes in ritual dimension. When the Fifth Republic declared V-E Day as a national holiday in the 1980s, it implied less assimilative ideology than previous national holidays yet the fundamental position Republicanism occupied in French national identity was maintained.
Although the Parisians had captured the Bastille on 14 July 1789, the ritual of commemorating this historical event was not equal to recognise this date as a ‘national holiday’ or capitalised-N ‘National Day’.[1135] The historical event that Bastille Day commemorated happened much earlier than the official recognition declared in 1880, and the recognition of Bastille Day, as one of the Third Republic’s approaches of maintaining the Republic, was in the same year when Dominion Day was first officially celebrated in Canada, as well as numerous Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day celebrations worldwide.[1136] The French government also established primary education and public monuments in the late nineteenth century for assimilating the citizens.[1137]
From 1880 and afterwards, celebrations of Bastille Day ‘transform[ed] the heritage of the Revolution into a combined expression of state pomp and power and the citizens’ pleasure’.[1138] Its apparent and direct link with ‘Republic’ was the evident of the Third Republic’s proclaiming as the ‘heir of the French Revolution [... and] had an obligation to commemorate that Revolution’, emphasising the commemorative function of this newly invented holiday.[1139] Nevertheless, Bastille Day was not an almost certain choice when politicians concerned about the French national day in the 1870s. As discussed in Chapter Two, Canadian politicians picked up 1 July as the candidate of a national holiday for the reason that it was the exact date which the British Northern America Act came into force. Yet it was difficult for French political elites to choose a proper date as the ‘national’ day for the reason that there were various transformation moments in the French Revolution and French Republics.[1140]
Bastille Day and 14 July eventually defeated the counterparts due to their tight connection to the ideology in which creators of French national days believed, Republicanism. This political decision also gained the ideological support from liberal republican historians such as Jean de Sismondi, Jules Michelet and Henri Martin.[1141] The republican narrative, or the myth, of the French Revolution, as the turning point of the feudal and clerical France to the Modern France, thus emerged and concreted, which motivated the recognition of a politically scared date for national commemoration.[1142] After the French government’s declaration of Bastille Day as the national day, it promoted the politicisation and centralisation of events on 14 July from the top of the politics, which was similar to those of the Canadian government in the late nineteenth century. Such new representation of the nation ‘charged with “French” symbolism of varying degrees of subtlety or directness become more predominant, and individuals come to recognise themselves as a part of the national community through them’.[1143]
Rituals of commemorating Bastille Day and Republicanism were expanded with apocalyptic and revisionist narratives after 1880.[1144] Newly created official rituals arrived at the peak during the war periods and inter-war period, under the Left and Right’s competing on the rhetoric of Bastille Day, and thus the national day became a crucial symbol of modern France and the French Revolution.[1145] This fruit of the competition of party politics, as Pierre Nora has concluded, showed that ‘France is a country which, at a single stroke, with the definitive establishment of the Republic in 1880, gave itself a national emblem, a national anthem, a national holiday, a national motto, all incorporating themes from the French Revolution’.[1146]
In the late nineteenth century and the early twentieth century, the French government created other secular and civic holidays such as May Day and Armistice Day, which were similar to what the Canadian and the British government did in the same period of time. May Day, the only public holiday approved by legislation, ‘had originally formed part of the symbolically charged annual cycle of the pre-industrial labouring year’, and ‘its connection with the industrial proletariat was clearly fortuitous’.[1147] Its connection with union movements and protests, as well as profound roots stemmed from the French traditions and national past, were competitive.[1148] Competition between ‘the anticlericalism of the labour movement resisted the inclusion of traditional folklore practices in its May Day’ and ‘a quasi-religious or numinous celebration’ persevered May Day as a holiday in political and social senses with both commemorative and recreational functions.[1149]
French symbols of May Day – sweet briar and poppy – appeared in the late nineteenth century, and were replaced by the lily-of-the-valley for unpolitical occasions, which separated May Day’s meaning in political discourses and seasonal celebrations.[1150] Activities of an internationally celebrated holiday started to show the ideology and past of France via these symbols. Some print media even alerted that May Day should not be assimilated as ‘a sort of proletarian Fourteenth of July’ or ‘a sunny version of Armistice Day’, to preserve its significance as an international working class’s day of honour, not merely a French people’s holiday for leisure purpose.[1151] The localisation of May Day showed how an international ritual became one of the instruments, which French government practiced, for integrating the overseas colonies, during the Vichy France.[1152]
Concerning Armistice Day, Antoine Prost asserted that the feature of its ceremonies after 1918 was republican.[1153] Veterans first organised Armistice Day ceremonies, who then claimed to fix date of these events on 11 November every year as a ‘national’ holiday in 1922.[1154] The French government approved the legislative protection of this claim by politicising Armistice Day without establishing a national organisation for ceremonies in the 1920s.[1155] The ‘funerary character’ limited Armistice Day ceremonies as local and family events.[1156] Even singing ‘La Marseillaise’ at the end of the ceremony was not a fixed ritual or a recorded programme. It implied that expressing patriotism the national anthem contained was not the aim of people who sang on Armistice Days, which was contrary to sing God Save the King (Queen) in Canadian Armistice Day ceremonies as a fixed programme for showing the patriotism and the sense of belonging to the Empire or the Commonwealth.[1157]
The mass production of public monuments in the Third Republic was another effort of the French government to politicise Armistice Day as a national holiday. As mentioned above, these inventions contained ‘two kinds of monuments throughout the cities and rural communes of the country: the image of the Republic itself (in the form of Marianne which now became universally familiar), and the bearded civilian figures of whoever local patriotism chose to regard as its notables, past and present’.[1158] There were 38,000 monuments collectively built after the First World War, which left these sites of memories more visible than before and functioned as sites for Armistice Day ceremonies.[1159]
Armistice Day ceremonies also connected with other rituals for enriching the commemorative purpose. Although two minutes’ silence practiced in the French war memorial ceremonies, its symbolic value was less obvious than that in the member nations of Commonwealth. The poppy’s role in commemoration was replaced by the bleuet (the blue cornflower) to symbolise the fallen soldiers on the French battlefields.[1160] Two French women – Charlotte Malleterre and Suzanne Leenhardt – did play decisive roles in inventing the French ritual in 1925.[1161] As discussed in Chapter Two, the lady who promoted poppy appeal in the North America and the British Empire was French. This European heritage failed to dominate the French ritual of Armistice Day, as blue is the primary patriotic colour in France, which dyed the tricolour national flag and represented the public of the nation, and thus bleuet became the French symbol of Armistice Day.
Moreover, Antoine Prost argued that the educational function of Armistice Day was illustrated in the republican feature of the ceremony.[1162] Ceremonies showed that ‘the Republic was a regime that obtained social conformity by inducing its citizens to subscribe individually to its fundamental values. For this it needed a civic cult and a method of moral education, which it found ultimately in the memorial ceremonies for the dead of World War I’.[1163] In short, the growing commemorative function of Armistice Day ceremonies tightly connected to Republicanism by local events since 1918.
Recognition of Bastille Day, May Day and Armistice Day as days for employees to have one day off work shows that the French government utilised secular and civic holidays, which represented Republicanism, as the instrument for nation-building and social integration throughout the Third Republic. The commemorative and recreational functions of three holidays were basically cooperated, at least not competed, for promoting the national ideology in this period of time. No hints concerning any religious cultures other than Catholic appeared in the French political discourses or national ideology. The French assimilative approach, with profound backing of national identity, centralised and collected in the high level of politics, was clearly represented in distinctive and patriotic events.
The end of the Third Republic’s authorisation changed the circumstances regarding national holidays. The government during the occupation recognised and reinvented May Day as a national holiday on 24 April 1941, according to Marshal Pétain’s motto ‘travail, famille, patrie’, as part of governmental policies.[1164] Eric Jennings argued that ‘in attempting to establish a new commemorative culture in the colonies themselves, and in the name of imperial unity, Vichy exported a reinvented May Day, encoded with corporatist, traditionalist, and antirevolutionary motifs’.[1165] This reconstruction transformed May Day as a vehicle to transmit the ‘tradition’ of France and a stage for class struggle to its colonies worldwide, and enhanced its instructional and educational roles in nation-building. While in the colonies, residents developed their own rituals and understanding of the events of May Day, which implied that May Day ‘appropriated disparate elements from a variety of pre-existing cults’ in the Vichy France.[1166]
Nevertheless, the Republican features and idiosyncrasies of Armistice Day faded away after the Second World War, from Prost’s point of view.[1167] Meanwhile, the charity movements on veterans’ welfare, the counterpart to Poppy Appeal inside the Commonwealth, were getting developed.[1168] Likewise, the Vichy government extended Bastille Day celebrations to the French colonies, especially Algeria, from the inter-war period to the end of the Second World War.[1169] In the heart of the French Empire, celebrations were transformed into ‘an instrument that the various political parties of the moment used to strengthen their respective positions in view of the drafting of a new constitution and impending institutional reforms’.[1170]
Increasing immigration and their demands of social integration after the Second World War motivated the challenges and crisis to the existing assimilative national ideology of nation-building in France. As discussed in Chapter Three, Canadian political elites and the masses modified the previous national identity to respond the changing political context; the intention of change national holidays was one of many approaches. In France, the changing political context inspired a theoretical debate of Republicanism as discussed in the previous section. This debate redefined that Republicanism was not a homogenous ideology but could be multiethnic, and showed how French national holidays could be maintained in the current circumstance. Although other ideas, such as the anti-immigration ideology declared by Jean-Marie Le Pen and National Front, increased the complicity of the definition of French national ideology, Republicanism sustained its dominated role in French national identity.
Republicanism, therefore, was still located in the centre of the instrument for nation-building and merely adopted itself to post-colonial challenges. Amalvi argued events of French national holidays were depoliticised and ‘festivalised’ after the end of the Second World War while ‘it seems clear that the memory of the Revolution in general and of 14th July in particular now belongs to the entire nation, transcending political differences’.[1171] McCrone and McPherson indicated that:
the national myth, perhaps, was always that – a historical artefact constructed by looking backwards to a presumed golden age of national symbolism. France, une et indivisible, was always central to that myth, and France was unusual in having […] giving itself – that is, bestowing upon itself – a national emblem, a national anthem, a national holiday, and a national motto.[1172]
These discussions suggested that, in the post-war period, events and connotation of French national holidays such as Bastille Day still focussed on presenting the unchanged national ideology, Republicanism, although the interpretation of Republicanism was changed and the recreational feature of related events was enhanced.
Additionally, events of differently identified secular and religious holidays combined in ‘mois de vacance’, a popular month-long summer vacation in France starts around Bastille Day and ends with the feast of the Assumption, a religious holiday.[1173] Multi-ethnic citizens, regardless their diverse religious and civic background, cohesively accepted the combined celebrations, which leaves a question on the assimilative Republicanism’s contemporary problematic circumstance. Although the Fifth Republic puts much less effort on practising an assimilative national discourse, Republicanism is still the best key to explore the existing French national ideology.
In the French practices of promoting national ideology, the Third Republic took the same instruments as Canada, creating national holidays, from the top of politics, and linked with other instruments for enlarging the significance in nation-building after political negotiation. During the war periods and inter-war period, the commemorative and recreational aspects of varied national holidays were cooperated by the French government to promote Republicanism throughout the French Empire.
In the post-war period, although the French national ideology encountered the changing demographical context and the challenge of decolonisation, it followed a different path to that of Canada. After the neo-republicans reinterpreted Republicanism since the 1970s, its leading role in promoting social integration was stable and unshakable. Such unchanged national ideology was reflected in the relatively contingent rituals and connotations of French national holidays. Yet the recreational function of French national holidays started to surpass the commemorative one in the recent decades without any ideological support. French national holidays, in short, indicate the significant role of national ideology in creating and sustaining national holidays; the cooperation of two functions of these holidays once enhanced their effectiveness in promoting national ideology but enabled the festivalisation of these holidays in the later period of time.
Counterparts in the United Kingdom
This section will display the particularly controversial core identity of the United Kingdom, which embeds in its multi-national past in the first place. The first part will discuss the absence of a clear and precise national ideology of this United Kingdom, which leads to a less concise model for social integration aiming at promoting the social toleration of minority cultures, and applying multiculturalism policies without legislative recognition after the 1960s. It is somehow between Canadian Multiculturalism and French Republicanism with regards to its degree of assimilation by anti-racism in its attempts to construct an integrated, multiethnic society.[1174]
The second part will move to the influences of the absence of a clarified national ideology in creating and altering national holidays. The controversial and complicated Britishness with the heritage of the previous Empire and today’s Commonwealth as well as the Royal family added to the difficulties or selecting one day as a British Day. Such difficulties also stemmed from the lack of creation of a new holiday which combined the commemorative and recreational functions in the United Kingdom for highlighting certain national ideology, which were shown in the politicians’ failures of officially naming a saint’s day or a political holiday as a ‘national’ holiday.
A Multicultural Britain
From some early modernists’ view point, the construction of British consciousness could be traced back to the sixteenth or eighteenth century while disagreements varied.[1175] Linda Colley suggested that the nation was forged when the name ‘the United Kingdom’ appeared.[1176] Nevertheless, Paul Ward and Krishan Kumar both believed the Britishness and related Englishness ‘ha[ve] been a flexible identity, and that fact has enabled its persistence’ from the late nineteenth century to date, especially in the new era when British identity is in crisis.[1177] Paul Ward chose 1870 as the beginning year of his discussion as ‘this period embraces the “new” imperialism […] around which conservative political forces constructed claims to a monopoly on patriotism and versions of national identity’, which also signified the key features of Britishness.[1178]
Other scholars took diversity, or multi-national, as the keyword to explain Britishness. Keith Robbins argued the blending of ‘the English’, ‘the Scots’ and ‘the Welsh’ constructed the ‘British’.[1179] Robert Colls asserted the multi-national origin of Britisihness indicated that it was an unstable concept.[1180] Kumar believed ‘the English have little tradition of reflection on nationalism and national identity’, and Englishness (or Britishness, in his definition) is much weaker than Frenchness, which was fused with ideological civic Republicanism.[1181] This feature related to the formation of the United Kingdom of Britain and Ireland via the proclamation of the Acts of Union 1800. The flag of the United Kingdom, the Union Jack, which was designated by combining symbols of England, Ireland and Scotland in 1801, also presented diversity. This feature was added after the dissolution of the Empire since the 1940s, when ‘the legacy of Empire, mass non-white immigration, challenged the racialised version of Britishness that rested on a myth of ethnic homogeneity’.[1182]
According to the discussions above, the multi-national origin of the United Kingdom caused complexity when defining Britishness. The official and administrative geographical definition of the four parts of the United Kingdom is ‘country’, which only leaves a vague impression of the differences and relationship between four political entities have own cultural heritage, symbols, identities, to name but a few.[1183] Difficulties in clarifying the feature of the United Kingdom as a whole explained why numerous works intended to make contribution to this topic. Consequently, defining the national ideology of the United Kingdom is another problematic and unsettled question in theories and practices.
Moreover, the recently built multi-ethnic Britain has not adopted multiculturalism officially as the philosophy for nation-building and social integration, in responses to the dramatically increasing number of immigrants after the 1960s, and thus further added the complexity of defining this nation and its ideology.[1184] In 1967, then Labour Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, argued that Britain needed ‘integration, therefore, not as a flattening process of assimilation but as equal opportunity, coupled with cultural diversity, in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance’.[1185] This definition of integration, also known as the ‘Jenkins’ formula’, highlighted the importance of tolerance among cultural diversity in social integration, in the United Kingdom: it is the general target of immigration policies of the government, which covers a narrow sense of cultural pluralism and is different to assimilation, or the classical conformity model.[1186]
Contemporary critiques of Jenkins’ formula were shown in the speeches of a right wing member of parliament, Enoch Powell, who argued ‘integration’ and ‘assimilation’ both meant the making of a homogenous nation in his 1968 speech.[1187] Disagreement between Jenkins and Powell shows that there is no clear statement on the ideology behind social integration policies – in other words, the counterpart to Canadian Official Multiculturalism – in the United Kingdom.
From 1968 onwards, the British government enforced some legislation to promote social integration and racial equality. For example, the Race Relations Act 1968 and its amendment in 1976 clearly mentioned the legislative protection to ethnic rights and the defeat on racial discrimination.[1188] Eliot Joseph Benn argued that immigrants and other racial groups’ approaches to British citizenship were ended due to legislation.[1189] Such legislation, which functioned as the governmental principles to judge the minorities when they were applying for citizenship, implied the assimilated facet of social diversity, although it seemed to protect the minority rights. The British public polices focussed on ‘anti-racism’ and ‘anti-discrimination’, which was a different interpretation and practice of preserving minority identities and heritage that neither agreed with the ideological Multiculturalism in Canada nor Republicanism in France, which was somehow between them. Writing ‘British history’ was popular in British academia to enrich the interpretation of social integration since the 1970s, illustrating the increasing awareness of the complexity of Britishness.[1190]
In the last decade of the twentieth century, different countries’ identities increased their visibility in the academic and political arena of the United Kingdom.[1191] Increasing numbers of works focussed on Englishness, Irishness, Scottishness and Welshness, which echoed to the change of the legislative contexts of four countries in the end of the twentieth century.[1192] The reconsideration of Britishness by exploring the diversity it contained became another approach of the historical writing, although the diversity embedded in the counties, not the ethnic groups.[1193] The ‘7 July London attack’ in 2006 inspired politicians to designate a national holiday as the symbol of a unified national identity.[1194] Practices and difficulties of creating national holidays in the United Kingdom will be followed.
Reviewing of the complexity of Britishness, which roots in a multi-national past and a multi-ethnic present above, demonstrates the undefined national identity and national ideology. Although the changing political context motivated politicians and scholars to define Britishness, the result they archived was unclear owing to the lack of ideological support. This circumstance provides another context for the creation and debates of national holidays as an instrument for nation-building, especially in the recent days when the desire of making a ‘British Day’ was declared.
British Holidays
The categories of British holidays are different to Canada and France. The separation of the commemorative and recreational functions of a holiday and the differences among the recognition of holidays in the four countries both increase the difficulties to designate a ‘national’ holiday without a clarified national ideology. This part will discuss the British way of creating holidays – especially the origins of Bank Holidays – in the first place to shed light on the diversity within the general idea of ‘holiday’ in the United Kingdom. It will then move to analyse the creation of several significant dates – including Empire Day, May Day and Armistice Day (Remembrance Sunday) as well as the regularised ceremonies for the monarch’s official birthday in June – in the early twentieth century, which all had internationally forged initial rituals and civic character, and reflected the national idiosyncrasy and imperialism. Although the two basic functions of national holidays are somehow cooperated in these civic holidays, none of these holidays have a fixed date.
After the end of the Second World War, imperialism lost its credibility worldwide, and thus motivated the British politicians to redefine the civic holidays. These political elites removed imperial features when interpreting national holidays, which were the same approach as their Canadian counterparts, while did not look for a substitution. Demographical changes in the 1960s stimulated an anti-racism principle for social integration that inspired discussions of designating new holidays and revising existing holidays in the political arena. Politicians reconsidered saints’ days’ connotation, symbols, rituals and their roles in presenting the claims of four countries and transformed their interpretation and expectation to respond the social change. Increasing numbers of claims to Westminster Parliament’s declaration of saints’ days as ‘national’ holiday failed again and again because of the lack of a clarified national ideology. As the commemorative and recreational functions of national holidays have never officially connected with each other from the late nineteenth century to date, the difficulty of designation British Day in the early twenty-first century demonstrated the dialectic and dynamic relationships of two functions of national holidays according to the practices in the United Kingdom.
In the contemporary calendar of the United Kingdom, holidays which citizens can take one day of break are called Bank Holiday. A banker, Sir John Lubbock, so named them in 1871, that literally meant banks and other businesses should adjourn on these days, affirming the recreational function of such kind of holidays.[1195] The Bank Holidays Act 1871 first proclaimed this list of holidays that was different from country to country – Easter Monday, the first Monday in August, the 26th December, and Whit Monday as Bank Holidays in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, while in Scotland, New Year’s Day, Good Friday, the first Monday in May, the first Monday in August, and Christmas Day – and its amendments revised the list for several times in the following century.[1196]
The enforcement of the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 and its amendments replaced the function of the Bank Holidays Act 1871, declared that in England and Wales, Easter Monday, the first and last Monday in May, last Monday in August, 26th December (if not a Sunday) and 27th December in years when 25th or 26th December falls on a Sunday and New Year’s Day are Bank Holidays, and Christmas Day is the common law holiday.[1197] Northern Ireland has an extra holiday, St. Patrick’s Day on 17th March (or 18th March, if 17th March is a Sunday), to those of England and Wales.[1198] In Scotland, the same legislation recognised Christmas Day and 26th December, the first and second day at New Year, Good Friday, the first and last Monday in May, and the first Monday in August as Bank Holidays.[1199] Besides, the Scottish parliament passed an act on 29 November 2006 to recognise 30 November each year as St. Andrew’s Day, a new Bank Holiday.[1200] In each year after 1971, a Royal proclamation appoints the dates of Bank Holidays of every country which keeps own list of Bank Holidays, representing the multi-nation origin of the United Kingdom.[1201]
British Bank Holidays initially stemmed from traditional and religious holidays with regional differences can be categorised as Monday holidays and holidays for commemorating the patron saints. Monday holidays are based on the folklore and heritage of the United Kingdom. Although the first Monday in May and the first (or the last) Monday in August do not directly link to specific religious holidays, they are close to rural and traditional holidays that have been celebrated for centuries.[1202] Choosing Monday as the fixed day for Bank Holidays preserved the ‘Saint Monday’ traditions of the early nineteenth-century England in a different way.[1203] Although ‘Saint Monday’ (or ‘Holy Monday’) appeared in several other western European nations in the nineteenth century, only the British legislation recognised Monday as a fixed day for the public holiday and turned it as a part of tradition.[1204] Its influence extended to other parts of the British Empire in the nineteenth century such as Canada (see previous chapters).
The holidays for commemorating patron saints were named after saints in each country and celebrated differently, which again reflected diversity and the multi-national origin of the nation: St. Patrick’s Day in Northern Ireland and St. Andrew’s Day in Scotland are the equivalents to the unrecognised St. George’s Day in England and St. David’s Day in Wales in origin and aim of celebration. These saints’ days are ‘national holidays’ in their own country, having a closer relationship to the politics of recognition than other Bank Holidays, which are somehow the equivalents to Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day in Québec before the provincial government renamed it as la fête nationale du Québec.
Although the churches organised initial celebrations of saints’ days in the Middle Ages, their significance in political discourses did not appear until the late nineteenth century – the most remarkable period when ‘invented traditions’ collectively emerged in Europe and the North America.[1205] Figure 1 (see next page) shows the numbers of four saints’ days mentioned by Hansard from the early nineteenth century to the early twenty-first century.
St. Patrick’s Day, the most popular saint’s day in House members’ speeches during the nineteenth century, attracted increasing attention after the 1870s and arrived its peak at the end of the nineteenth century. Members’ first mention of other three saints’ days were in the 1870s, who continued to discuss them in the 1890s, the period publicising imperialism and British heritage throughout the massive Empire. Differences in recognising Bank Holidays and saints’ days in the United Kingdom began to show the own identities of different parts of people in the late period of the nineteenth century.
Besides, civic holidays with commemorative features were emerged in the United Kingdom from the 1870s. When Labour Day demonstrations widely spread in the North America in the late nineteenth century, its European counterpart, May Day, simultaneously developed on a different date based on invention of rituals and ceremonies for narrating a mythologically national past.[1206] In the United Kingdom, the first celebration of May Day followed the European choice of the date in early May, which was close to the Whit Monday Bank Holiday in 1890.[1207] As an imported ritual, the date of celebrating May Day was different from those in the United States and Canada as well as other parts of Europe: first celebrated on the first of May and then shifted to the first Sunday or Monday of May to extend the scale of celebrations and to merge it into the local traditions.[1208]
Figure 1: Numbers of Four Saints’ Days Mentioned by Hansard (1800-2005)
[pic]
Source: Hansard, 1805-2005, [access 15 May 2011].
From the 1890s to the 1910s when imperialism was popular in the political domain, May Day demonstration and other socialist movements rose and localised without legislative protection while pretended to challenge imperialism and capitalism.[1209] The government did not accept this earliest transnational political holiday of certain groups of people as a ‘national’ holiday but a day for labour’s demonstration, parades and protests to reverberate ‘International Labour Day’ in quiet and local ways. Industrial cities such as London, Glasgow, Leeds and Sheffield held these events under the influences from socialism and communism.[1210] The localisation of May Day in the United Kingdom integrated it into the existing Bank Holidays, and the holiday interacted with the political context of the nation.
In the beginning of the twentieth century, members of parliament claimed to designate St. Patrick’s Day as a Bank Holiday. In the debate in Westminster, Irish members, including John Redmond and his colleagues, accompanied and supported by the Gaelic League, promoted this motion for realising Irish people’s demand of this day.[1211] Although the Westminster parliament had approved St. Patrick’s Day as a statutory holiday in Ireland in 1903, it did not lead to the recognition of other three saints’ days as a national holiday, which showed the creation of St. Patrick’s Day based on regional demand as a bottom-up process. The change of the status of St. Patrick’s Day also indicated the failure of combining the commemorative and recreational functions of saints’ days as a ‘national holiday’ in Westminster parliament. According to figure 1 above, after St. Patrick’s Day became the national holiday in Ireland, fewer members in Westminster were concerned with this holiday. Discussion on saints’ days’ symbolic value appeared after the First World War had broken out, the crucial period nations stimulated citizens’ national identity worldwide with regional differences.
In the mean time, imperialism played a significant role in ideological arena of Britain while no governmental approval was achieved to recognise any civic holiday supporting this ideology as a national holiday. The House of Commons received an amendment bill of the Bank Holidays Act 1871 on 6 April 1900 asking for designating an Empire Day Bank holiday, which implied British politicians’ intention of highlighting the commemorative significance of Empire Day by shifting it as a day of rest.[1212] In the same year, Lord Meath (Reginald Brabazon) founded the ‘Empire Day Movement’ in the United Kingdom, which was an invention of imperial patriotism.[1213] He took the events held in the schools of Ontario as the evidence to show the necessity of organising similar activities in Britain.[1214] A Canadian ritual of commemorating the former monarch exported from dominion to the heart of the Empire as an annual occasion for educating the young imperialists.
In 1901, the year Canada declared 24 May in each and every year as Victoria Day as a statutory holiday, the Westminster parliament received a bill to add the first July to the list of Bank Holidays and named ‘Victoria Day’.[1215] It followed with another bill that suggested designating Empire Day on the Saturday immediately proceeding the first Monday in August a Bank Holiday in the next year.[1216] Neither of them gained the approval of parliament. Ten months after the second bill’s failure, the Senate received a suggestion to recognise 24 May as Empire Day as a school holiday for teaching colonial history and geography. Educational institutions in the United Kingdom later absorbed it by duplicating the events of Canadian Empire Day while the government resisted permitting to conjunct the commemorative and recreational functions into one national holiday for imperialism.[1217] These bottom-up attempts of centralising civic holidays to promote imperialism thus all failed owing to lack of the supports from the top of politics.
When some members of House suggested waving the Union Jack on government buildings on Empire Days in 1905 and 1906, the House rejected all the motions as it believed that no legislation recognised Empire Day as a holiday to wave it.[1218] From 1907 and afterwards, in the centre of politics, political elites claimed to organise Empire Day demonstrations in the schools in the local level, with waving the Union Jack on the government buildings on that day without legislative support.[1219] In the local activities, the Canadian format Empire Day was practiced with the support of Lord Meath’s Empire Day Movement, for lifting the young generation’s conscious of the heritage of the Empire.[1220] Empire Day then became a day to propagate imperialism via practicing its educational and commemorative values without a purely recreational function in the below, and the government detached this symbol of the Empire from that of the United Kingdom to differentiate the identity of two communities.
Another crucial ritual which highlighted the sense of belonging to the British Empire in the early twentieth century was the regularisation of the trooping of the colour as the ceremony for the official birthday of the monarch every June. The trooping of the colour on the British Sovereign’s official birthday had first appeared in 1748.[1221] This ritual continued in the following century and became an annual event in general except for the bad weather.[1222] From 1903, Edward VII, whose actual birthday was 9 November, moved the annual observance of trooping the colour to June for the hoping of good summer weather.[1223] Since then, the official birthday of the British monarch was in every June in the United Kingdom and was attached to a Saturday, which was different to other member nations of the Empire such as Canada, which chose 24 May and named it as Victoria Day as discussed in Chapter Two.[1224] A unique day for celebrating the birthday of the monarch with certain events became a regularised ritual as one representation of the British Empire; the cooperation of the commemorative and recreational functions of this event did not demand an official proclamation of a ‘national holiday’ or a certain ideology.
From 1914 to 1945, as Ward argued, ‘the context of the development of British national identity changed’ while the heritage of the Empire maintained the heart of the national identity.[1225] Jim English noticed that the two Great wars, as the crucial moments of cohesion the patriotism of the citizens, stimulated the schools used Empire Day to encourage the school children’s patriotic sentiment.[1226] He believed increasing official support and local celebrations of Empire Day during the war period survived its ‘hegemonic potency’ by integrating the dismal commemorative activities into the events of highlighting imperialism.[1227] English further asserted that Empire Day was used as the tool to against socialist movement and the communist party took advantage of this holiday to fight with British imperialism after 1918.[1228] Although the significance of Empire Day was outstanding in this period, it failed to be recognised a civic or national holiday by the government but only contributed to educate the citizens; although imperialism was fundamental to the then Britishness, it did not in fact equal to the British identity.
The history of Empire Day in Britain illustrated the demand of an icon for commemorating imperial values pushed the schools in the United Kingdom to absorb a borrowed holiday, commemorated by localised and politicised activities. Empire Day’s lack of official support, therefore, restricted it as an unofficial holiday from promoting part of the vague national identity in a limited area in the United Kingdom.
After the end of the First World War, national commemorations for Armistice Day appeared in the United Kingdom. Adrian Gregory argued that a British tradition of commemorating the First World War originated from the national discourse of memory, and believed ‘the memory of the war was not constant and that in fact it was being reshaped by political, diplomatic and economic events during the inter-war period, rather than shaping them’, and Venetia Newall also noticed that Armistice Day rituals embedded in English folk traditions.[1229] The development and localisation of rituals related to Armistice Day again implied the national feature of the United Kingdom.
As discussed above, Armistice Day ceremonies were internationally organised in 1918 and afterwards. The creation of Armistice Day activities in Britain irresistibly represented the transnational transmission of rituals. Chapter Two pointed out that poppy appeal was based on the Canadian narrative of the poppy in Flanders while the two minutes’ silence was a tradition of the Empire, which King George V promoted.[1230] Ceremonies in the United Kingdom thus expressed the Britishness and imperialism with King George V’s efforts in the 1920s in the poppy appeal and the two minutes’ silence. According to the evidences in Canadian archive, George V gave orders to the colonies of the British Empire with quoting the programme of standard ceremony in London, and hoped the colonial governments could practise two minutes’ silence on 11 November.[1231] Besides, the monarch gave priority to the services of Armistice Day in the church than normal Sunday services when 11 November fell on Sunday to highlight the commemorative value of this holiday as a civic holiday.[1232] Various churches actively arranged the ceremonies on or close to 11 November every year and suggested a ‘Remembrance Sunday’ for commemoration instead.[1233] In the mean time, the Irish people commemorated Remembrance Day to bring out Irish identity as the alternative to Britishness.[1234]
Additionally, using poppies for the wreath put on the Cenotaph on Armistice Day ceremonies became a British tradition in the late 1920s after this French-born activity was accepted, and British rituals of ceremonies and poppy factories both established concurrently.[1235] Further localisation of poppy appeal appeared in the 1930s that widely spread peace movements assimilated with selling poppies on the date close to Armistice Day with local Legions’ support. Local institutions even created White Poppy to highlight the commemoration contained the wishes to peace.[1236]
As discussed in Chapter Two, debates on Armistice Day in Canada in the 1930s ended with the designation of 11 November as a ‘national holiday’, namely Remembrance Day, and detached it from Thanksgiving Day. In the United Kingdom, different churches and the British Legion suggested that parliament should establish Remembrance Sunday to commemorate the fallen soldiers in the First and Second World Wars.[1237] When discussing this issue, the Dominions of the previous Empire were requested to choose a date for war commemoration in the United Kingdom. It is worthy of notice that the Canadian government supported D-Day, not 11 November, in this case, as a ‘proper’ date, which would be seen as protecting Remembrance Day in Canada and indicating the Canadianness of 11 November.[1238]
Paul Ward suggested ‘the sense that the British had common purpose’ and ‘a new form of Britishness […] entered into people’s everyday lives through a national welfare state’ in the post-war period.[1239] In this circumstance, with the great efforts of Bishops and the British Legion, Remembrance Sunday became the official date of commemorating ex-servicemen in 1946, which ended the centralisation of an internationally organised commemoration as a British ceremony via a bottom-up approach.[1240] Gregory believed ceremonies of Remembrance Sunday lost the ‘traditional patriotism and idealistic pacifism’ contained in Armistice Day, which provided a new silence ‘in which nothing meaningful could be said [...] and the language which surrounds the ritual is dead [...] and the word [sacrifice] becomes part of an empty rhetoric’.[1241] This statement was similar to the reason Canadian politicians and veterans persisted to keeping Remembrance Day on 11 November. The British recognition of Remembrance Sunday – the first combination of the commemoration with an existing day of rest for religious reasons – centralised the ceremony with detaching it from the profound war memorial to promote the participants’ sense of belonging to the nation.
As discussed in Chapter Three, Commonwealth Day replaced the role of Empire Day in stimulating the sense of belonging of the member nation residents in 1959, which declared the end of publicising imperialism of the former Empire with sustained ceremonies and celebrations. This change motivated some British politicians to suggest the monarch’s official birthday as the date of Commonwealth Day owing to the similar purpose of these two events – stimulating the sense of belongings to the people in the Commonwealth and representing the character of the nation.[1242] Although politicians’ suggestions failed to realise, waving flags of Commonwealth countries were seen both in Commonwealth Day and the official birthday of the British monarch from the 1970s that indicated the link of two identities in the same kind of representation.[1243] Similar to Empire Day, Commonwealth Day is not a public holiday in the calendar but a day for education.
Besides, the communist stance towards the May Day demonstration left it on the opposite side to the national ideology of the United Kingdom in the Cold War period. Even so, May Day activities were maintained in Britain for the working class to protest, although from the view of politicians, May Day should keep its significance as a seasonal and traditional festival, which will be discussed below.[1244]
In short, in the post-war period, rituals and targets of civic holidays maintained after localised as ‘British holidays’ to promote the sense of belonging to the nation. Although Remembrance Sunday, May Day and the date of the monarch’s official birthday are attached with an existing day of rest, none of them is a fixed date holiday connecting to a specific historical event or fact. In such condition, the recreational aspect of these holidays might cause least influence to the existing calendar while their commemorative aspect might locate in a weaker position than that of fixed date holidays.
Regarding saints’ days, they were in the shadow of Empire Day and Armistice Day in the centre of politics from the early 1910s to the mid-1940s while local celebrations continued. As a recognised national holiday, St. Patrick’s Day celebrations and rituals nationally and internationally expanded from 1903 and afterwards.[1245] School children celebrated Empire Day as well as St. Andrew’s Day, St. David’s Day and St. George’s Day in various countries, which treated the identities behind them in a similar way.[1246]
The centralisation of saints’ days other than St. Patrick’s Day as national holidays also failed during this period. Members of parliament once moved a motion to recognise St. George’s Day as a national holiday without success.[1247] During the First World War, the government supported the construction of saints’ days’ symbols, to use them in patriotic ceremonies organised by armies and unites, which sustained in the post-war period.[1248]
According to Figure 1, a trend of reconstructing saints’ days was visible in parliament after the war ended, with the reconstruction of the nation. Changing social and political context motivated the politicians, who used the symbolic value of saints’ days as instruments to support their motions, to alter the meaning and events of holidays. Some political elites moved bills or suggestions in parliament, for regional interests and claims or the emphasis to the sentiments of a certain country, on their own saint’s day.[1249] Others used saints’ days as a silent statement of their position to some political affairs.[1250] For example, claims of declaring St. George’s Day as an equivalent to St. Patrick’s Day emerged in Westminster parliament and failed again in the 1950s.[1251] Scottish nationalism and patriotism started to connect with St. Andrew’s Day celebrations in the late 1960s.[1252] Imperialism and the sense of belonging to the Empire remained the key idea of St. George’s Day celebrations.[1253] Politicians still regarded international celebrations of St. Patrick’s Day as a symbol of Irishness.[1254] Although the politicians’ demand of centralising saints’ days as ‘national’ holidays was strong and sustained since the end of the Second World War, each holiday only represented a regional identity other than a national one which led the centralisation always go to a dead end.
Besides, other politicians suggested using the Union Jack on saints’ days in the post-war period to indicate the integration of diverse symbols of a multi-national entity’s past. Although the regional practices achieved this goal, it had not been approved in the heart of the United Kingdom. For example, the parliament resisted using saints’ flags with the Union Jack on London’s buildings while local celebrations of St. Andrew’s Day, St. David’s Day and St. George’s Day failed to gain governmental supports but waved the Union Jack or their own flag.[1255] Even some buildings of the local governments had gained the central government’s permission to wave these flags on saints’ days, their headquarters in London were not allowed.[1256]
After 1968, although some politicians felt exhausted with recognising saints’ days, debate over their use remained heated in the public arena, which implied the separation of the centralisation of a new national holiday and the practices in the regional level or for regional issues.[1257] From the 1970s, mention of St. David’s Day and St. Andrew’s Day in parliament increasing dramatically, which indicated the growing nationalism in Wales and Scotland. Political elites believed these days were the ‘proper time’ to suggest the bills and affairs related to regional interests such as social welfare, health care, racial relations, which competed with ‘nationalism’.[1258] When Enoch Powell delivered several of his speeches on immigration, as noted above, he chose St. George’s Day, the icon of Englishness, as the occasion to defend this identity.[1259] St. David’s Day became a specialised occasion for discussion of Welsh affairs, Welsh referendum and the date for a referendum.[1260] St. Andrew’s Day was used in a similar way to discuss Scottish Affairs in the 1990s.[1261]
Utilising the meaning and symbolic values of saints’ days did not result in officially recognising them as national or public holidays. After the failure of declaring St. George’s Day as a national holiday in 1973, a new suggestion of replacing the May Day Bank Holiday by St. George’s Day emerged in 1977, although the tradition of the May Day Bank Holiday was successfully preserved after this challenge.[1262] In this case, traditional holidays such as May Day became ‘an appropriate English festival rather than one of doubtful political and foreign connotation. Patriotism should not be confused with nationalism which may be summed up as: our country, right or wrong’.[1263] It showed that an invention, created in the middle-age, was better than the modern invention to protect ‘national’ heritage; English religious heritage hence kept its significance by resisting the combination with labour movements.[1264] May Day’s counterparts in Wales and Scotland used the same reason to protect the uniqueness of their own holidays.[1265] Welsh members once suggested St. David’s Day as a ‘Red Letter Day’ to highlight Welshness in 1971, which caused Westminster’s worries.[1266]
After the 1970s, British politicians noticed the multicultural and multi-racial activities of internationally celebrated St. Patrick’s Day, which motivated them to appeal a multicultural education in the United Kingdom.[1267] Such inspiration attempted to use saint’s day in supporting new national policies for social integration. As the Irish government controlled the St. Patrick’s Day parade in Northern Ireland in the mid-1980s, which took this holiday as a cross-Atlantic stage for presenting Irish nationalism, it caused the crisis and critiques between Ireland and the United Kingdom.[1268] As different sense of belongings competed on varied Saints’ days, it showed regional identities were not compatible to each other within a multi-national state.
Ward noticed that the Labour government following the 1997 election had ‘a more flexible attitude to national identity than any since the pluralist Liberal governments of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. That British pluralism emerges at the same time as demands for change accounts for the ability of Britishness to adapt to changing circumstances’.[1269] He asserted, the British
people have been actively engaged in the construction of British national identity, and that this too has made Britishness a resilient force majority of people do adopt national identities (even though these are historical constructions they are no less real) […] and an open and inclusive version of Britishness […] not only welcomed diversity but was constituted of that diversity than […] the emergence of a racialised Englishness in response to the break-up of the United Kingdom.[1270]
Saints’ days thus met politicians’ desires of nationalising symbols of the nation after they had played active roles in the political discourse for about three decades. A single motion to change some saints’ days as bank holidays once appeared in 1977 and returned in 1999.[1271] Although St. Patrick’s Day had already been recognised as an Irish ‘national holiday’, its rituals and ceremonies were not centralised while members of parliament respected waving the Union Jack in Northern Ireland on St. Patrick’s Day as an ‘appropriate’ practice.[1272]
Joint use of various national symbols on different saints’ days sent out the signal that the reconstruction of national representations began from the upper level of politics. In the 2000s, voices on designating new Bank Holidays by recognising saints’ days or other secular holidays were getting louder in the political domain, which intended to create a new holiday combining commemorative and recreational functions.[1273] From the politicians’ point of view, extending saints’ days’ celebrations could expand the cultural influence of the nation outside of the Commonwealth and add Britishness to the sense of belonging to Europe.[1274] Even so, the British government did not distribute financial support to these celebrations even in Queen Elizabeth II’s Golden Jubilee year, when the government paid an expensive bill for the celebrations.[1275] Politicians believed celebrating the Jubilee year was for praising the ‘United’ Kingdom, not individual countries. Saints’ days and the state only connected with each other through flying the Union Jack on government buildings when holidays arrived, which declared the four parts belonged to the United Kingdom.[1276]
The Westminster parliament’s refusal to recognise any new saints’ days as ‘national’ holidays in the past century affected regional parliaments’ different reactions. It stimulated the Scottish parliament to declare St. Andrew’s Day as a ‘national’ holiday in Scotland, in 2007.[1277] Although picking up St. Andrew’s Day was a controversial choice as it has several counterparts in Scotland such as Burns’ night, this legislative recognition enhanced the ‘political’ feature of saint’s day and Scottish nationalism.[1278] David McCrone estimated that the diversity of ‘doing Scottish’ was the surface of Scottish affairs; economic and commercial factors behind the national identity and representation were the key part.[1279] Compared to the celebrations and arrangements of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day in Canada, St. Andrew’s Day neither has a counterpart in the national level nor has specialised organisation for celebrations. Its lack ‘other’ and a well-developed narrative of the myth leave the latest Scottish ‘national’ holiday in a mist forest and made ‘Britishness’ a complicated concept with an unidentified and diverse Scottish identity, representations and discourses. Besides, St. Patrick’s Day experienced a bitter history of the changing Irish-Anglo relationship after 1945, and Westminster did not permit the waving for the Union Jack on government buildings in London on that day.
Although the other two counterparts to St. Andrew’s Day had not gained the status of ‘national holiday’, idea of designating a ‘British Day’ was emerging. Then Chancellor of Exchequer Gordon Brown respected the ‘7 July London attacks’ – the landmark of the unsuccessfulness of immigrants’ integration into the British society – in his speech in early 2006 by appealing to Labour supporters to ‘embrace the Union flag’, the symbol of tolerance and inclusion, to promote the social cohesion and the unity of the nation.[1280] Brown questioned the British equivalent to Independence Day of the United States to wave the Union Jack, although there had been numerous and significant days in the United Kingdom were supposed to wave it.[1281] Before he took over as Prime Minister, Brown suggested creating a new ‘British Day’ during his term of office to ‘aid patriotism’ by celebrating ‘traditional national values and the best of home-grown culture’ on the new national holiday, though it did not achieve any legislative recognition in the Westminster Parliament in 2008.[1282]
This failure indicated that politicians’ intention of cohering multi-national identities conflicted with the tradition of diversely celebrating unpolitical holidays. Which date is the best choice for a ‘British Day’ remained an unsolved question in the related debates after 2008.[1283] British Day, a hypothetical symbol of the nation, did not stem from any unique past or existing rituals of the nation, which separated it from the support of the politicians. Its failure also showed that the government of the United Kingdom has less concern on recognising the minority groups through the designation of a new holiday, which also implied the respect to the multi-national origin of the nation.
Above discussions showed the lack of ideological base of social integration in the United Kingdom influenced the feature of its national holidays. Although the categories of these holidays are not the same to the Canadian and French ones, analysing the interaction of their commemorative and recreational functions indicates the role of multi-national origin of the state plays in creating instruments for nation-building.
The multi-national origin of the United Kingdom was first shown in the proclamation of the Bank Holidays Act 1871, which included the regional differences within the nation in integrating heritages of ‘Saint Monday’ and saints’ days. Other newly created civic holidays such as May Day, Empire Day and Armistice Day, as well as regularised ceremony for the official birthday of the monarch amplified the then most significant ideology in the nation, imperialism, not an actual equivalent to a ‘national’ ideology. Although civic holidays failed to be named as ‘Bank Holidays’ or ‘national holidays’, their local activities changed with the political context with the efforts of the organisers to attract more participation. Moreover, they were neither on the exact date of the historical events or facts they commemorated nor created a new holiday on the calendar.
From the end of the Second World War, challenges to the British Empire withdrew the imperialism from Britishness, which led existing national holidays into crisis and potential transformation, although no changes happened in legislation. Numerous immigrants poured into the United Kingdom from the 1960s and afterwards added diverse cultures to the society. Although political elites increasingly focussed on using the symbolic values of saints’ days as their instrument in promoting regional welfare and social integration in the new circumstance, efforts on lifting the legislative status of saints’ days failed again and again; other attempts of creating new national holidays to respect the multiethnic condition of the national failed either. These failures showed a nation with the intention of constructing a cohesive multicultural society lacked ideological support to fulfil the connotation of national holidays. The cooperation of the commemorative and recreational functions of holidays in the United Kingdom keeps its own way, which is not the result of centralisation, also indicates the absence of a clarified and well-built national ideology might lift the difficulties of designating a ‘national’ holiday in the past and the present.
Conclusion
After elaborating the vital role of a changing national ideology in creating and altering the Canadian national holidays, this chapter provided their counterparts in France and the United Kingdom which both have different status of national ideology to Canada. This comparison aims at analysing how the national ideology influenced the features and creations of national holidays to contextualise the discussions in the previous chapters. It also tries to show that exploring the commemorative and recreational functions of national holidays is helpful to clarify the national ideologies or the features of each nation as the guideline for social integration or nation-building.
Constructing instruments for nation-building such as designating national holidays was practiced by Canada, France and the United Kingdom as a means to promote a national identity which was conform to the prevailing national ideology since the late nineteenth century, even if the ideology was somewhat confused in the United Kingdom in promoting tolerance and social integration. After the three nations encountered changing political context after the mid-twentieth century, their existing national ideologies and national identities were challenged or changed with the efforts of the governments and the public. Removing the heritage of the previous Empires, the result of decolonisation and the breakup of Empire, was the key issue to deal with. Meanwhile, immigrants’ increasingly vociferous desire of social integration and the growing claims of the ethnic and sub-national groups all motivated the transformation of the ideological context of each of the nation. Besides, as a part of an international community which (institutionally and in rhetoric) promoted the value of ‘aboriginal’ peoples, and the value of minority and ‘all’ cultures, in particular non-white ones, three nations revised their public policies and national ideology to follow the international trend.
All these factors above were played out slightly differently and challenged prevailing concepts of the nation and national identity in three nations. According to the reviews of their changing political philosophies for social integration, replacing the assimilative model by a more tolerant one was their shared approach. Regarding their practices, three nations took their own ways. The French narrative of social integration refined and reasserted a modified version of republicanism which nevertheless remained focused on a central set of core values and promoted assimilation. The one of the United Kingdom created a regime of semi-diversity and tolerance, which tried still to affirm some core central values through the flag and the monarchy, the most polysemic of the national symbols. Canada, as discussed in Chapter Three, experienced a genuine shift towards a multicultural identity. In short, varied nations’ reaction to the changing political context and the challenges after the end of the Second World War was not a given, and the wider trends can be seen and understood through the centralisation of national holidays.
As this chapter discussed, the national ideology of France, Republicanism, sustained from the Third Republic to date, with altering narrative and interpretation in the post-1960s by naming this strong and clear national ideology as the ‘French melting-pot’ as a generalised and dominant discourse of national ideology. This relatively stable ideology maintained the value and connotation of French national holidays from the top of the politics. Bastille Day, the creation appeared when Republicanism was becoming the national ideology, maintained its symbolic value as the representation of France, although some scholars had noticed the potential festivalisation of this holiday could harm its significance in commemoration and motivating national identity. Other national holidays with political features such as May Day and Armistice Day did not show as much Republicanism as Bastille Day in the post-war period, and still contained and presented Frenchness like other religious holidays in France. A stable national ideology could not stimulate the alteration of its instrument for nation-building. Except for analysing the national holidays embedded in a changing ideological context, the complicated role of national ideology in producing national symbols could be understood. Besides, the festivalisation of French national holidays implies the recreational function of national holidays gradually surpasses (at least tends to surpass) the commemorative one is one of the consequence of the cooperation of two basic functions, which indicates their dialectic relationship in the practices.
The absence of a clear and defined national ideology in the United Kingdom provided another possibility for its role in creating national holidays. Owing to its multi-national past and heritage, the initial holidays with civic approval presented the regional differences in the list of Bank Holidays. The Westminster parliament also has not defined any of these saints’ days as a national holiday after politicians’ century-long attempts on this matter. Other holidays such as May Day and Empire Day, once promoted the imperialism in the first half of the twentieth century, have not been centralised as a ‘national’ holiday with a day of rest on the exact date of certain holiday. Public holidays in the United Kingdom thus are not recognised as a ‘national’ holiday or attached with a specific historical event of the nation, and holidays with civic features fail to gain an extra day off work to highlight their value in commemoration.
The reason of why holidays in the United Kingdom do not joint the commemorative and recreational functions in the same centralisation of those in Canada and France is related to the lack of a defined and clarified national ideology. Events of the holidays in the local level always preserved the regional features and failed to be centralised or nationalised via a bottom-up approach. Failure of recognising existing saints’ days or a ‘British Day’ in the post-1970s in the centre of politics was a collective consequence of the reason above.
In short, this comparison study of the national holidays and ideologies in France and the United Kingdom demonstrates that national ideologies affect the shaping and revising of the instruments for nation-building by promoting the ideological sources. Probing the interactions and relationships of the commemorative and recreational functions of holidays in these two nations implies that the dialectic and dynamic interactions of the functions of national holidays indicates the ideological background of target nations.
Chapter Seven: Conclusion
The construction and reconstruction of national holidays are examples of exactly what Eric Hobsbawm described as ‘inventions of tradition’ in 1983. This worldwide process of invention reflected each national ideology via commemorative and recreational events to motivate the participants’ sense of belonging to certain political communities, centred around an historical moment, person or an existing holiday by making it a ‘national’ symbol. Varied national holidays have different origins, ideologies, rituals and connotations owing to their diverse prototypes, political, social and ideological contexts, traditions, as well as the people or communities which desire to dominate the political landscape. Nations themselves can be constructed in more than one model: culturally homogenous or multicultural pluralist; and a national holiday is an effective lens to analyse nation-building and review the underlying methods between different national ideologies over a long period of time. This dissertation has explored the variability and complexity of national holidays by examining several essential dimensions of them – including origin, ritual, ideology, legitimacy and change – with reference to Canada between 1867 and the early 2000s. It has shown that a national holiday is more than a political token but an arena which reveals national and ideological characteristics and their evolution over time. This chapter will summarise that study of Canadian national holidays, drawing conclusions in terms of chronology, ideology and functionality as an instrument for nation-building.
Hobsbawm’s ground-breaking study of the invention of traditions argued that most of the nations designated their national holidays between 1870 and 1914, a crucial period when modernisation and dramatic social changes were bound up with nation-building. As a continuous and dynamic process, nation-building was sustained in many nations after 1914, adapting to changing circumstances caused by the wars, decolonisation and increasing migration in the post-war period (among a host of factors). The three phases of Canadian nation-building – assimilation, transformation and multiculturalism – revealed through this study of the construction and reconstruction of national holidays cover a longer chronology than Hobsbawm’s work. The first phase of Canadian nation-building extended from Confederation to the end of the Second World War in which the creation of national holidays was primarily a top-down process drawing upon an ideal of a culturally homogenous nation (albeit with two languages) to which individuals could assimilate, underpinned by a joint Dominion-Empire sense of belonging for Canadians. After Canada became increasingly detached from the British Empire from the mid-1940s, the federal government sought to rebuild a national identity without (or at least downplaying) the previous sense of belonging to the Empire as an integral part of Canadianness, as revealed by the debates and changes to Canadian national holidays in the second phase of nation-building. When the federal government declared Official Multiculturalism in 1971, it opened what this dissertation has identified as the third phase of nation-building which was characterised as redefining national identity in such a way as to give its multicultural and bilingual status a more central place in the national mythology. In this phase, Canadian national holidays were constructed and reconstructed according to the ideas not only of politicians and the government, but also the public, emphasising the cultural dimension of holidays.
Although very recent studies have started to reveal the variability and complexity of individual national holidays through analysing their changes from the early twentieth century, they were just the tip of the iceberg.[1284] This comprehensive and long-term examination of different Canadian national holidays also makes a reference to its counterparts worldwide with a more than century-long time-span to show the complexity of national holidays as a category of civic holidays across this period. Decolonisation and increasing immigration after the end of the Second World War caused a crisis for all nations which had a colonial Empire as an important element of their national identity (or which had themselves been colonies, like Canada). Canada experienced a shift away from a central and assimilative approach for promoting a unified Dominion-Empire identity, to a diverse and multicultural one recognising ethnic rights, and minority cultures as a fundamental part of the Canadian nation. In the dialogues in parliament, the print media, among lobby groups, ethnic communities and provincial governments, this study has shown that this ideological change was not merely lip service but deeply rooted in the political class and among the public. As we have seen, when France and the United Kingdom faced the same crisis, noises of redefining the policies for nation-building also arose, but no ideological shifts really happened in their dealing with the crisis.
The debates surrounding national holidays reflected the interpretation and effectiveness of national ideology in each of the three phases of nation-building. In the first phase, such debates clarified the homogeneity of the Dominion-Empire identity and promoted the construction of the narrative of the national myth. When the assimilative national ideology started to change after the mid-1945, debates around national holidays helped to signify the connotation of the new national ideology. After the ideological change in the early 1970s, these debates became the arena where politicians evaluated and criticised Official Multiculturalism, revealing the level of acceptance and rejection of the new holidays, and the new concept and the vision of the Canadian nation. In each case, national ideology created and was reflected in the construction of national holidays.
In the sense of the function of a national holiday, this dissertation differentiated between the civic and political features of national holidays, called the ‘commemorative’ function and the ethnic and leisure features, called the ‘recreational’ function. These two functions can have a cooperative or competitive relationship. In some cases, the recreational function expanded the participation in commemorative events of a national holiday contributing to awareness of and identification with the intended ideological aims, while others showed how participants reused the recreational function for celebrating a competitively ideological counterpart to the national holiday.[1285]
In the first phase of nation-building in Canada, politicians mainly asserted the commemorative significance of national holidays as the reason to take a day off work for commemoration. What the legal approval of a national holiday could actually guarantee however is the recreational, not the commemorative function of a national holiday, in the sense that people could be given a day off, but that did not mean they identified with the symbolism the politicians intended on that particular day. This meant that participants could even use national holidays to develop competitive and politicised counterparts to the national holidays such as Chinese Humiliation Day and la fête de Dollard. If the cooperation was not first practiced, the competition would not emerge and left national holidays a weak symbol for motivating national identity, which explained the difficulty of designating a unified British Day or recognising a saint’s day as a national holiday in the United Kingdom, where leaders had to work harder to get their vision accepted. In other words, cooperation and competition of the commemorative and recreational functions of national holidays in Canada clarified that these functions were linked and transferred in different stages of practices for the national identity.
The dialectic relationship between the two functions of national holidays also connected to their ideological context in Canada: assimilative or multicultural. Although both French and Canadian national holidays were celebrated enthusiastically after the end of the Second World War, reasons varied. As Official Multiculturalism emphasised the cultural dimension of holidays, the recreational function of Canadian national holidays expanded after the 1970s and gradually surpassed the commemorative one with the support of politicians and the claims of the public. In the French case, by comparison, we have seen that the lack of an alternative ideology to contrast with Republicanism led to the absence of debates around the national holidays. This contrasts with the Canadian case where, in the first phase of nation-building, counterparts with a different ideological root such as Empire Day and Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day motivated the development and consolidation of the commemorative function of national holidays for an assimilative national ideology. The lack of an ideological alternative in France, on the contrary, failed to motivate the public, politicians or government to enrich and enhance the commemorative aspect of national holidays after the creation and thus the events turned to the festivalisation.
The process of constructing and reconstructing a national holiday can follow more than one pattern. The invention of traditions was mainly a top-down process driven by assimilative nation-building which tended to promote a single identity conceived at the top. Although the participants revised the rituals to integrate them into local practices and traditions, they did not necessarily join the centralisation process or identify with the national symbolism behind the holiday. In the United Kingdom, public holidays were only a simple declaration of the government; in France, the recognition of civic holidays was a result of political negotiation in some cases while the negotiation ended after the proclamation of a new holiday. In Canada, this long-term process was influenced by the ideas in the centre of politics to define the nation, and those in the public and print media in the first phase of nation-building, in dialogue with their counterparts in the centre. The parliamentary debates, governmental documents and correspondence as well as national, regional and minority print media examined here demonstrated how the views of the public came to be taken increasingly seriously as this evolved. The continued negotiation at all levels of politics to create or change each Canadian national holiday contained elements of top-down and bottom-up nation-building. Public opinion played a progressively more important role in the process and became a source of legitimacy for constructing and reconstructing national holidays after the mid-1940s. Some Canadians asked for more recreational events while others constructed new historical narratives for commemorating ethnic groups’ contribution in nation-building. The new ideological context of Canada after 1971 further endorsed the feedback of the minority groups as the fundamental basis of creating a new national holiday with recreational celebrations. Events of Canadian national holidays, especially those of the grand anniversaries such as the Diamond Jubilee, cooperated with other instruments and associations or invented new symbols for nation-building to further specify their commemorative meaning. In this process, varied religious, political or patriotic associations nationwide and worldwide, which arranged these events, selected certain symbols for cooperation, and thus reflected the public’s view of the national ideology. In other words, Canadian national holidays clarified that despite party politics (or views from the centre of politics) influencing the result of centralising a national holiday, the feedback of the participants, the historical roots of each holiday, and the ideology of the government all contributed to the final result: a national ideology of recognising the minority rights paid extra attention to the public’s responses to the national holidays.
The analysis of national holidays advanced here as an approach to explore the character of Canadian nation-building, its national ideology and instruments, has shown that nation-building was not merely a top-down and stable approach but a two-way, dynamic and changing process, which actively responded to the changing political and social context. The ritual of national holidays is a reflection of the national ideology, which is not merely a given from the top but enriched by the practices and reaction of the wider public.
Appendix: Chronology
|Year |Leading Party |Codes/ Acts/Bills |Events |
|1639 |None | |First celebration of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day in Québec as a religious holiday. |
|1694 |None | |Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day was declared as a day off in Québec by the Bishop of Québec. |
|1834 |None | |Ludger Duvernay established the first association to arrange events of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day in Québec. |
|1843 |None | |After several years pause, the celebration of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day was restarted in this year with the founding of the SSJB. |
|1845 |None |Statutes 8 Victoria Ch. 4 |First celebration of Queen Victoria’s birthday in Ontario and Victoria on 24 May. |
|1866 |None | |London Conference for Confederation, which chose Dominion of Canada as the name of the new political entity. |
|1867 |Conservative |British North America Act |On 1 July, Canadian Confederation (including Ontario, Québec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia) was established. |
|1868 |Conservative | |Celebration of 1 July as the birthday of Canada without official name in Ontario and New Brunswick. |
|1869 |Conservative |Bill No. 77 |Liberal-Conservative member Joseph Keerler and Liberal member Thomas David McConkey moved the first and second readings of this bill to the |
| | | |parliament to name Dominion Day as a legal holiday on 22 April and 3 May. The bill failed in the second reading in 1869 for the rejections of|
| | | |members for Nova Scotia on 10 May. |
| | |The Enfranchisement Act |This legislation aimed at assimilating aboriginal Canadians. |
|1870 |Conservative | |The aboriginal people in Québec organised the Indian Festival of Sports on Dominion Day as part of the national celebration. |
| | |Order of Her Majesty in Council |On 15 July, The Northwest Territories joined the Confederation as a territory. |
| | |admitting Rupert's Land and the | |
| | |North-Western Territory into the | |
| | |Union, June 23, 1870 | |
| | |Manitoba Act, 1870 |On 15 July, Manitoba became a province of the Confederation. |
|1871 |Conservative | |The Québec government recognised Dominion Day as a voluntary holiday. |
| | |Order of Her Majesty in Council |On 20 July, British Columbia joined the Confederation as a province. |
| | |Admitting British Columbia into the | |
| | |Union, 1871 | |
|1872 |Conservative | |Initial events of Labour Day in Canada, which was organised by the Trades and Labour Council and Knights of Labour in late July. |
|1873 |Liberal |Order of Her Majesty in Council |On 1 July, Prince Edward Island joined the Confederation as a province. |
| | |admitting Prince Edward Island into | |
| | |the Union, 1873 | |
|1879 |Conservative |Bill No. 57 and 77. |Conservative members James Domville (Bill No. 57) and James Cockburn (Bill No. 77) submitted different bills to ask for a public holiday in |
| | |Dominion Day Act, 1879 |early July. Bill No. 77 was approved by the parliament and was renamed as the Dominion Day Act, 1879. Dominion Day thus became a legislative |
| | | |holiday. |
|1880 |Conservative | |Events of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day were extended to the Francophone Northern America and Anglophone Canada. The first performance of ‘O |
| | | |Canada’ in French. |
|1885 |Conservative | |Imperial Force Canada with Queen’s authorisation joined the celebration of Dominion Day in Canada. |
| | | |The Canadian parliament decided to adjourn on the monarchy’s birthday. |
|1886 |Conservative | |May Day was declared as a day for labours to celebrate in the United States. |
|1890 |Conservative | |Local governments of Canada decided to establish Labour Day in September. |
|1894 |Conservative | |A bill was passed by the Canadian parliament and the United States on 18 August which officially set the first Monday of September as Labour |
| | | |Day. |
|1897 |Liberal | |On 8 February, Nova Scotia House of Assembly passed the bill to recognise Dominion Day in this province. |
| | |An Act to Commemorate the Reign of Her|Member of Senate William John Macdonald of British Columbia claimed for the creation of Victoria on 24 May. |
| | |Majesty Queen Victoria by Making Her | |
| | |Birthday a Holiday For Ever | |
| | | |Mrs Clementine Fessenden started to ask the schools in Ontario to arrange events for children to learn the past of the Empire and named it as|
| | | |‘Empire Day’. |
| | | |Diamond Jubilee celebrations of Queen Victoria on 24 May. Conservative Senator William John MacDonald tabled a bill to recognise 24 May as a |
| | | |public holiday in Canada. |
|1898 |Liberal |Yukon Territory Act, 1898 |On 13 June, Yukon became a territory of the Confederation. |
| | | |George W. Ross, member of Dominion Teachers’ Association claimed to establish Empire Day on 24 May to help students know more about the |
| | | |Empire in early August. |
|1901 |Liberal |Bill No. 33 |Victoria Day was created on 24 May by the motion of Liberal member Edward Henry Horsey and became a public holiday, which is different to |
| | | |Empire Day that was only a day for students to commemorate the Empire and Queen Victoria. An independent Act recognised Victoria Day was |
| | | |published in 1906. |
|1905 |Liberal |Alberta Act, 1905, Saskatchewan Act, |On 1 September, Alberta and Saskatchewan joined the Confederation as provinces. |
| | |1905 | |
|1917 |Conservative | |Golden Jubilee of Confederation. First performance of ‘O Canada’ in English. |
| | | |The 275th anniversary of Montréal’s establishment. Parades were held on Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. |
|1918 |Conservative; Unionist | |The Newfoundland government started to celebrate Dominion Day on 1 July as one of the British dominions but only took it as a public holiday |
| | | |and arranged ceremonies to commemorate fallen soldiers for the province in 1916. |
| | | |Armistice Day ceremonies were held on 11 November which was the pre-commemorated event of the First World War before the creation of |
| | | |Remembrance Day. |
|1919 |Conservative; Unionist | |The first organised event of la fête de Dollard held in Montréal as the counter-creation to Victoria Day. |
| | |Armistice Day Act, 1919 |The ceremonies of Armistice Day were combined with Thanksgiving Day from this year by the idea of Laurier Liberal member Isaac Ellis Pedlow. |
| | | |This Act was first numbered as Bill No. 2, called Thanksgiving Day Act. |
| | | |Two minutes’ silence of this event was suggested by King George V on 7 November. |
|1920 |Conservative; Unionist | |La fête de Dollard was claimed by Lionel-Adolphe Groulx as a national holiday in Québec to commemorate Adam Dollard des Ormeaus in Québec. |
|1921 |National Liberal and |Armistice Day Act, 1921 |Proclamation of Armistice Day as a day off work by this Act on 11 November. It was attached with Thanksgiving Day in this act. |
| |Conservative | | |
| | | |Poppy appeal first appeared in Canada. |
|1922 |Liberal | |Official acceptance of two minutes’ silence for Armistice Day was declared by Governor General of Canada on 30 October. |
|1923 |Liberal |The Chinese Immigration Act |This restrictive act motivated the Chinese immigrants to designate Chinese Humiliation Day as the counter-creation to Dominion Day. |
|1925 |Liberal |Labour Code, 1925 |Provincial legislation in Québec which declared Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day as a public holiday. |
|1927 |Liberal |Diamond Jubilee of Confederation Act, |Diamond Jubilee of Confederation. The celebration in Ottawa was broadcasted via radio nationwide. |
| | |1927 | |
| | |Indian Act |A revised Indian Act was enforced in this year to restricted the rights of the First Nations which encouraged the expanding celebrations of |
| | | |American Indian Day in Canada |
|1931 |Conservative |Armistice Day Act, 1931 |Official proclamation of Remembrance Day as the name of commemorative ceremonies on 11 November. Armistice Day was only signified the 11 |
| | | |November 1918. |
| | |Statute of Westminster, 1931 |Canada became one of the self-governing dominions of the British Empire on 11 December. |
|1938 |Conservative | |Conservative member Gordon Graydon suggested the parliament to move the date of Victoria Day to a fixed Monday. |
|1939 |Liberal | |The first combined celebration of Dominion Day and Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day in Québec. |
|1944 |Liberal | |Officers of British Empire decided to cancel the annual message for Dominion Day celebration on 5 August. |
|1946 |Liberal |Bill No. 8 |Liberal member Antoine-Philéas Côté moved this bill to rename Dominion Day as Canada Day, which was failed in the Senate. |
| | | |Officers of Canadian government asked the permission of Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to change the name ‘Dominion Day’ to ‘Canada |
| | | |Day’ on 16 August. |
|1947 |Liberal | |Commonwealth Day replaced Victoria Day and Empire Day on 24 May. |
| | | |The abolishment of the Chinese Immigration Act 1923. |
|1949 |Liberal |Newfoundland Act, 1949 |On 31 March, Newfoundland and Labrador joined the Confederation as a province, and the boundary of the nation fixed afterwards. |
|1951 |Liberal |Bill No. 2 |Liberal member John Lorne MacDougall moved this bill to the parliament intended to move Dominion Day and Victoria Day to fixed Mondays. |
|1952 |Liberal |Holidays Act, 1952 |The third reading of Bill No. 2 passed in the parliament which changed the date of Victoria Day to a fixed Monday while Dominion Day was kept|
| | | |on 1 July. |
|1958 |Progressive Conservative| |The Quiet Revolution started in Québec. |
|1959 |Progressive Conservative| |Commonwealth Day became of substitution of Empire Day in the celebration of this year while Victoria Day was maintained in Canada. |
|1960 |Progressive Conservative|Canadian Bill of Rights |The proclamation of Canadian Bill of Rights on 10 August which provided Canada quasi-constitutional rights. |
|1963 |Liberal | |The establishment of the RCBB by the Liberal government. |
| | |Holidays Act, 1963 |Recognised Remembrance Day as a public holiday to attract more participants. |
|1964 |Liberal | |Anti-Victoria Day demonstration was held in Québec on 24 May which celebrated Fete de Dollard instead. |
|1965 |Liberal |Bill C-6 |Liberal member Jean Chrétien moved this bill to rename Dominion Day as Canada Day which was the beginning of this renaming progress after the|
| | | |enforcement of the Holidays Act, 1952. |
|1967 |Liberal | |The Centennial celebration of Canada. Suggestion of designating National India Day was moved to the parliament and was failed in the end. |
|1968 |Liberal | |The Parti Québécois was established in Québec by René Lévesque. |
|1969 |Liberal |Official Language Act, 1969 |Declared both English and French as official languages in Canada by the federal government. |
|1971 |Liberal | |Pierre Trudeau declared the ‘Announcement of Implementation of Policy of Multiculturalism within Bilingual Framework’. The Quiet Revolution |
| | | |in Québec was fading. |
|1974 |Liberal |Official Language Act, 1974 |This provincial legislation in Québec only regarded French as the official language in this province. |
| | |Bill C-231 |Liberal member Harold Thomas Herbert moved his first bill on renaming Dominion Day after 1971. |
|1977 |Liberal | |The federal government arranged ‘Canada Week’ and later ‘Festival Canada’ to expand the recreational celebrations of Dominion Day. |
|1978 |Liberal |National Holiday Act, 1978 |Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day became the official national holiday in Québec and called la fête nationale du Québec. |
|1979 |Liberal | |Second wave of legislative process for changing the name Dominion Day to Canada Day in the House of Commons in March. |
|1982 |Liberal |Constitution Act 1982 |The act mentioned that promoting multiculturalism is part of the constitutional development of Canada which was declared on 17 April. |
| | | |The AFN replaced the National Indian Brotherhood as the largest aboriginal lobby group in Canada. |
| | |Bill C-201 |House of Commons passed the name-change bill of Dominion Day on 9 July. |
| | | |Québec Governor-in-Council decided to create la journée nationale des patriotes on the Sunday closest to 23 November on 6 October 1982 to |
| | | |commemorate the battle of Saint-Danis of 1837 rebellions. |
| | |Canada Day Act |Senator passed the Bill C-201 on 25 October. |
| | |Standing Order 43 |This Order proclaimed that the House of Commons should adjourn on Dominion Day. |
|1984 |Liberal | |Le Mouvement national des Québécoise et Québécois started to organise the celebration of fete national du Québec by the agreement with Québec|
| | | |government on 7 April. |
|1985 |Progressive Conservative|Canadian Multiculturalism Act, 1985 |First multiculturalism act in Canada, which was proclaimed on 21 July 1988. |
| | |Holidays Act, 1985 |Confirmed Canada Day, Remembrance Day and Victoria Day are three most important national holidays. |
|1987 |Progressive Conservative|Meech Lake Accord |Namely the 1987 Constitutional Accord, mainly focussed on the autonomy of Québec. |
|1991 |Progressive Conservative|Bill C-268 |New Democratic member Nelson Andrew Riis moved this bill to establish Aboriginal Solidarity Day. |
| | |Bill C-289 |Liberal member Ronald MacDonald intended to remove Remembrance Day from the list of public holidays, which was failed in the parliament. |
|1992 |Progressive Conservative|Charlottetown Accord |Namely the 1992 Constitutional Accord, mainly focussed on the rights of the aboriginal Canadians. |
| | | |The establishment of RCAP by the federal government. |
|1996 |Liberal | |The Governor General of Canada declared 21 June as National Aboriginal Day of Canada on 23 May. |
|1999 |Liberal |Nunavut Act, 1999; Nunavut Land |On 1 April, Nunavut became a territory of the Confederation |
| | |Claims, 1999 | |
|2001 |Liberal | |Gilles Laporte criticised the date of la journée nationale des patriotes and suggested moving it to the date of la fête de Dollard. |
|2002 |Liberal | |Premier of Québec proclaimed la journée nationale des patriotes on 24 November to replace la fête de Dollard. |
| | | |Canadian Multiculturalism Day was declared by Deputy Registrar General of Canada on 4 December. |
Bibliography
Unpublished Primary Sources:
Library and Archive of Canada:
1903 Army Headquarters Central Registry:
‘Armistice Terms with Enemy Countries and Armistice Day as a Holiday, Boxes 442-444’, 1918-1937, RG24-C-1-a, v. 442 File Part 1, file no. HQ-54-21-1-161
The Canadian Government:
‘Ceremonies and Celebrations - July 1st 1978’, RG6 Box 29, no. 7215-78, part 1
‘Ceremonies and Celebrations - July 1st 1979’, RG6 Box 30, no. 7215-79, part 1
‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, 1967’, RG6, Box 26, file no. 7215-67
‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, Audit of the Canada Day Program’, RG6, Box 26, no. 7215-7 part 2
‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, Canada Day Committee’, RG6 Box 26 no. 7215-6 vol. 1 and 2
‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, celebration of nearest Monday’, RG6, Box 26, file no. 7215-4
‘Ceremonies and celebrations, July 1st, Changing title to Canada Day’, RG6, Box 24, file no. 7215-1
‘Ceremonies and celebrations, July 1st, Changing title to Canada Day’, RG6, Box 25, file no. 7215-3
‘Ceremonies and celebrations, July 1st, Changing title to Canada Day’, RG6, Box 26, file no. 7215-4
‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, Gallup Poll Survey’, RG6, Box 26, no. 7215-8, file no. Survey 1984
‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, General Enquires’, RG6, Box 26, file no. 7215-5
‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, General’, RG6 Box 24 no. 7215-1 part 3
‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, General’, RG6 Box 25 no. 7215-1 part 4-6, 9
‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, General’, RG6 Box 30 no. 7215-79, file part 3-4
‘Ceremonies and celebrations, July 1st, Retention of Title Dominion Day’, RG6, Box 25, file no. 7215-2, file 2
‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st,Verification du Programme - Fête du Canada’, RG6 Box 26 no. 7215-7 part 3
Canadian Labour Congress fonds:
‘A message for Labour Day’, 1939-1951, MG28-I-103, v. 277 file no.1939-1951
Labour Day Programme, 1939, MG28-I-103, v.277 file no. 1939
Canadian National Railway Company fonds:
‘Remembrance Day - Policy and general’, 1944-66, RG30-A-1-c v.13065, file no. 3000-X8
Department of Agriculture fonds:
A. R. MacDonald, Ottawa. ‘Askq. a holiday on Labour Day for Experimental farm employees’, 21&22 August 1893, Department of Agriculture, RG17 V.762, file no. 88352
Department of External Affairs fonds:
‘Celebration of Empire Day - May 24th - Change of name to Commonwealth Day – 1958’, RG25-G2, v. 4344, file part 1, file no. 11390-40
‘Colonial Office (United Kingdom) - Armistice Day’, RG25-B-1-b, v. 188, file no. C20/66
‘Dominion Day celebration at Tokyo Legation’, Department of External Affairs, 1929. RG25 V.1548 part 2, file no. 621
‘Dominion Day celebration’, Department of External Affairs, 1930, RG25 V.1573 no. 623
‘Privy Council Office (Canada) - Dominion Day Dinner – London’, 1915, RG25-B-1-b, v. 262 file no. P-3-74
‘Suspension of all work for two minutes on Armistice Day, 11th November’, RG25-A-3-a, v.1302, file no. 1921-1236
Booklet ‘Empire Day 1915’ for The King.1915, RG25-A-3-a, v.1164, file no. 1915-1307
Department of Finance fonds:
‘Act Respecting Canada Day’, 27 March 1946, RG19, v. 305 File Part 1, file no. 101-53-119
Department of Justice fonds:
‘Canadian Bankers’ Association - Montreal - If proclamation is necessary to make November 11, Remembrance Day, a legal holiday’, 1931/09-1931/11, RG13-A-2, v.360, file no. 1931-1530
‘Dominion Day - Cashier of Molsons Bank asks whether this is a legal holiday’, RG13-A-2 v.32 file no. 1311
‘Dominion Day - Prince Edward Island - Question as to whether it was a legal holiday in reference to Messrs. Cunards claim for interest’, RG13-A-2 v.37 file no. 816
‘Observance of Armistice Day - If Remembrance Day falls on Sunday should celebration be transferred to Monday - From the State Department’, 1932/05/12-1939/03/21, RG13-A-2 , v. 2223, file no. 1933-1298
‘Suggestion regarding Mr. Horsey’s bill regarding Victoria Day’, 1901, RG13-A-2, v.118, file no. 1901-279
Central Trades and Labour, ‘Can industries be compelled to close on Labour Day. Ste. Hyacinthe, Quebec, 1921’. RG13-A-2 v.261, file no. 1921-1748
Minister of Labour, ‘What recourse employees have against employer for refusal to grant a holiday on Labour Day’, 1909, RG13-A-2 V.1918, file no. 1171
Department of the Secretary of State of Canada fonds:
‘Hugh Atwell - Resolution - Requesting that in future Victoria Day be also designated as Flag Day’, RG6-A-1, v.149, file no. 894
Henry Hindley fonds:
‘Canada day Committee - Report, correspondence, contract and invoices re. preparation of written report on operations of the Committee’, MG30-E516, v.1 file no. 1977
Howard Willard Warner fonds:
‘Preparatory Material for the Centenary of Confederation - 1967’, MG30-D157 V.1 part 02 1966
John G. Diefenbaker fonds:
‘Correspondence’, Series IX, File No. IX-A-956-635-Dreaver, [accessed 20 March 2011]
Lester B. Pearson fonds:
‘Canada and the Commonwealth - Commonwealth day’, MG26-N3, v.266, file no. 810.7
‘Canadian History - National Status - Dominion Day’, MG26-N3, v.303, file no. 912.3
‘Canadian History - National Status - Dominion Day’, MG26-N4, v.271, file no. 912.3
‘Canadian History - National Status - Victoria Day’, MG26-N3, v. 305, file no. 912.8
Louis St. Laurent fonds:
‘Dominion Day - Mr. St-Laurent’s signature’, 1949-53, MG26-L, v. 95, file D-46, file no. 1949-53
‘Dominion Day’, MG26-L, v. 247 file no. 912.3
‘Empire Day’, MG26-L, v.49 file no. E-14, Sept. 14th - 1948-49.
‘Victoria Day – Opposing’, MG26-L, v.168, file no. v-11
Microfilm Reels:
‘Six Nations Agency - Correspondence Regarding Victoria Day celebrations on the Six Nations Reserve. 1882-1916’, MR C-11176, v. 2185, file no. 37415
Sir Wilfrid Laurier Correspondence, MR C-748, C-784, C-800, C-849, C-857, C-858, C-874, C-900, C-1171
W. L. M. King Memoranda and Notes Series, ‘Remembrance Day’, MR C-4279
William Lyon Mackenzie King’s Correspondence, MR C-2285, C-2305, C-2315, C-2721, C-3681, C-3688, C-3691, C-3694, C-3726, C-3729, C-3730, C-3734, C-3736, C-3737, C-3739, C-3750, C-3866, C-4567, C-4870, C-6809, C-6813, C-7038, C-7045, C-7046, C-7048, C-7049, C-7052, C-7054, C-7055, C-7059, C-7060, C-9170
Privy Council Office fonds:
‘National Status - Dominion Day - General - Prime Minister’s Signature’, RG2-B-2, v. 172, file part 1 and 2, file no. N-10-9
Royal Canadian Mounted Police fonds:
‘Labour Day 1893. To be observed as holiday by government’. North West Mounted Police, 1893. RG18-A-1, v.85. file no. 577
Secretary of State for the Provinces fonds:
‘Secretary of State for the Provinces - J.G. Scott, clerk, Executive Council, 26/26 June - In re proclaiming Dominion Day a holiday’, 1872, RG6-C-1 v.334 file no. 1278
William Lyon Mackenzie King fonds:
‘The Diaries of Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King’, MG26-J13. July 1, 1927. File No. 4883-4. [accessed 18 November 2010]
British Library (National Archives):
Colonial Office:
C.O. 26/2/186, and copy of HM M. 855 of 11th April 1885
ADM 1/8681/118, Dominion Day: Précis of correspondence in papers titled ‘Colonial Office, 26th February, 1885’, 2 March 1925
Dominion Office:
D.O. 35/1130, H532/46. Canada day, bill to appeal the Dominion Day Act and substitute a Canada Day Act, 1946’; ‘Empire Days, National Days etc. National Days of Allied Nations’, 16 August 1946
D.O. G578/66
Home Office (Cabinet Papers):
‘A Survey of Revolutionary Movements in Great Britain in the Year 1920’, January 1921, CAB/24/118
Appreciations of the Attached Western and General Report No. 75. 3 July 1918, CAB/24/151
‘Imperial Conference, 1926: Draft Report of Committee on Inter-Imperial Relations’, C. P. 390 (26) November 17th, 1926, File No. CAB/24/182
‘Report on Revolutionary Organisations in the United Kingdom’, CAB/24/79; CAB/24/104; CAB/24/136; CAB/24/160
Published Primary Sources:
Newspapers:
The Calgary Herald
The Chinatown News 《华埠》
The Chinese Times 《中国日报》
The Daily Mercury
Le Devoir
The Globe and Mail (The Globe, 1844 - 1936)
The Guelph Mercury
The Hamilton Spectator
The Montréal Gazette
The Ottawa Citizen
The Ottawa Journal
La Presse
The Record
The Recorder and Times
The Report Newsmagazine
Shing Wah Daily News 《醒华日报》
The Spectator
The Times (UK)
The Toronto Star
The Toronto Sun
La Tribune
Parliamentary Debates and Documents:
Daily Hansard, (UK, 2007-2010)
Hansard, 1805-2005, (UK)
House of Commons Debates, (Ottawa: Queen’s/King’s Printer, 1867-2010)
Journals of the House, (Ottawa, 29 November 1982)
Order-in-Council, No. 1178 (Ottawa: Unknown Publisher, June 12, 1890)
Québec National Assembly, « Journée nationale des peuples autochtones » , Journal des débats, 33/40 (17 June 1994)
Senator Debates, (Ottawa: Queen’s/King’s Printer, 1867-2010)
Sir Wilfrid Laurie, 5th Session, 8th Parliament, 63 Victoria, 19, No. 180, Bill: An act respecting and restricting Chinese Immigration, (Ottawa: S. E. Dawson, First Reading, 14 June 1900)
Legislation:
‘An Act Respecting Chinese Immigration’, in Department of Trade and Commerce, A Compilation of Statutes of the Dominion of Canada Relating in Whole or in Part to the Assignment of Duties to Officers of Customs (Ottawa: Government Print Bureau, 1893), pp. 15-19
An Act Respecting Immigration and Immigrants (Ottawa: S. E. Dawson, 1906)
An Act Respecting Immigration (Ottawa: C. H. Parmelee, 1910)
An Act Respecting Labour Standards, (R.S.Q. c. N-1.1) [accessed 28 November 2009]
‘The Alberta Act’, (4-5 Edward VII, c.3.), in W. P. M. Kennedy (ed.), Statutes, Treaties and Documents of the Canadian Constitution, 1713-1929 (2nd Edition, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1930), pp. 683-7
Bank Holiday Act Amendment: A Bill to Amend the Bank Holidays Act, 1871, and the Holidays Extension Act, 1875, and to Make Provision for An Additional Bank Holiday, to Be Called “Victoria Day” (London: House of Commons, 9 July 1901)
Bank Holidays Acts amendment. A Bill to Amend the Bank Holidays Act, 1871, and the Holidays Extension Act,1875, and to Make Provision for An Additional Bank Holiday, to Be Called “Empire Day” (London: House of Commons, 28 February 1902)
Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971, [accessed 15 May 2011]
Bill An Act Respecting Labour in Mines (Ottawa: S.E. Dawson, 1900)
Bill An Act Respecting and Restricting Chine[se] Immigration (Ottawa: S.E. Dawson, 1900)
Bills of Exchange and Holidays: A Bill to Make the Law Uniform as to the Time when Bills and Notes Falling Due upon Holidays Shall be Payable (London: The House of Commons, 8 June 1871)
Canada Labour Code (R.S., 1985, c. L-2), [access 9 September 2009]
Canadian Bill of Rights (S.C. 1960, c. 44, Assented to 1960-08-10), [accessed 15 August 2011]
Canadian Multiculturalism Act, 1988, [accessed 1 May 2009]
Canadian Multiculturalism Act, (1985, c. 24 (4th Supp.)) Department of Justice Canada, [accessed 1 May 2009]
‘The Chinese Immigration Act, 1923’, in 13-14 George V. Chap. 38 (Ottawa: F.A. Acland, 1923), pp. 301-15
Charlottetown Accord, [accessed 22 January 2010]
Clarkson, A., ‘Proclamation Declaring June 27 of Each Year as “Canadian Multiculturalism Day”’, [accessed 31 January 2010]
Code du travail, Article L3133-1, , et Article L3133-4, [accessed 5 June 2011]
The Constitution Act, 1867, (30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3. (U.K.), 29th March 1867), [accessed 10 September 2009]
The Constitution Act, 1982, Department of Justice Canada, [accessed 1 May 2009]
Convention of Beijing, 1860, [accessed 20 April 2011]
The Dominion Day Act, 1879, in Revised Statutes of Canada, 1886, Chapter III (Ottawa: B. Chamberlin, 1887)
Dominion Day Act, 1927, in The Revised Statutes of Canada 1927, Ch.49 (Ottawa: F.A. Acland, 1927)
Employment Standards Act, (R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. E-6.2), [accessed 22 September 2009]
Employment Standards Act, (S.N.W.T. 2007, c. 13), [accessed 25 September 2009]
Employment Standards Act, 2000, (S.O. 2000, c. 41), [accessed 22 September 2009]
Employment Standards Code, (C.C.S.M. c. E110), [accessed 22 September 2009]
Gouvernment du Québec, « Proclamation de la Journée des Patriotes » , No. 2300-82, 6 October 1982, [accessed 6 December 2009]
Government of Wales Act 1998, [accessed 5 July 2011]
Government of Wales Act 2006, [accessed 5 July 2011]
Holidays Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. H-5), [accessed 9 September 2009]
Indian Treaties and Surrenders, from 1680 to 1890 (2 vols., Ottawa: B. Chamberlin, 1891)
Indian Treaties and Surrenders, from no. 281 to no. 483 (3rd vol., Ottawa: C.H. Parmelee, 1912)
Interpretation Act, (C.C.S.M. c. I80), [accessed 22 September 2009]
Interpretation Act (R.S., 1985, c. I-21), [accessed 9 September 2009]
Interpretation Act, (R.S.N.L. 1990, c. I-19), [accessed 10 September 2009]
Interpretation Act, (R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 235), [accessed 10 September 2009]
Interpretation Act, (R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c. I-8), [accessed 25 September 2009]
Interpretation Act, (R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. I-8), [accessed 22 September 2009]
Interpretation Act, (R.S.Q. c. I-16), [accessed 22 September 2009]
Interpretation Act, (R.S.O. 1990, c. I.11), [accessed 22 September 2009].
Labour Standards Code (c. 32), [accessed 19 December 2011]
Labour Code, (R.S.Q. c. C-27), [accessed 22 September 2009]
Labour Standards Code, (R.S., c. 246, s. 1), [accessed 10 September 2009]
Les jours fériés,
[accessed 5 June 2011]
‘The Manitoba Act, 1870’, in W. P. M. Kennedy (ed.), Statutes, Treaties and Documents of the Canadian Constitution, 1713-1929 (2nd Edition, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1930), pp. 640-4
Manitoba Boundaries Extension Act, 1881, (44 Victoria, S.C. 1881, c. 14, Assented to 21st March 1881), [accessed 20 April 2010]
Meech Lake Accord, [accessed 22 January 2010]
National Holiday Act (R.S.Q. c. F-1.1, revised version on 8 June 2007), [accessed 10 September 2009]
Northern Ireland Act 1998, [accessed 5 July 2011]
Nunavut Act, (S.C. 1993, c. 28), [accessed 9 November 2009]
Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act, (S.C. 1993, c. 29), [accessed 9 November 2009]
Official Language Act, (Assented to 31st July 1974),
[accessed 25 August 2011]
‘Order of Her Majesty in Council Admitting British Columbia into the Union, 1871’, in W. P. M. Kennedy (ed.), Statutes, Treaties and Documents of the Canadian Constitution, 1713- 1929 (2nd Edition, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1930), pp. 658-9
‘Order of Her Majesty in Council Admitting Prince Edward Island into the Union, 1873’, in W. P. M. Kennedy (ed.), Statutes, Treaties and Documents of the Canadian Constitution, 1713- 1929 (2nd Edition, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1930), pp. 664-5
Public Services Resumption and Continuation Act, (S.N.L. 2004, c. P-44.1), [accessed 10 September 2009]
Race Relations Act, 1968, Chapter 71 (London: HMSO, 1968)
Race Relations Act, 1976, Chapter 74 (London: HMSO, 1976)
The Remembrance Day Act (C.C.S.M. c. R80), [accessed 20 February 2011]
‘The Saskatchewan Act, 1905’, (4-5 Edward VII, c.42.), in W. P. M. Kennedy (ed.), Statutes, Treaties and Documents of the Canadian Constitution, 1713-1929 (2nd Edition, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1930), pp. 687-91
Senator Bill, An Act to Commemorate the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria by Making Her Birthday a Holiday For Ever (Ottawa: S. E. Dawson, 1897)
Scotland Act 1998, [accessed 5 July 2011]
St. Andrew's Day Bank Holiday (Scotland) Act 2007, [accessed 15 May 2011]
Statute of Westminster, 1931 [22 GEO. 5. CH.4] (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1931)
Treaty of Nanjing, 1842, [accessed 20 April 2011]
‘Victoria Day Act’, The Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906 (2 vol., Ottawa: S. E. Dawson, 1906), p. 1787.
The Yukon Territory Act, 1898, (61 Victoria, c. 6 (Canada), Assented to 13th June, 1898), [accessed 20 April 2010]
Pamphlets, Reports, Sermons and Booklets
A Compilation of Statutes of the Dominion of Canada: Relating in Whole or in Part to the Assignment of Duties to Officers of Custom (Ottawa: The Customs Department, 1893)
Baxter, J. C., Dominion Day: A Sermon Preached in Stanley Street Church (Montréal: W. Drysdale, 1877)
Bourbeau-Rainville, Dollard des Ormeaux: Drame en vers en neuf tableaux (Montréal: Librairie Beauchemin Limiteé, 1911)
Chapman, W., Guide et Souvenir de la St-Jean-Baptiste (Montréal: The Post Printing and Publishing co., 1884)
Chartrand, P. et al., Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 6 vols. (Ottawa: Unknown Publisher, October 1996)
Chouinard, H. J. J. B., Fetê nationale des Canadiens;francais, célèbre à Québec en 1880: histoire discourse, rapports, statistiques, documents, messe, procession, banquet, convention (Québec: A Côte, 1881)
Congrès des métiers et du travail du Canada, Délibérations de la huitième session du Congrès des métiers et du travail du Canada : tenue à Toronto, Ont., jeudi, vendredi, lundi, mardi et mecredi, 8,9,12,13 et 14 septmebre 1892 (Toronto: l’autorisation du Congrès, 1892)
Dawson, A. M. (ed.), Dominion Day, Caractacus, Malcolm and Margaret (Ottawa: Free Press Office, 1886)
Diamond Jubilee of Confederation: General Suggestions for the Guidance of Committees in Charge of Local Celebrations (Ottawa: Government Printing Bureau, 1927)
Diamond Jubilee of Confederation: Programme of National Celebration at Ottawa, Dominion Day, Friday July 1st, 1927 (Ottawa: Unknown Publisher, 1927)
Dominion Day Celebration 1889 (Toronto: Unknown Publisher, 1889)
Doty, J., A Sermon Preached at the Opening of Christ’s Church at Sorel in the Province of Canada, on Sunday the 25th of December 1785 (Montréal: Fleuax Mesplet, 1785)
Eliot, A., A Sermon preached October 25th 1759. Being a Day of Public Thanksgiving Appointed by Authority, for the Success of the British Arms this Year, especially in the Reduction of Québec, The Capital of Canada (Boston: Daniel and John Kneeland, 1759)
Foxcroft, T., A Sermon Preached in the Old Church in Boston, October 9, 1760. Being the Thanksgiving-Day, on Occasion of the Surrender of Montréal, and the Complete Conquest of Canada (Boston: N.E, 1760)
Gibbs, Sir P., The Soul of a Nation (Toronto: The Globe, 1920)
Grand Rowing Regatta: Dominion Day, 1889, under the Auspices of the National Celebration Committee of the City Council of the City of Toronto (Toronto: City Council National Celebration Committee, 1891)
Groulx, L., Si Dollard Revenait: conférence (Montréal: l’Action française, 1919)
Histoire de St. Jean-Baptiste, Parton des Canadiens-Francais, 24 juin 1880 (Unknown Publisher, 1880)
Historical Labor Day 1898, Souvenir and Official Programme (Toronto: Unknown Publisher, 1898)
Hopkins, J. C., The Origin and History of Empire Day (Toronto: Unknown Publisher, 1910)
INAC, 2004/2005, Year in Review, Alberta Region (Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2005)
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, ‘Share in the Celebration’ (Ottawa: Unknown Publisher, 1997)
Ipsos-Reid Cooperation, ‘Aware of and Participation in National Aboriginal Day (draft report, submitted to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, July 2003)
King, W. L. M., The Message of the Carillon: And Other Addresses (Ottawa: Macmillan, 1927), pp. 3-13
――― (ed.), National Thanksgiving by the People of Canada, July 3rd, 1927. Order of Proceedings, Diamond Jubilee of Confederation, 1927 (Ottawa: Government Printing Bureau, 1927)
Labor-Day Souvenir under the Auspices of the Allied Trades and Labor Association (Ottawa: The Ottawa Printing Company, 1898)
Labrecque, L’abbé M.-T., Sermon pour La Fete de Saint Jean-Baptiste: Prononcé a la Basilique de N.-D. de Québec le 25 juin 1888 (Québec: Imprimerie Générale A. Coté et Cie, 1888)
LeMoine, J. M. (ed.), ‘Origin of the Festival of Saint Jean Baptiste Festival’, From the French of Mr. Benj. Sulte (Montréal: Morning Chronicle, 1880)
Liberato, R. S. (ed.), ‘The Meeting of Brazilian and Canadian Indigenous Youth’, June 2007, Center for Studies in Food Security (Toronto: Ryerson University, 2007)
Malijay, Paul de., Saint Jean-Baptiste L’Evangile et Le Canada: Souvenir de la fête national du 24 juin 1874 (Montréal: La Minerve , 1874)
Massicotte, E.-Z., Dollard des Ormeaux et Ses Compagnons: Notes et documents (Montréal: Le Comite du Monument Dollard des Ormeaux, 1920)
Morrison, D., The Glorious Future of Canada, Jone Rutherford (ed.) (Ontario: General Job Printer, 1872)
Natal Day Celebrations of the Dominion of Canada and the United States of America, at Nelson, on Wednesday, July 1st and Saturday, July 4th, 1891 (British Columbia: Unknown Publisher, 1891)
National Thanksgiving by the People of Canada, July 3rd, 1927. Order of Proceedings, Diamond Jubilee of Confederation, 1927 (Ottawa: Government Printing Bureau, 1927)
Ode for Dominion Day (Ottawa: Unknown Publisher, 1900)
Official Programme of Queen’s Birthday, (Victoria, British Columbia). 1867, CIHM no. 14432; 1877, CIHM no. 15985; 1878, CIHM no. 15961; 1881, CIHM no. 15960; 1889, CIHM no. 15758; 1890, CIHM no. 15957; 1891, CIHM 15781; 1892, CIHM no. 15782; 1893, CIHM no. 15784; 1894, CIHM 15785; 1895, CIHM no. 15939; 1896, CIHM no. 15693, no. 15779; 1898, CIHM no. 15959; 1899, CIHM no. 15786, no. 15962; 1900, CIHM no. 15778, no. 15940.
Ontario Department of Education, Empire Day in Ontario: Tuesday, May 23rd 1912 (Ontario: Unknown Publisher, 1912)
―――, Empire Day in Ontario, Friday May 23rd 1913 (Toronto: L. K. Cameron, 1913)
―――, Jubilee of Confederation 1867-1917, Empire Day, Wednesday, May 23rd, 1917 (Toronto: A. T. Wilgress, 1917)
Order of The Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Annals of Valour: Empire Day, Friday, May 23rd, 1919 (Toronto: A. T. Wilgress, 1919)
Reception Committee of Toronto District Labor Council, in honor of 21st Annual Convention of Trades and Labor Congress of Canada, Labor Day and Trades and Labor Congress Souvenir, 1905, Held at Toronto, Sept. 18-23 (Toronto: Unknown Publisher, 1905)
Report of Executive Committee National Diamond Jubilee of Confederation (Ottawa: F.A. Acland, 1928)
Rich, Edward-Pickering, A Sermon Preached on Thursday, Nov. 29, 1759. Being the Day of Public Thanksgiving for the Success of His Majesty's Arms in Canada, and Taking of Québec (London: Unknown Publisher, 1759)
Schultz, J. C., Dominion Day, 1891, Winnipeg Public Schools (Winnipeg: Manitoba Free Press Print, 1891)
Sixty Years of Canadian Progress 1867-1927: Diamond Jubilee of the Confederation of Canada (Ottawa: F.A. Acland, 1928)
Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Québec, Fetê nationale des Canadiens-francais du Canada et des Etats-unis : convention nationale 25 et 26 juin 1880, CIHM, No.13779
―――, Fetê nationale des Canadiens-francais du Canada et des Etats-unis. Société nationale Canadienne-Francaise Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Paris, 1887, CIHM, No. 24558
Statute de la Société St. Jean-Baptiste de Québec, Fondée le 16 aôut, 1842 (Québec: N. Aubin et W. H. Rowen, 1842)
The Royal Bank of Canada Monthly Letter, ‘A Citizen of Canada’, March 1966, vol. 47, no. 3
―――, ‘Celebrating Canada’s Centenary’, July 1961, vol. 42, no. 5
―――, ‘The Centenary of Confederation, January 1966, vol. 47, no. 1
―――, ‘The Universal and International Exhibition of 1967’, January 1967, vol. 48, no. 1
Tourigny, J. D., Fêtes Patriotiques et Récits Populaires des Evénements qui s'y Rapportent (Deuxiéme Edition, Montréal: Imprimerie de la Sally, 1921)
Vaillancourt, P., « Fêtons ‘Dollard’ le 24 mai 1946. Qu’au jour de sa fête, la rose vermeille, goutte de son sang, fleurisse toutes les poitrines où circule le même sang et qui vibrent aux mêmes aspirations », La Rose de Dollard, (1946 et 1947)
Walters, A., The History of May Day: Outline for Study and Discussion (Toronto: National Education Department Young Communist League, 1937)
Ward, R., ‘September 3rd, 1884’, in John Hamilton Gray and Joseph Adolphe Chapleau, Report of the Royal Commission on Chinese Immigration: Report and Evidence (Ottawa: Printed by Order of the Commission, 1885)
Wheel Outings in Canada (Toronto: Canadian Wheelmen’s Association, 1895)
Women’s Canadian Club, A Suggested Programme for Empire Day Celebration, 1915, in the School of New Brunswick (New Brunswick: Unknown Publisher, 1915)
Woodward, S., A Sermon preached October 9, 1760. Being a Day of Public Thanksgiving on Occasstion of The Reduction of Montréal and the Entire Conquest of Canada, By the Troops of His Britannic Majesty, under the Command of General Amherst (Boston: Benjamin Mecom, 1760)
Yeigh, F., Empire Day in Canada, Friday, May 19th, 1911, the Story of British Empire in Nutshell (Toronto: Unknown Publisher, 1911)
Unpublished Secondary Sources:
ASEN, ‘Forging the Nation: The 21st Annual ASEN Conference, 5th to the 7th of April 2011, London School of Economic’
Boisvert, D. L., ‘Religion and Nationalism in Quebec: The Saint-Jean-Baptiste Celebrations in Sociological Perspective’, PhD Dissertation (Ottawa: University of Ottawa, 1990)
Christopher, C., ‘Multiculturalism and Nation-building’, PhD Dissertation (Alberta: University of Calgary, 1983)
Cupido, R., ‘Solidarity without Consensus: Montreal Celebrates the Diamond Jubilee of Confederation’, (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Historical Association, Halifax, N.S., 29-31 May 2003)
Davies, H., ‘The Politics of Participation: A Study of Canada’s Centennial Celebration’, PhD Dissertation (Winnipeg: University of Manitoba, 1999)
Guay, M., « La fête de la Saint-Jean-Baptiste à Montréal, 1834-1909 », thèse de maîtrise (Ottawa: Université d’Ottawa, 1972)
Hoe, B., ‘Structural Changes of Two Chinese Communities in Alberta, Canada’, Canadian Centre for Folk Culture Studies Paper No. 19, A Diamond Jenness Memorial Volume, Mercury Series (Ottawa: National Museum of Man, 1976)
Kelley, G., ‘Developing a Canadian National Feeling: The Diamond Jubilee Celebrations of 1927’, MA Thesis (Montréal: McGill University, 1984)
Lin, P. Y., ‘Cultural Identity and Ethnic Representation in Arts Education: Case Studies of Taiwanese Festivals in Canada’, PhD Dissertation (Victoria: University of British Columbia, 2000)
Machin, L., ‘Public and Private Customs in the Military: A Case Study of the Observance of Remembrance Day by 56 Field Engineer Squadron, St. John’s Newfoundland’, MA Thesis (St. John’s: Memorial University, 2006)
Maslin, C., ‘The Social Construction of Aboriginal Peoples in the Saskatchewan Print Media’, MA Thesis (Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan, 2002)
Mill, J. M., ‘Building a Nation of Nation Builders: Youth Movement, Imperialism and English Canadian Nationalism, 1900-1920’, PhD Dissertation (Toronto: York University, 2004)
Nicholas, J., ‘Catching the Public Eye: The Body, Space, and Social Order in 1920s Canadian Visual Culture’, PhD Dissertation (University of Waterloo: Waterloo, 2006)
Peters, G. D., ‘Tradition and Memory in Protestant Ontario: Anglican and Methodist Clerical Discourses during Queen Victoria’s Golden (1887) and Diamond (1897) Jubilee Celebrations’, MA Thesis (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University, 2000)
Rajotte, D., « Les Jeunes Laurentiens. Jeunesse, militantisme et nationalisme dans le Canada français des années 1940 », Mémoire de M. A. (Histoire) (Québec: Université de Montréal, 2006)
Rivet, L. R., « La Saint-Jean-Baptiste à Ottawa: 1853-1953 », thèse de maîtrise (Ottawa: Université d’Ottawa, 1976)
Sawchyn, L. H., ‘The ‘‘New Canadian’’ and Canada’s 1927 Diamond Jubilee: Representation of National Unity and Identity’, MA Thesis (Edmonton: University of Alberta, 1997)
Schmidt, S., ‘Domesticating Parks and Mastering Playgrounds: Sexuality, Power and Place in Montréal, 1870-1930’, MA Thesis (Montréal: McGill University, 1996)
Sheffield, R. S., ‘Winning the War, Winning the Peace: The Image of the “Indian” in English-Canada, 1930-1948’, PhD Dissertation (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University, 2000)
Published Secondary Sources:
Alibhai-Brown, Y., Who Do We Think We Are? Imagining the New Britain (London: Allen Lane, 2000)
Amalvi, C., « Le 14 Juillet: du Dies irae a Jour de fête » , in Pierre Nora (ed.), Les Lieux de memoire, tome 1 La République (Paris: Gallimard, 1984), pp. 421-72. English translation, see, Christian Amalvi, ‘Bastille Day: From Dies Irae to Holiday’, in Pierre Nora (ed.), Realms of Memory, trans. Arthurf Goldhammer (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996-1998), vol. 3, pp. 117-59
Anderson, B., Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism (2nd Edition, London: Verso, 1991)
Anderson, K. J., Vancouver’s Chinatown: Racial Discourse in Canada, 1875-1980 (Montréal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1991)
Andrew, C., Will Straw and J.-Yvon Theriault (eds), Canadian Identity: Region/ Country/ Nation. Canadian Issues XX (Montréal: Association for Canadian Studies, 1998)
Armstrong, J. A., Nations before Nationalism (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1982)
Arnason, J. P., ‘Nations and Nationalisms: Between General Theory and Comparative History’, in Gerard Delanty and Krishan Jumar (eds), The SAGE Handbook of Nations and Nationalism (London: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2006), pp. 44-56
Asch, R. G. (ed.), Three Nations – A Common History? England, Scotland, Ireland and British History, c.1600-1920 (Bochum: Universitätsverlag N. Brockmeyer, 1993)
Aughey, A., Nationalism, Devolution and the Challenge to the United Kingdom State (London: Pluto, 2001)
Bauer, O., The Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy, trans., Joseph O’Donnell (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000)
Banting, K. and Will Kymlicka, ‘Canadian Multiculturalism: Global Anxieties and Local Debates’, British Journal of Canadian Studies 23.1 (2010), pp. 43-72
Baycroft, T., France (London: Hodder Education, 2008)
―――, and Mark Hewitson, (eds), What Is a Nation?: Europe 1789-1914 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006)
Benjamin, S., « L’effet « 89 » dans les milieux immigrés algériens en France (1920-1960) ». Revue du monde musulman et de la Méditerranée, N°52-53 (1989), pp. 229-40
Berlin, I., ‘Two Concepts on Liberty’, in Four Essays on Liberty (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), pp. 118-72
Billig, M., Banal Nationalism (London: Sage, 1995)
Birch, A. H., Nationalism and National Integration (London: Unwin Hyman Ltd., 1989)
Black, J., A History of the British Isles (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1996)
Blake, R. B., Canadians at Last: Canada Integrates Newfoundland as a Province (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994)
Bleich, E., Race Politics in Britain and France: Ideas and Policymaking since the 1960s (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003)
Bloomfield, V., Resources for Canadian Studies in Britain with Some Reference to Europe (London: British Association for Canadian Studies, 1983)
Bommes, M. and Dietrich Thränhardt, ‘Introduction: National Paradigms of Migration Research’, in Dietrich Thränhardt and Michael Bommes (eds), National Paradigms of Migration Research (Göttingen: V&R unipress GmbH, 2010), pp. 9-38
Bothwell, R., Ian Drummond and John English, Canada Since 1945: Power, Politics and Provincialism (2nd Edition, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989)
Bouchier, N. B., For the Love of the Game: Amateur Sport in Small-Town Ontario, 1838-1895 (Montréal: McGill-Queen’s Press, 2003)
Bouvier, J., René Girault and Jacques Thobie, L’impérialisme à la française 1914-1960 (Paris: Editions de la Découverte, 1986)
Bradshaw, B. and Peter Roberts (eds), British Consciousness and Identity: The Making of Britain, 1533-1707 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998)
Braudel, F., The Identity of France, trans. Siân Reynolds (2 vols., London: Collins, 1988 and 1990)
Breton, R., ‘From Ethnic to Civic Nationalism: English Canada and Quebec’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 11.1 (1988), pp. 85-102
Breuilly, J., Nationalism and the State (2nd Edition, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993)
―――, ‘Introduction’, in Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (2nd Edition, Oxford: Blackwell, 2006), pp. xiii-liii
Brockliss, L. and David Eastwood (eds), A Union of Multiple Identities: The British Isles, c.1750–c.1850 (Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1997)
Brown, G. W., Building the Canadian Nation (London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd, 1942)
―――, Canada in the Making (London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1953)
Bumsted, J. M., A History of the Canadian Peoples (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998)
Burton, A., ‘Who Needs the Nation? Interrogating “British” History’, in Catherine Hall (ed.), Cultures of Empire: Colonisers in Britain and the Empire in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries: A Reader (Manchester: Routledge, 2000), pp. 137-54
Callahan, W. A., China: The Pessoptimist Nation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010)
Campbell, P. C., Chinese Coolie Emigration to Countries within the British Empire (London: P. S. King & Son, LTD., 1923)
Carmon, N., ‘Immigration and Integration in Post-Industrial Societies: Quantitative and Qualitative Analyses’, in Naomi Carmon (ed.), Immigration and Integration in Post-Industrial Societies: Theoretical Analysis and Policy-Related Research (London: Macmillan Press Ltd, 1996)
Chambers, R. (ed.), The Book of Days: A Miscellany of Popular Antiquities, in Connection with the Calendar Including Anecdote, Biography, and History (2 vols., London & Edinburgh: W. & R. Chambers Ltd.; Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1862-1864, republished by Detroit: Gale Research Company, 1967)
Chartier, D. et Mouvement national des Québécoises et Québécois, La fête nationale du Québec: un peuple, une fierté (Montréal: Lanctôt, 2007)
Clifford, N. K., ‘His Dominion: A Vision in Crisis’, in Peter Slater (ed.), Religion and Culture in Canada/Religion et Culture au Canada, pp. 23-37. This essay was first appeared in Studies in Religion 2.4 (1973)
Cohen, A., The Unfinished Canadian: The People We Are (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 2007)
Colley, L., Briton: Forging the Nation 1707-1837 (New Pimlico Edition, London: Pimlico, 2003)
Colls, R., Identity of England (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004)
―――, and Philip Dodd (eds), Englishness: Politics and Culture 1880-1920 (Beckenham: Croom Helm, 1986)
Conner, W., ‘Nation-building or Nation-Destorying?’, World Politics 24.3 (1972), pp. 319-55
Cook, R., Canada, and Québec and the Uses of Nationalism (2nd Edition, Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Inc., 1995)
Creighton, D., Canada’s First Century 1867-1967 (Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1970)
Cronin, M. and Daryl Adair, The Wearing of the Green: A History of St. Patrick’s Day (London: Routledge, 2002)
Cross, G., A Quest for Time: The Reduction of Work in Britain and France, 1840-1940 (London: University of California Press, 1989)
Cupido, R., ‘“Sixty Years of Canadian Progress”: The Diamond Jubilee and the Politics of Commemoration’, in Caroline Andrew, Will Straw and J.-Yvon Theriault (eds), Canadian Identity: Region/ Country/ Nation. Canadian Issues XX (Montréal: Association for Canadian Studies, 1998), pp. 19-33
―――, ‘Appropriating the Past: Pageants, Politics, and the Diamond Jubilee of Confederation’, Journal of the Canadian Historical Association/ Revue de la Société historique du Canada, n.s. 9 (1998), pp. 155-86
―――, ‘The Medium, the Message and the Modern: The Jubilee Broadcast of 1927’, International Journal of Canadian Studies 26 (Fall 2002), pp. 101-23
Davies, N., The Isles: A History (London: Papermac, 2000)
Deems, E. M. complied, Holy Days and Holidays: A Treasury of Historical Material, Sermons in Full and in Brief, Suggestive Thoughts, and Poetry, Relating to (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1902)
Durkheim, E., The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, trans. Joseph Ward Swain (London: George Allen&Unwin Ltd., 1976[1915])
Edensor, T., National Identity, Popular Culture and Everyday Life (Oxford and New York: Berg, 2002)
Ellis, J. S., ‘The Prince and the Dragon: Welsh National Identity and the 1911 Investiture of the Prince of Wales’, Welsh History Review 18 (1996), pp. 391-418
English, J., ‘Empire Day in Britain, 1904-1958’, The Historical Journal 49. 1 (2006), pp. 247-76
Falassi, A. (ed.), Time out of Time: Essays on the Festivals (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1987)
Favell, A., ‘A Politics That Is Shared, Bounded, and Rooted? Rediscovering Civic Political Culture in Western Europe’, Theory and Society 27. 2 (Apr., 1998), pp. 209-36
―――, Philosophies of Integration: Immigration and the Idea of Citizenship in France and Britain (2nd Edition, New York: Palgrave, 2001)
Finlay, R. J., ‘Review Article: New Britain, New Scotland, New History? The Impact of Devolution on the Development of Scottish Historiography’, Journal of Contemporary History 36 (2001), pp. 383–93
Fohee, P. F., ‘Symbols in the Streets: Parades in Victorian Urban Canada’, Urban History Review XVIII. 3 (February 1990), pp. 237-43
Foner, P. S., May Day: A Short History of the International Workers’ Holiday, 1886-1986 (New York: International Publishers, 1986)
Foran, J., Easter (Calgary: Weigl, 2003)
―――, Remembrance Day (Calgary: Weigl, 2003)
―――, Thanksgiving; Christmas (Calgary: Weigl, 2003)
―――, Victoria Day (Calgary: Weigl, 2003)
Forsey, E., ‘The Meaning of Dominion Day’, Address to the Men’s and Women’s Clubs of Edmonton, June 19, 1956, Canadian Labour 1.4 (1956), pp. 11-13
Foster, D., ‘Canada Days: Non-Canadian Ways’, in Linda K. Fuller (ed.), National Days/National Ways: Historical, Political, And Religious Celebrations Around The World (Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004), pp. 41-58
Foster, R. F., Modern Ireland 1600-1972 (London: Allen Lane, 1988)
Fox, J. E. and Cynthia Miller-Idriss, ‘Everyday Nationhood’, Ethnicities 8. 4 (2008), pp. 536-63
Francis, R. D., Richard Jones and Donald B. Smith, Journeys: A History of Canada (2nd Edition, Toronto: Nelson Education, 2009)
Freedon, M., ‘Is Nationalism a Distinct Ideology?’, Political Studies XLVI (1998), pp. 748-65
Friesen, G., ‘Immigrant Communities 1870-1914: The Struggle for Cultural Survival’, in R. Douglas Francis and Donald B. Smith (eds), Readings in Canadian History: Post-Confederation (2nd Edition, Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada, 1986), pp. 158-84
Gabriella, E., ‘The Politics of Recognition: Symbols, Nation Building and Rival Nationalisms’, Nations and Nationalism 17.2 (2011), pp. 396-418
Geertz, C., ‘The Integrative Revolution: Primordial Sentiments and Politics in the New States’, in Clifford Geertz (ed.), Old Societies and New States: The Quest for Modernity in Asia and Africa (London: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1963), pp. 105-57
Giles, J. and Tim Middleton (eds), Writing Englishness 1900–1950: An Introductory Sourcebook on National Identity (London: Routledge, 1995)
Gillis, J. R. (ed.), Commemorations: The Politics of National Identity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994)
Glazer, N., Ethnic Dilemmas 1964-1982 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983)
Gordon, A., Making Public Pasts: The Contested Terrain of Montréal’s Public Memories, 1891-1930 (Montréal: McGill-Queen’s Press, 2001)
Gordon, M. M., Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964)
Granatstein, J. L., Canada 1957-1967: The Years of Uncertainty & Innovation, The Canadian Centenary Series (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1986)
Grant, A. and Keith John Stringer (eds), Uniting the Kingdom: The Making of British History (London: Routledge, 1995)
Grant, J. W., ‘Religion and the Quest for a National Identity: The Background of Canadian History’. First present as a public lecture at Carleton University in 1973, and published in Peter Slater (ed.), Religion and Culture in Canada, (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1977), pp. 8-21
Greenfeld, L., Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992)
Gregory, A., The Silence of Memory: Armistice Day, 1919-1946 (Oxford: Berg, 1994)
Grillo, R. D., Pluralism and the Politics of Difference: State, Culture, and Ethnicity in Comparative Perspective (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998)
Grossman, J., ‘Who Is the Father of Labor Day?’, Labor History 14.4 (1973), pp. 612-23
Guibernau, M. and John Hutchinson (eds), History and National Destiny: Ethnosymbolism and Its Critics (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2004)
Halbwachs, M., On Collective Memory, trans. Lewis A Coser (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992)
Handler, R., Nationalism and the Politics of Culture in Québec (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988)
Hansen, R., Citizenship and Immigration in Post-War Britain: The Institutional Origins of a Multicultural Nation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)
Hargreaves, A. G., Multi-Ethnic France: Immigration, Politics, Culture and Society (2nd Edition, New York and London: Routledge, 2007)
Harvie, C., Scotland and Nationalism: Scottish Society and Politics 1707-1994 (2nd Edition, London: Routledge, 1994)
―――, ‘The Moment of British Nationalism, 1939-1970’, Political Quarterly 71 (2000), pp. 328-40
Hayday, M., ‘Variety Show as National Identity: CBC Television and Dominion Day Celebrations, 1958-1980’, in Gene Allen and Daniel Robins (eds), Communicating in Canada's Past: Approaches to the History of Print and Broadcast Media (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009), pp. 168-93
―――, « La francophonie canadienne, le bilinguisme et l’identité canadienne dans les célébrations de la fête du Canada », in Anne Gilbert, Michel Bock and Joseph-Yvon Thériault (eds), Entre lieux et mémoire: L’inscription de la francophonie canadienne dans la durée (Ottawa: Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa, 2009), pp. 93-116
―――, ‘Fireworks, Folk-dancing, and Fostering a National Identity: The politics of Canada Day’, The Canadian Historical Review 91. 2 (June 2010), pp. 287-314
Hayes, C. J. H., Essays on Nationalism (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1926)
Herb, G. H. and David H. Kaplan (eds), Nations and Nationalism: A Global Historical Overview: Volume 1 1770 to 1880 (California: ABC-CLIO, 2008)
Heron, C. and Steve Penfold, ‘The Craftmen’s Spectacle: Labour Day Parades in Canada, the Early Years’, Histoire sociale / Social History 29. 58 (November 1996), pp. 357-89
―――, The Workers’ Festival: A History of Labour Day in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005)
Hertzberg, H. W., The Search for an American Indian Identity: Modern Pan Indian Movements (New York: Syracuse University Press, 1971)
Ho Tai, H.-T., ‘Remembered Realms: Pierre Nora and French National Memory’, The American Historical Review 106. 3 (Jun., 2001), pp. 906-22
Hobsbawm, E. J., ‘Introduction’, in E. J. Hobsbawm and T. O. Ranger (eds), The Invention of Tradition (Canto Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992[1983]), pp. 1-14
―――, ‘Mass-Producing Traditions: Europe, 1870-1914’, in E. J. Hobsbawm and T. O. Ranger (eds), The Invention of Tradition (Canto Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992[1983]), pp. 263-308
―――, Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality (2nd Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992[1990])
―――, ‘Birth of a Holiday: The First of May’, in Chris Wrigley and John Shepherd (eds), On the Move: Essays in Labour and Transport History Presented to Philip Bagwell (London: Hambledon Press, 1991), pp. 104-22
Horn, B., From Cold War to New Millennium: The History of The Royal Canadian Regiment, 1953-2008 (Toronto: Dundurn Press Ltd., 2011)
Horowitz, G., ‘Conservatism, Liberalism, and Socialism in Canada: An Interpretation’, The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science/ Revue canadienned’Economique et de Science politique 32.2 (May, 1966), pp. 143-71
Hudak, H. C., Canada Day (Calgary: Weigl, 2009)
―――, Chinese New Year (Calgary: Weigl, 2009)
―――, National Aboriginal Day (Calgary: Weigl, 2009)
―――, Remembrance Day (Calgary: Weigl, 2009)
―――, Victoria Day (Calgary: Weigl, 2009)
Hulbert, A. B., The Making of the American Republic (New York: Doubleday, Page& Company, 1923)
Hurst, J. E., ‘John McCrae’s Wars’, in Briton C. Busch (ed.), Canada and the Great War: Western Front Association Papers (Montréal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2003), pp. 66-77
Hutchinson, J., ‘Ethnicity and Modern Nations’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 23. 4 (2000), pp. 651-69
―――, and Anthony D. Smith (eds), Nationalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994)
Igartua, J. E., The Other Quiet Revolution: National Identities in English Canada, 1945-71 (Vancouver: The University of British Columbia Press, 2006)
Ireland, S. and Patrice J. Proulx (eds), Immigrant Narratives in Contemporary France (Westport: Greenwood Press, 2001)
Jean-Paul, W., « De la sacralisation de la France. Lieux de mémoire et imaginaire national / On the Sacralization of France. Lieux de mémoire and the Nation Imaginary». Archives des sciences sociales des religions. N. 66/1, 1988. pp. 125-45
Jennings, E., Vichy in the Tropics: Petain's National Revolution in Madagascar, Guadeloupe, and Indochina, 1940-44 (Stanford University Press: Stanford, 2004)
Johnson, M. P., The Dreyfus Affair: Honour and Politics in the Belle Epoque (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1999)
Kallen, E., ‘Multiculturalism: Ideology, Policy and Reality’, Journal of Canadian Studies 17. 1 (Spring 1982), pp. 51-63
Kallen, H. M., ‘Democracy versus the Melting Pot’, in Horace M. Kallen, Culture and Democracy in the United States (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1998[1924]), pp. 59-117.
Karim, K. H., ‘Reconstructing the Multicultural Community in Canada Discursive Strategies of Inclusion and Exclusion’, International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society 7. 2 (1993), pp. 189-207
Kealey, G. S., ‘1919: The Canadian Labour Revolt’, Labour/Le Travail 13 (Spring 1984), pp. 11-44
Kearney, H. F., The British Isles: A History of Four Nations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995)
Kemilainen, A., Nationalism, Problems Concerning the World: The Concept and Classification (Yvaskyla: Kustantajat Publishers, 1964)
Kidd, C., Subverting Scotland’s Past: Scottish Whig Historians and the Creation of An Anglo-British Identity, 1689-c.1830 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993)
King, A., Memorials of the Great War in Britain: the Symbolism and Politics of Remembrance (Oxford: Berg, 1998)
Kissock, H., Canada Day (Calgary: Weigl, 2003)
Kohn, H., The Idea of Nationalism: A Study in Its Origins and Background (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publisher, 2005[1944])
Kumar, K., ‘Nation and Empire: English and British National Identity in Comparative Perspective’, Theory and Society 29. 5, (2000), pp. 575-608
―――, ‘English and French National Identity: Comparisons and Contrasts’, Nations and Nationalism 12. 3 (2006), pp. 413-32
―――, The Making of English National Identity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003)
Kymlicka, W., Liberalism, Community, and Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989)
―――, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996)
―――, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction (2nd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002)
Lai, D. C., Chinese Community Leadership: Case Study of Victoria in Canada (Singapore: World Scientific, 2010)
Lalouette, J., Jours de fête: jours fériés et fêtes légales dans la France contemporaine (Tallandier: Paris, 2010)
Langford, P., Englishness Identified: Manners and Character 1650-1850 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)
Larivierè, C., Le 1er Mai: fête internationale des travailleurs (Québec: Les Editions Albert Saint-Martin, 1975)
Latouche, D., « Jeunesse et nationalisme au Québec. Une idéologie peut-elle mourir ? », Revue française de science politique », 35e année, n°2, 1985, pp. 236-61
Lawrence, P., ‘Naturalisation, Ethnicity and National Identity in France between the Wars’, Immigrants and Minorities 20. 3 (November 2001), pp. 1-24
Le Crom, J.-P., « L’avenir des lois de Vichy », in Bernard Durand, Jean-Pierre Le Crom et Alessandro Somma (eds), Le Droit sous Vichy, Das Europa der Diktatur vol. 13 (Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann, 2006), pp. 453-78
Leoussi, A. S. and Steven Elliott Grosby (eds), Nationalism and Ethnosymbolism: History, Culture and Ethnicity in the Formation of Nations (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007)
Leslie, J. F., ‘The Indian Act: An Historical Perspective’, Canadian Parliamentary Review Summer 2002, pp. 23-7
―――, and Ron Maguire (eds), The Historical Development of the Indian Act (2nd Edition, Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1983[1978])
Li, P. S., The Chinese in Canada (2nd Edition, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1998)
Lindecker, J., illustrations de Marcelino Truong, Les bleuets de l'espoir (Paris: Nathan, 1999)
Linteau, P.-A. et. al, Québec since 1930, translation of: Histoire de Québec contemporain: Le Québec depuis 1930, tome 2, trans. Robert Chodos and Ellen Garmaise (Toronto: James Lorimer & Company, 1991[1989])
Mackey, E., The House of Difference: Cultural Politics and National Identity in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002)
Martin, G., Britain and the Origins of Canadian Confederation: 1837-67 (Victoria: University of British Columbia Press, 1995)
Matheson, J. R., Canada’s Flag: A Search for a Country (Ontario: Mika Publishing, 1986)
Mathews, R., Canadian Identity: Major Forces Shaping the Life of a People (Ottawa: Steel Rail, 1988)
McCrae, Lieutenant Colonel J., In Flanders Fields and Other Poems (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1919; reprinted by Montana: Kessinger Publishing, 2004)
McCrone, D., ‘Scotland Days: Evolving Nation and Icons’, in David McCrone and Gayle McPherson (eds), National Days: Constructing and Mobilising National Identity (Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillian, 2009), pp. 26-40
―――, and Gayle McPherson (eds), National Days: Constructing and Mobilising National Identity (Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillian, 2009)
McPherson, G., Malcolm Foley and Aaron McIntosh, ‘Parading Conspicuous Identity: St. Patrick’s Day, New York’, in David McCrone and Gayle McPherson (eds), National Days: Constructing and Mobilising National Identity (Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillian, 2009), pp.197-211
McRoberts, K. and Dale Posgate, Québec: Social Change and Political Crisis (2nd Edition, Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1981)
Midwinter, E., Salisbury (London: Haus Publishing, 2006)
Miller, J. R., ‘Unity/Diversity: The Canadian Experience; From Confederation to the First World War’, The Dalhouse Review LV.1 (Spring, 1975), pp. 63-81, in R. Douglas Francis and Donald B. Smith (eds), Readings in Canadian History: Post-Confederation (2nd Edition, Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada, 1986), pp. 147-56
Mills, S. E., ‘Limitations to Inclusive Unions from the Perspectives of White and Aboriginal Women Forest Workers in the Northern Prairies’, Just Labour: A Canadian Journal of Work and Society 11 (Autumn 2007), pp. 66-79
Monière, D., Ludger Duvernay et la révolution intellectuelle au Bas-Canada (Les Éditions Québec/ Amérique: Montréal, 1987)
Murdoch, A., British History 1660-1832 (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998)
Nagle, J., ‘Multiculturalism’s Double Bind: Creating inclusivity, difference and cross-community alliances with the London-Irish’, Ethnicities 8. 2 (2008), pp. 177-98
Nelles, H. V., ‘Historical Pageantry and the “Fusion of the Races” at the Tercentenary of Québec, 1908’, Histoire sociale / Social History 29. 58 (November 1996), pp. 391-415
Newall, V., ‘Armistice Day: Folk Tradition in an English Festival of Remembrance’, Folklore 87. 2 (1976), pp. 226-9
Newman, G., The Rise of English Nationalism: A Cultural History, 1740-1830 (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1987)
Nicholas, J., ‘Gendering the Jubilee: Gender and Modernity in the Diamond Jubilee of Confederation Celebrations 1927’, The Canadian Historical Review 90. 2 (June 2009), pp. 247-74
Noiriel, G., The French Melting Pot: Immigration, Citizenship, and National Identity (Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1996)
Nora, P. (ed.), Les Lieux de Mémoire (7 vols., Paris: Quarto-Gallimard, 1997). Translated as Realms of Memory, 3 vols. trans. Arthurf Goldhammer (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996-1998)
―――, ‘Introduction to Realms of Memory, Volume III’, in Pierre Nora (ed.) Les Lieux de Mémoire (7 vols., Paris: Quarto-Gallimard, 1997). Translated as Realms of Memory, 3 vols. trans. Arthurf Goldhammer (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996-1998), vol. 3, pp. ix-xii
Norman, W., Negotiating Nationalism: Nation-building, Federalism, and Secession in the Multicultural State (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006)
Ozouf, M., La Fête révolutionnaire 1789-1799 (Gallimard: Paris, 1976)
Palmer, B. D., Canada’s 1960s: The Ironies of Identity in a Rebellious Era (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009)
Palmer, H., ‘Reluctant Hosts: Anglo-Canadian Views of Multiculturalism in the Twentieth Century’, in R. Douglas Francis and Donald B. Smith (eds), Readings in Canadian History: Post-Confederation (2nd Edition, Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada, 1986), pp. 184-201
Panton, K. J., Historical Dictionary of the British Monarchy (Lanham: Scarecrow Press, 2011)
Patterson, H. and Ron Lightburn, A Poppy is to Remember (New York: Scholastic, 2004)
Patrick, G., « Les territoires de la commémoration. Une conjoncture de l'identité française : le bicentenaire de la Révolution française (1989) ». Annales historiques de la Révolution française. N°301, 1995, pp. 451-8
Paulette, C., Je me souviens, depuis 1834 (Montréal: LeMéac/ Rencontres francophones de Québec, 1980)
Peabody, S. and Tyler Stovall, The Colour of Liberty: Histories of Race in France (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2003)
Pierre, V., « Fête, mémoire et politique: les 14 juillet en Limousin (1880-1914) ». Revue française de science politique, 32e année, n°6, 1982. pp. 949-72
Pittock, M., Celtic Identity and the British Image (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999)
Pocock, J. G. A., ‘British History: A Plea for A New Subject’, Journal of Modern History 47 (1975), p. 601-21
―――, ‘Conclusion: Contingency, Identity, Sovereignty’, in Alexander Grant and Keith Stringer (eds), Uniting the Kingdom? The Making of British History (London: Routledge, 1995), pp. 292-302
Poulter, J., ‘ReMembering the Nation: Remembrance Days and the Nation in Ireland’, in David McCrone and Gayle McPherson (eds), National Days: Constructing and Mobilising National Identity (Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillian, 2009), pp. 57-72
Prost, A., « Les monuments aux morts: culte républicain ? culte civique ? culte patriotique ? », in Pierre Nora (ed.), Les Lieux de memoire, tome 1 La République (Paris: Gallimard, 1984), pp. 195-225. English translation, see, Antoine Prost, ‘Monuments to the Dead’, in Pierre Nora (ed.), Realms of Memory, vol. 2, pp. 307-32
Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice (Original Edition, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1971)
Redwood, J., The Death of Britain?: The UK’s Constitutional Crisis (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1999)
Reid, D. A., ‘The Decline of Saint Monday 1766-1876’, Past and Present 71 (1976), pp. 76-101
―――, ‘Weddings, Weekdays, Work and Leisure in Urban England 1791-1911: The Decline of Saint Monday Revisited’, Past and Present 153 (1996), pp. 135-63
Renan, E., ‘Qu’est-ce qu’une nation?’, in Qu'est-ce qu'une nation? et autres essais politiques, Paris, 1992, trans. T. Baycroft, in Timothy Baycroft, Nationalism in Europe, 1789-1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 31-2
Renner, K., ‘State and Nation, (1899)’, in Ephraim Nimni (ed.), National Cultural Autonomy and Its Contemporary Critics (London: Routledge, 2005), pp. 15-48
Resnick, P., The European Roots of Canadian Identity (Toronto: Broadview Press, 2005)
Rex, J., Ethnic Minorities in the Modern Nation State: Working Papers in the Theory of Multiculturalism and Political Integration (London: Macmillan Press Ltd, 1996)
Robbins, K., Nineteenth-Century Britain: England, Scotland, and Wales – The Making of a Nation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989)
―――, Great Britain: Identities, Institutions and the Idea of Britishness (London: Longman, 1998)
―――, ‘Devolution in Britain: Will the United Kingdom Survive?’ European Studies 16 (2001), pp. 53-65
Rose, E. J. B., Colour and Citizenship: A Report on British Race Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969)
Samuel, R. (ed.), Patriotism: The Making and Unmaking of British National Identity (3 vols., London: Routledge, 1989)
―――, Island Stories: Unravelling Britain (London: Verso, 1998)
Scargill, M.H., A Short History of Canadian English (Sono Nis Press, 1977)
Shawcross, W., Queen Elizabeth: The Queen Mother: The Official Biography (London: Pan Macmillan, 2009)
Shea, V. and William Whitla, ‘The Knowledge of Canada/ The Canada of Knowledge: Representing the Nation in Canadian Reference Books’, ESC 29.3-4 (September/December 2003), pp. 52-89
Shusterman N., Religion and the Politics of Time: Holidays in France from Louis XIV through Napoleon (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2010)
Smith, A. D., Nationalism and Modernism (London: Routledge, 1998)
―――, Myths and Memories of the Nation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999)
―――, Ethno-symbolism and Nationalism: A Cultural Approach (Oxon: Routledge, 2009)
―――, Nationalism: Theory, Ideology and History (2nd Edition, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010)
―――, The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994[1986])
Smith, D. L., The History of Canada: An Annotated Bibliography (California: American Bibliographical Center-Clio Press Inc., 1983)
Smith, J. H., Newfoundland Holidays (Toronto: The Ryerson Press, 1952)
Smith, M., Britain and 1940: History, Myth and Popular Memory (London: Routledge, 2000)
Snyder, L., The Meaning of Nationalism (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1954)
Solski, R., Remembrance Day, Grades K-3, SSC1-44 (Napanee: S&S Learning Materials, 2003)
Sowerwine, C., France since 1870: Culture, Politics and Society (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001)
Spencer, I. R. G., British Immigration Policy since 1939: The Making of Multi-Racial Britain (London: Routledge, 1997)
Springhall, J. O., ‘Lord Meath, Youth, and Empire’, Journal of Contemporary History 5. 4 (1970), pp. 97-111
Stamp, R. M., ‘Empire Day in the Schools of Ontario: The Training of Young Imperialists’, Journal of Canadian Studies 3 (August 1973), pp. 32-42
Stanley, G. F. G., The Story of Canada’s Flag: A Historical Sketch (Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1965)
Lee, W.-N. and David K. Tse, ‘Becoming Canadian: How Hong Kong Immigrants Change Their Consumption’, Pacific Affairs 67. 1 (Spring 1994), pp. 70-95
Stevenson, G., ‘The Politics of Remembrance in Irish and Quebec Nationalism’, Canadian Journal of Political Science/ Revue canadienne de science politique 37. 4 (December 2004), pp. 903-25
Tamir, Y., Liberal Nationalism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993)
Taylor, B. and Katarina Thomson (eds), Scotland and Wales: Nations Again? (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1999)
Taylor, C., Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1989)
Tetley, W., The October Crisis, 1970 (Montréal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2007)
Thibault, C. compiler, Bibliographia Canadiana (Ontario: Longman Canadian Limited, 1973)
Thiesse, A.-M., « Les deux identités de la France », Modern & Contemporary France 9. 1 (2001), pp. 9-18
Trotter, R. G., Canadian Federation: Its Origins and Achievement, a Study in Nation-Building (London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1923)
Turkstra, M., ‘Constructing a Labour Gospel: Labour and Religion in Early 20th-century Ontario’, Labour/Le Travail 57 (Spring 2006), pp. 93-130
Turner, V. (ed.), Celebration: Studies in Festivity and Ritual (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1982)
Underhill, F. H., ‘The Development of National Political Parties in Canada’, Canadian Historical Review 16.4 (1935), pp. 367-87
Vervaecke, P., « L’invention du patriotisme impérial : usages politiques des fêtes d’Empire en Grande-Bretagne, 1877-1938 », Histoire@Politique. Politique, culture, société, N°11, mai-août 2010, histoire-politique.fr [accessed 30 October 2010], pp. 1-19
Vipond, M., ‘The Mass Media in Canadian History: The Empire Day Broadcast of 1939’, Journal of the Canadian Historical Association 14 (2003), pp. 1-22
―――, The Mass Media in Canada (3rd Edition, Toronto: James Lorimer&Compan Ltd., 2000)
Wade, M., The French Canadians 1760-1945 (Toronto: The Macmillan Company of Canada Ltd., 1956)
Waldman, C., Atlas of the North American Indian (New York: Infobase Publishing, 2007)
Wallace, W. S., ‘Political History’, in W. Stewart Wallace, The Encyclopaedia of Canada (Toronto: University Associates of Canada, 1948), pp. 175-86
Wang, G., China and the Chinese Overseas (Singapore: Times Academic Press, 1991)
Ward, P., Britishness since 1870 (London: Routledge, 2004)
Wayland, S. V., ‘Immigration, Multiculturalism and National Identity in Canada’, International Journal on Group Rights 5 (1997), pp. 33-58
Webster, D., ‘Canadian Regional Decentralization in the New Global Context: Myth or Reality?’, The Canadian Journal of Regional Science/ Le Revue Canadienne des Sciences Régionales, VIII:3 (Autumn/automne 1985), pp. 377-94
Weight, R., Patriots: National Identity in Britain 1940-2000 (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2002)
Williams, C., ‘The United Kingdom: British Nationalisms during the Long Nineteenth Century’, in Timothy Baycroft and Mark Hewitson, (eds), What Is a Nation?: Europe 1789-1914 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 272-92
Williams, G. A., When was Wales?: A History of the Welsh (London: Black Raven Press, 1985)
Wrong, G. M. and H. H. Langton (eds), The Chronicles of Canada: Volume VIII - The Growth of Nationality (Tucson: Fireship Press, 2009)
Yeo, S., ‘A New Life: The Religion of Socialism in Britain, 1883-1896’, History Workshop 4.1 (1977), pp. 5-56
Young, I. M., Justice and the Politics of Difference (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990)
Zernatto, G., ‘Nation: the History of a Word’, Review of Politics 6 (1944), pp. 351-66
Electronic Sources:
‘Bank Public Holidays’, National Archives (London: Kew Gardens), [accessed 15 May 2011]
‘Citizenship Ceremony Part of Multiculturalism Event at Science and Tech Museum Monday’, Press Release, 27 June 2005, [accessed 10 January 2010]
‘Cultural Assistance Program and Multicultural Initiatives Fund 2002-2003’, [accessed 10 February 2009]
‘For an Independent and Socialist Québec (1978)’, Socialist Voice, May 22, 1978, ébec/Ind-Soc-Québec-1978.htm [accessed, 27 August 2009]
« Histoire de l’oeuvre et de la fleur », [accessed 5 June 2011]
‘Information from - Alberta Celebrate Canada Committee: Edmonton and Alberta Capital Region’, [accessed 25 April 2009]
‘Multicultural Celebration to Fight Poverty in Africa’, Communications and Public Affairs, 12 March 2004, [accessed 10 February 2009]
‘Multicultural’, [accessed 15 April 2010]
‘National Aboriginal Day - Governor General’s Proclamation 1-9615’, OTTAWA (May 23, 1996), [accessed 5 February 2009]
‘National Multiculturalism Day by Region of Peel’, 26 June 2007, [accessed 9 February 2009]
‘Poppy Day’, [accessed 22 September 2009]
‘Population Growth Secretariat Minister’s Message on Multiculturalism Day’, 6 July 2007, [accessed 10 February 2009]
‘Québec Gets the Lion’s Share of Canada Day Funding’, (July 1, 2007), [accessed 1 May 2009]
‘Remembrance Day’ and ‘Poppy Day’, About the SA Legion, [accessed 22 September 2009]
‘Statement by the Honourable James Moore, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, on the Occasion of the 40th Anniversary of the Adoption of the Official Languages Act’, 9 July 2009, [accessed 30 November 2010]
« Congé férié à l’occasion de la Journée nationale des Patriotes », [accessed 5 December 2009]
« La fête nationale de 1834 à 2009 », [accessed 22 January 2010]
« La fête nationale du Québec et le Mouvement national des Québécoises et Québécois (MNQ) », ébec-et-le-mouvement-national-des-Québecoises-et-Québecois-mnq.html [accessed 21 February 2011]
AFN, ‘Assembly of First Nations - The Story’, [accessed 15 September 2011]
Angus, I., ‘A Brief History of Canadian Trotskyism, 1928-1939’ (1977), [accessed 30 August 2009]
Anishnabeg, K. Z., ‘Aboriginal Day Marred for Que. Community after White Supremacist Vandalism’, 21 June 2007, The Canadian Press, , [accessed 8 February 2009]
Baskin, C., ‘Indigenous Youth Exploring Identities through Food Security in Canada and Brazil’, MAI Review 3. 5 (2008), pp. 1-11, [accessed 5 December 2011]
BBC, ‘Brown Speech Promotes Britishness’, 14 January 2006, [accessed 15 May 2011]
―――, ‘The Politics of Bank Holidays’, 29 April 2011, [accessed 15 May 2011]
―――, ‘Violence at May Day Protest’, 1 May 2000, [accessed 7 December 2011]
Boswell, R., ‘Newcomers in Montréal Give Lowest Rating to Multiculturalism, Survey of 3 Biggest Cities Says, Poll Shows New Immigrants in Toronto, Vancouver Much More Satisfied with Canadian Diversity Initiatives’, Canadian West News Service, 27 June 2008, [accessed 24 April 2009]
The British Monarchy, ‘Trooping the Colour’, [accessed 25 November 2011]
Canadian Heritage, ‘National Anthem: O Canada’, [accessed 10 October 2010]
―――, ‘Origin of the Name – Canada’, [accessed 20 January 2009]
―――, ‘Thanksgiving and Remembrance Day’, [accessed 3 August 2011]
Canadian Press, ‘Quebecers celebrate 1st National Patriot’s Day’, 20 May 2003, [accessed 24 February 2009]
CCNMatthews, ‘The Société d’amenagement de la Riviere-aux-sables Receives $40,000 to Organize Canada Day Celebrations in Jonquiere’, 29 June 2006, [accessed 24 April 2009]
―――, ‘Wakefield Recreation Canada Day Committee Receives Government of Canada Support’, 29 June 2006, [accessed 10 February 2009]
Central Executive Committee of the Communist Party of Canada, ‘May Day! And Programme of the Communist Party of Canada (1919)’, [accessed 27 August 2009]
Chan, M., ‘Being Chinese Canadian Often Means Feeling Torn between Two Cultures – But That’s Not Necessarily A Bad Thing’, Gauntlet Columnist, 30 January 2003, [accessed 5 February 2010]
Dewing, M., ‘Canadian Multiculturalism’, Revised 15 September 2009 (Toronto: Parliament Information and Research Service), [accessed 15 September 2011]
Doyle, R. J., ‘The Global and Mail’, Canadian Encyclopedia, [accessed 13 September 2009]
Fraser, A. B., The Flags of Canada, 30 January 1998, online publication, [accessed 15 August 2011]
Hainsworth, J., ‘Vancouver First Nations Soldiers March to Mark Aboriginal Veterans Day’, 9 November 2008, [accessed 10 February 2009]
Hayday, M., ‘Canada Day’, in Encyclopaedia of French Cultural Heritage in North America, [accessed 15 August 2011]
Helm, T., ‘Labour Plans a British Day to Aid Patriotism’, 29 May 2007, [accessed 15 May 2011]
Hill, A., ‘May Day Protest against Government Cuts’, 1 May 2011, [accessed 7 December 2011]
Howatt, T., ‘No Aboriginal Day off for Feds: Indian Affairs Employees Will Work on Territorial Holiday’, Northern News Services, 19 June 2002, [accessed 5 February 2009]
INAC, ‘Background’, [accessed 20 January 2010]
―――, ‘Ideas for Events’, [accessed 6 February 2009]
―――, ‘Terminology’, [accessed 20 January 2010]
INAC, leaflet for National Aboriginal Day, ‘Celebrating First Nations’, 21 June 1999 (INAC, 1999) [accessed 16 August 2010]
Kaplow, J., « La fin de la Saint-Lundi. Etude sur le Paris ouvrier au XIXe siècle », Temps Libre n°2, [accessed 15 May 2011], pp. 107-18
Labour Law Analysis, ‘Statutory holidays’, 15 November 2001, [accessed 10 September 2009]
Laporte, G., « Projet d’un jour férié en mémoire des patriotes de 1837-1838: La fête des Patriotes, le temps d’agir », 23 November 2001, [accessed 6 December 2009].
Le 14 juillet, [accessed 5 June 2011]
Le rapport de séance du Sénat du 29 juin 1880, [accessed 5 June 2011]
Leschasin, C., ‘A Day to Celebrate: National Aboriginal Day Coincides with Summer Solstice’, Northern News Services, 16 June 1997, [accessed 5 February 2009]
McGregor, G., ‘Fun Money Flows More Freely in Liberal Ridings’, Canadian West News Service, 14 January 2006, [accessed 19 December 2011]
Mountain Man’s UseNet Archive, ‘Sacred Assembly Proclamation: Aboriginal Peoples of Canada, Hull, Québec’, 6th-9th December 1995, [accessed 20 January 2010]
Office for National Statistics, ‘The countries of the UK’, [accessed 24 November 2011]
Powell, E., ‘What Do They Know of England Who Only England Know?’, 24 April 1961, *.html [accessed 5 June 2011]
―――, ‘Rivers of Blood’, 20 April 1968, [accessed 5 June 2011]
Queen, L., ‘Multicultural Day Boasts International Flavour’, 4 May 2006, [accessed 10 February 2009]
―――, ‘New Venue, Same Fun at East York Multicultural Day: Event Set for Sunday at East York Community Centre’, 31 May 2007, [accessed 10 February 2009]
Region of Birth of Recent Immigrants to Canada, 1971 to 2006, [accessed 5 April 2009]
Stathis, S. W., ‘CRS Report for Congress, Federal Holidays, Evolution and Application’, , updated 8 February 1999 [accessed 6 October 2011]
Statistics Canada, ‘2001 Census’, [accessed 20 April 2011]
―――, ‘2006 Census’, [accessed 20 April 2011]
―――, ‘One Hundred Years of Immigration to Canada (1901-2001)’, [accessed 7 April 2009]
Trooping the Colour, ‘History’, [accessed 25 November 2011]
―――, ‘Details of the Sovereign’s Birthday Parade from 1895 to Date’, [accessed 25 November 2011]
Ubriaco, G., ‘Canadians Celebrate Diversity’, 4 July 2006, [accessed 10 February 2009]
Wallace, C. M., ‘TILLEY, Sir SAMUEL LEONARD’, Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online, 1891-1900 (vol. XII), (University of Toronto/Université Laval, 2000), [accessed 5 October 2010]
Young, M., ‘Canadian Citizenship and Current Issues BP-445 E’, Law and Government Division, the Canadian Government, October 1997 [Revised August 1998], , [accessed 30 April 2012]
-----------------------
[1] Debates, 3 May 1869, 1st Parliament, 2nd Session, p. 163; 10 May 1869, 1st Parliament, 2nd Session, pp. 242-4.
[2] Adrienne Clarkson, ‘Proclamation Declaring June 27 of Each Year as “Canadian Multiculturalism Day”’, [accessed 31 January 2010].
[3] Gerard Delanty and Krishan Kumar, ‘Introduction’, in Gerard Delanty and Krishan Jumar (eds), The SAGE Handbook of Nations and Nationalism (London: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2006), pp. 1-2.
[4] Guntram H. Herb and David H. Kaplan (eds), Nations and Nationalism: A Global Historical Overview: Volume 1 1770 to 1880 (California: ABC-CLIO, 2008), pp. xvii-xviii.
[5] In this dissertation, ‘nation-building’ refers to the official policies for social integration, defining the image of the nation and promoting the citizens’ sense of belonging to the nation. Definition and explanation of nation-building, see, Walker Conner, ‘Nation-building or Nation-Destorying?’, World Politics 24.3 (1972), pp. 319-55. The review of the nation-building in multicultural society, see, Wayne Norman, Negotiating Nationalism: Nation-building, Federalism, and Secession in the Multicultural State (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).
[6] Eric Hobsbawm, ‘Introduction: Inventing Traditions’, in E. J. Hobsbawm and T. O. Ranger (eds), The Invention of Tradition (Canto Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992[1983]), p. 8.
[7] Although Anthony H. Birch suggested J. J. Rousseau (1712-1778), J. G. Herder (1744-1803), J. G. Fichte (1762-1814), Hegel (1770-1831) and other scholars made contributions to the theoretical roots of nation and nationalism, Gerard Delanty and Krishan Kumar believed the modern nationalism emerged after the French Revolution. See, Anthony H. Birch, Nationalism and National Integration (London: Unwin Hyman Ltd., 1989), pp. 13-25, and Delanty and Kumar (eds), ‘Introduction’, pp. 1-2. E. J. Hobsbawm believed that not until 1884 that the ‘modern’ concept of nation appeared in Western discourses. See, Eric J. Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality (2nd Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992[1990]), p. 14. His primary work on nationalism ‘Mass-Producing Traditions: Europe, 1870-1914’ (in Hobsbawm and Ranger (eds), The Invention of Tradition, pp. 263-308) also took the 1870s as the turning point of nation-building in Europe. Studies of nation and nationalism started to bloom after the end of the First World War. See, for example, Carlton J. H. Hayes, Essays on Nationalism (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1926); Hans Kohn, The Idea of Nationalism: A Study in Its Origins and Background (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publisher, 2005[1944]); Guido Zernatto, ‘Nation: the History of a Word’, Review of Politics 6 (1944), pp. 351-66; Louis Snyder, The Meaning of Nationalism (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1954); Aira Kemilainen, Nationalism, Problems Concerning the World: The Concept and Classification (Yvaskyla: Kustantajat Publishers, 1964). Hobsbawm suggested that ‘the number of works genuinely illuminating the question of what nations and national movements are and what role in historical development they play is larger in the period 1968-88 than for any earlier period of twice that length’. Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1780, p. 4.
[8] John Breuilly, Nationalism and the State (2nd Edition, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993). Hobsbawm and Ranger (eds), The Invention of Tradition. Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (2nd Edition, Oxford: Blackwell, 2006). Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism (2nd Edition, London: Verso, 1991). The definition of ‘modernist turn’ in the study of nationalism in the 1980s leading by Gellner was defined by Johann P. Arnason. See, Johann P. Arnason, ‘Nations and Nationalisms: Between General Theory and Comparative History’, in Delanty and Jumar (eds), The SAGE Handbook of Nations and Nationalism, p. 50.
[9] Breuilly, Nationalism and the State, p. 1. Discussions of Gellner’s point of view, see, John Breuilly, ‘Introduction’, in Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (2nd Edition, Oxford: Blackwell, 2006), pp. xiii-liii.
[10] Anderson, Imagined Communities, pp. 5-6.
[11] Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1780, pp. 9-13.
[12] Anthony D. Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994[1986]), pp. ix-x.
[13] E. Renan, ‘Qu’est-ce qu’une nation?’, in Qu'est-ce qu'une nation? et autres essais politiques, Paris, 1992, trans. T. Baycroft, in Timothy Baycroft, Nationalism in Europe, 1789-1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 31-2.
[14] See, Joseph Stalin, ‘The Nation’, in Marxism and the Natural Question, from Bruce Franklin (ed.), The Essential Stalin: Major Theoretical Writings 1905-1952 (London: Croom Helm, 1973), pp. 57-61, in John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith (eds), Nationalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), pp. 34-5. He defined nation as ‘primarily a community, a definite and historically constituted community of people’ with ‘a common language, territory, economic life and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture’, which also took the political and popular dimensions of a nation into consideration. And, Karl Renner, ‘State and Nation, (1899)’, in Ephraim Nimni (ed.), National Cultural Autonomy and Its Contemporary Critics (London: Routledge, 2005), pp. 15-48. Otto Bauer, The Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy, trans., Joseph O’Donnell (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000). They respected the nation as a cultural community – ‘the distinctive element of the Austro-Marxist approach to nationalism’ – in which culture was the principal that to designate a nation and characters of various communities were consisted of the national identity. See, Nimni, National Cultural Autonomy and Its Contemporary Critics, p. 65. Eric Hobsbawm claimed that Renner individualised one person’s nationality, and Bauer suggested ‘nations also had objective elements in common’, namely elements other than culture. See, Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1780, pp. 7-8.
[15] Timothy Baycroft and Mark Hewitson (eds), What Is a Nation?: Europe 1789-1914 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 3. And, Kohn, The Idea of Nationalism. Civic nationalism signifies a nation, in which people in this political community have equal rights and citizenship. Citizens’ political rights are in the priority when defining the membership of the nation. Ethnic nationalism focuses on the blood ties and lineage between the members of the nation. Cultural heritage, traditions, lineage and so on are the identities to clarify a person who is inside or outside the nation. Both of them restricted people’s membership within the nation, which was on the same ground to other theories on social integration, but respectively focus on the political and cultural aspects.
[16] Baycroft and Hewitson, What is a Nation?, p. 2.
[17] Clifford Geertz, ‘The Integrative Revolution: Primordial Sentiments and Politics in the New States’, in Clifford Geertz (ed.), Old Societies and New States: The Quest for Modernity in Asia and Africa (London: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1963), p. 156.
[18] John A. Armstrong, Nations before Nationalism (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1982).
[19] Anthony D. Smith, Ethno-symbolism and Nationalism: A Cultural Approach (Oxon: Routledge, 2009). Anthony D. Smith, Nationalism and Modernism (London: Routledge, 1998), pp. 170-98. Anthony D. Smith, Myths and Memories of the Nation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 3-27. Modernist and ethno-symbolism are only two perspectives of nationalism. Others such as perennialism and primordialism are also influential perspectives among the works published after the 1980s. Besides, Smith noticed various paradigms within the modernist perspective including social-economic, social-cultural, political, ideological and constructional.
[20] Smith, Nationalism, pp. 60-5.
[21] See, Michael Billig, Banal Nationalism (London: Sage, 1995). John Hutchinson, ‘Ethnicity and Modern Nations’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 23. 4 (2000), pp. 651-9. Tim Edensor, National Identity, Popular Culture and Everyday Life (Oxford and New York: Berg, 2002).
[22] Anthony D. Smith, Nationalism: Theory, Ideology and History (2nd Edition, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010), pp. 60-5.
[23] Montserrat Guibernau and John Hutchinson (eds), History and National Destiny: Ethnosymbolism and Its Critics (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2004). Athena S. Leoussi and Steven Elliott Grosby (eds), Nationalism and Ethnosymbolism: History, Culture and Ethnicity in the Formation of Nations (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007). Leoussi and Grosby (eds), Nationalism and Ethnosymbolism. Jon E. Fox and Cynthia Miller-Idriss, ‘Everyday Nationhood’, Ethnicities 8. 4 (2008), pp. 536-63.
[24] Pierre Elliott Trudeau et al, ‘Announcement of Implementation of Policy of Multiculturalism within Bilingual Framework’, in Debates, 8 October 1971, 28th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 8, pp. 8545-8.
[25] W. W. Isajiw, ‘Social Evolution and the Values of Multiculturalism’, paper presented at the Ninth Biennial Conference of the Canadian Ethnic Studies Association, Edmonton, Alberta, October 14-17, 1981. Quoted from Evelyn Kallen, ‘Multiculturalism: Ideology, Policy and Reality’, Journal of Canadian Studies 17. 1 (Spring 1982), p. 52.
[26] Kallen, ‘Multiculturalism’, p. 51.
[27] Yael Tamir, Liberal Nationalism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993). Discussion of the relationship between liberalism and minority rights as well as multicultural citizenship, see, Will Kymlicka, Liberalism, Community, and Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989) and Will Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996).
[28] Discussions on the basic models of social integration, see, Milton M. Gordon, Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964). This work suggested three models of social integration: conformity, melting pot and cultural pluralism. The major difference of three models is different degrees of homogeneity. The conformity model has the highest degree of assimilation, which is followed by the melting pot model, then the cultural pluralist model. Although the recent published works included many different paradigms and forms of social integration, the main difference still located in the contrary between homogenous or multicultural integration to the minority groups. Discussion of social integration models, see, for example, Michael Bommes and Dietrich Thränhardt, ‘Introduction: National Paradigms of Migration Research’, in Dietrich Thränhardt and Michael Bommes (eds), National Paradigms of Migration Research (Göttingen: V&R unipress GmbH, 2010), pp. 9-38.
[29] Isaiah Berlin, ‘Two Concepts on Liberty’, in Four Essays on Liberty (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), pp. 118-72. Berlin’s idea inspired many other works: for example, John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Original Edition, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1971). Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1989). Kymlicka, Liberalism, Community, and Culture. Iris Marion Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990). Tamir, Liberal Nationalism.
[30] Michael Freedon, ‘Is Nationalism a Distinct Ideology?’, Political Studies XLVI (1998), p. 748-65.
[31] Keith Banting and Will Kymlicka, ‘Canadian Multiculturalism: Global Anxieties and Local Debates’, British Journal of Canadian Studies 23.1 (2010), pp. 49-52.
[32] The Constitution Act, 1982, Department of Justice Canada, [accessed 1 May 2009].
[33] Canadian Multiculturalism Act, 1988, [accessed 1 May 2009]. And, Canadian Multiculturalism Act, (1985, c. 24 (4th Supp.)) Department of Justice Canada, [accessed 1 May 2009].
[34] Raymond Breton, ‘From Ethnic to Civic Nationalism: English Canada and Quebec’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 11.1 (1988), p. 89.
[35] Ibid., p. 93.
[36] Will Kymlicka, Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism, and Citizenship (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 39.
[37] Hobsbawm, ‘Mass-producing Traditions’. See also, Eric J. Hobsbawm, ‘Birth of a Holiday: The First of May’, in Chris Wrigley and John Shepherd (eds), On the Move: Essays in Labour and Transport History Presented to Philip Bagwell (London: Hambledon Press, 1991), pp. 104-22.
[38] Anderson, Imagined Communities, pp. 6-7 and 9. Although the ceremonies in tombs of Unknown Soldiers are typical events for presenting the imagined communities, this ritual in Canada is not as typical as those in the United Kingdom. This dissertation thus does not include this ritual when discussing Armistice Day in Canada and the United Kingdom.
[39] Kymlicka, Politics in the Vernacular, p. 39. And, Will Kymlicka, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction (2nd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 114.
[40] Edward M. Deems complied, Holy Days and Holidays: A Treasury of Historical Material, Sermons in Full and in Brief, Suggestive Thoughts, and Poetry, Relating to (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1902), Preface. In the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, Pope Clement VIII regarded holidays as ‘local matters’, which transferred the authority of declaring a religious holiday to local churches. This authority was later took by civic and political entities. Noah Shusterman, Religion and the Politics of Time: Holidays in France from Louis XIV through Napoleon (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2010), p. 1.
[41] Malcolm Smith, Britain and 1940: History, Myth and Popular Memory (London: Routledge, 2000), p. 2.
[42] Maurice Halbwachs, On Collective Memory, trans. Lewis A Coser (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), pp. 45-51. John R. Gillis, ‘Introduction’, p. 5.
[43] Victor Turner, ‘Introduction’, in Victor Turner (ed.), Celebration: Studies in Festivity and Ritual (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1982), p. 16. See also, Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, trans. Joseph Ward Swain (London: George Allen&Unwin Ltd., 1976[1915]), p. 219.
[44] John R. Gillis, ‘Introduction: Memory and Identity: The History of a Relationship’, in John R. Gillis (ed.), Commemorations: The Politics of National Identity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), p. 9.
[45] Alessandro Falassi, ‘Festival: Definition and Morphology’, in Alessandro Falassi (ed.), Time out of Time: Essays on the Festivals (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1987), p. 2.
[46] See, for example, Jonathan Grossman, ‘Who Is the Father of Labor Day?’, Labor History 14.4 (1973), pp. 612-23.
[47] See, for example, Jim English, ‘Empire Day in Britain, 1904-1958’, The Historical Journal 49.1 (2006), pp. 247-76.
[48] See, for example, Venetia Newall, ‘Armistice Day: Folk Tradition in an English Festival of Remembrance’, Folklore 87.2 (1976), pp. 226-9.
[49] Christian Amalvi, « Le 14 Juillet: du Dies irae a Jour de fête » , in Pierre Nora (ed.), Les Lieux de memoire, tome 1 La République (Paris: Gallimard, 1984), pp. 421-72. English translation, see, Christian Amalvi, ‘Bastille Day: From Dies Irae to Holiday’, in Pierre Nora (ed.), Realms of Memory, trans. Arthurf Goldhammer (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996-1998), vol. 3, pp. 117-59. Antoine Prost, « Les monuments aux morts: culte républicain ? culte civique ? culte patriotique ? », in ibid., pp. 195-225. English translation, see, Antoine Prost, ‘Monuments to the Dead’, in Nora (ed.), Realms of Memory, vol. 2, pp. 307-32. Before Amalvi’s articles published, Pierre Vallin also studied the memory of Bastille Day celebrations, see, Pierre Vallin, « Fête, mémoire et politique : les 14 juillet en Limousin (1880-1914) », Revue française de science politique 32(6) 1982, pp. 949-72.
[50] Lyn Spillman, Nation and Commemoration: Creating National Identities in the United States and Australia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). Similar studies, see also, Samantha Owen, ‘Continuing National History: the 1961 Italian Centennial of Unification Commemoration’, Australian Journal of Politics and History 56(3) 2010, pp. 393-409.
[51] The 21st annual conference of the Association for the Study of Ethnicity and Nationalism in the United Kingdom in 2011 also considered the study of national holidays. Two key note speakers, Anthony Smith and Jon Fox, both took ‘fete’ and ‘national holidays’ as the approach to explore the making of national identity in ‘banal practices’ in Michael Billig’s term. Interdisciplinary presentations in the following panels covered rituals, values, performances, commemorations and celebrations of national holidays worldwide, which highlighted aspects such as multiculturalism, representation of minority festivals, inventing new national holidays, transmission of rituals on transnational-origin holidays, long-term studies on various holidays in one nation, competition and interaction of national holidays and counterparts to traditional national holidays. Although none of them included Canadian practices of creating and celebrating national holidays, according to this dissertation, those of Canada covered all these aspects mentioned above owing to its changing ideological context and long historical course. See, ASEN, ‘Forging the Nation: The 21st Annual ASEN Conference, 5th to the 7th of April 2011, London School of Economic’. Michael Billig, Banal Nationalism (London: Sage, 1995).
[52] Jon E. Fox, ‘Consuming the nation: Holidays, Sports, and the Production of Collective Belonging’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 29:2 (2006), pp. 217-36.
[53] David McCrone and Gayle McPherson (eds), National Days: Constructing and Mobilising National Identity (Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillian, 2009).
[54] Ibid., pp. 5-6 and 8.
[55] Elgenius Gabriella, ‘The Politics of Recognition: Symbols, Nation Building and Rival Nationalisms’, Nations and Nationalism 17.2 (2011), pp. 396-418.
[56] For example, although the Federal government of the United States proclaimed 4 July as Independence Day in 1870, it did not recognise it as a paid holiday until 1938. See, Stephen W. Stathis, ‘CRS Report for Congress, Federal Holidays, Evolution and Application’, , updated 8 February 1999 [accessed 6 October 2011].
[57] Eric Hobsbawm, ‘Introduction’, in Hobsbawm and Ranger, Invention of Traditions, p. 4.
[58] Hobsbawm, ‘Mass-Producing Traditions’, p. 263.
[59] Douglas Webster, ‘Canadian Regional Decentralization in the New Global Context: Myth or Reality?’, The Canadian Journal of Regional Science/ Le Revue Canadienne des Sciences Régionales, VIII:3 (Autumn/automne 1985), pp. 377-94.
[60] José E. Igartua termed the period from 1945 to 1971 as the growing of an Anglophone Canadian national identity. He explained the reason of choosing 1945 and 1971 as the turning point in his introduction, which this dissertation agrees with. See, José E. Igartua, The Other Quiet Revolution: National Identities in English Canada, 1945-71 (Vancouver: The University of British Columbia Press, 2006), pp. 1-15.
[61] The appendix of this dissertation includes a chronology of the governments in Canada from 1867 onwards. It also marked the key historical events in different periods of time related to nation-building and national holidays.
[62] The Constitution Act, 1867, (30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3. (U.K.), 29th March 1867), [accessed 10 September 2009]. A review of the process of Confederation, see, for example, Ged Martin, Britain and the Origins of Canadian Confederation: 1837-67 (Victoria: University of British Columbia Press, 1995).
[63] Donald Creighton, Canada’s First Century 1867-1967 (Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1970), p. 13.
[64] Ibid., p. 17. See also, J. M. Bumsted, A History of the Canadian Peoples (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 187-9.
[65] ‘The Manitoba Act, 1870’, in W. P. M. Kennedy (ed.), Statutes, Treaties and Documents of the Canadian Constitution, 1713-1929 (2nd Edition, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1930), pp. 640-4. Manitoba Boundaries Extension Act, 1881, (44 Victoria, S.C. 1881, c. 14, Assented to 21st March 1881), [accessed 20 April 2010].
[66] ‘Order of Her Majesty in Council Admitting British Columbia into the Union, 1871’, in Kennedy, Statutes, Treaties and Documents of the Canadian Constitution, 1713-1929, pp. 658-9. ‘Order of Her Majesty in Council Admitting Prince Edward Island into the Union, 1873’, in ibid., pp. 664-5.
[67] The Yukon Territory Act, 1898, (61 Victoria, c. 6 (Canada), Assented to 13th June, 1898), [accessed 20 April 2010].
[68] ‘The Alberta Act’, (4-5 Edward VII, c.3.), in Kennedy, Statutes, Treaties and Documents of the Canadian Constitution, 1713-1929, pp. 683-7. ‘The Saskatchewan Act, 1905’, (4-5 Edward VII, c.42.), in ibid., pp. 687-91.
[69] Details of how Newfoundland became part of Canada, see, Raymond B. Blake, Canadians at Last: Canada Integrates Newfoundland as a Province (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994).
[70] Creighton, Canada’s First Century, p. 16.
[71] Regarding the communicational aspect, Reginald George Trotter suggested Canadian political elites made efforts to build a unified nation by constructing a communication system for spreading the national news. See, Reginald George Trotter, Canadian Federation: Its Origins and Achievement, a Study in Nation-Building (London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1923), p. ix. Regarding the political aspect, Donald Creighton pointed out the three major national policies after 1867 were ‘immigration and western settlement, all-Canadian transcontinental railway transport and industrialization by means of a protective tariff’, see, Creighton, Canada’s First Century, p. 25. Also, George W. Brown, Building the Canadian Nation (London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd, 1942), part 5. Regarding the religious aspect, John Webster Grand highlighted the religious approach in unifying the nation, that the Roman Catholic Church and Anglo-Saxon Protestants contributed to build a cohesive and distinctive Canadianness while maintained the diversity in diverse churches since 1867. See, John Webster Grant, ‘Religion and the Quest for a National Identity: The Background of Canadian History’. First present as a public lecture at Carleton University in 1973, and published in Peter Slater (ed.), Religion and Culture in Canada, (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1977), pp. 8-9. George W. Brown also argued that forming the Canadian protestant churches and expanding foreign policies were reflections to ‘the forces of constructive nationalism’ after 1867. See, George W. Brown, Canada in the Making (London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1953), p. v.
[72] For example, ‘An Act Respecting Chinese Immigration’, in Department of Trade and Commerce, A Compilation of Statutes of the Dominion of Canada Relating in Whole or in Part to the Assignment of Duties to Officers of Customs (Ottawa: Government Print Bureau, 1893), pp. 15-19. ‘The Chinese Immigration Act, 1923’, in 13-14 George V. Chap. 38 (Ottawa: F.A. Acland, 1923), pp. 301-15. Related discussions, see, John Hamilton Gray and Joseph Adolphe Chapleau, Report of the Royal Commission on Chinese Immigration: Report and Evidence (Ottawa: Printed by Order of the Commission, 1885). Restriction of other immigrants, see, An Act Respecting Immigration and Immigrants (Ottawa: S. E. Dawson, 1906). An Act Respecting Immigration (Ottawa: C. H. Parmelee, 1910).
[73] The aboriginal people started to lose their lands in the late seventeenth century, and this process was speeded after Confederation. See, Indian Treaties and Surrenders, from 1680 to 1890 (2 vols., Ottawa: B. Chamberlin, 1891). And, Indian Treaties and Surrenders, from no. 281 to no. 483 (3rd vol., Ottawa: C.H. Parmelee, 1912). Federal legislation to assimilate the aboriginal rights included Enfranchisement Act 1869, Indian Act 1876 and Indian Act 1927. See, John Leslie and Ron Maguire (eds), The Historical Development of the Indian Act (2nd Edition, Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1983[1978]).
[74] Related discussion, see, J. R. Miller, ‘Unity/Diversity: The Canadian Experience; From Confederation to the First World War’, The Dalhouse Review LV.1 (Spring, 1975), pp. 63-81, in R. Douglas Francis and Donald B. Smith (eds), Readings in Canadian History: Post-Confederation (2nd Edition, Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada, 1986), pp. 147-56. Howard Palmer once summarised the feature of social integration policies of Canada from 1867 to 1945. He labelled the phase from 1867 to 1920 as the ‘Anglo-conformity’, from the 1920s to the 1930s as the ‘melting-pot’ and from 1930s to 1945 as ‘assimilation’. The shared features of the three phases are the same: the homogenous social assimilation of the non-white, even non-Anglophone residents within the nation. He also pointed out the key difference between the periods before and after the Second World War was the emergence of multiculturalism. See, Howard Palmer, ‘Reluctant Hosts: Anglo-Canadian Views of Multiculturalism in the Twentieth Century’, in R. Douglas Francis and Donald B. Smith (eds) Readings in Canadian History: Post-Confederation (2nd Edition, Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada, 1986), pp. 184-201. Immigrants’ struggle to the assimilative policies, see, G. Friesen, ‘Immigrant Communities 1870-1914: The Struggle for Cultural Survival’, in ibid., pp. 158-84.
[75] The early history of the Liberal-Conservative Party and the Liberal Party of Canada, see, Frank H. Underhill, ‘The Development of National Political Parties in Canada’, Canadian Historical Review 16.4 (1935), pp. 367-87. See also, W. Stewart Wallace, ‘Political History’, in W. Stewart Wallace, The Encyclopaedia of Canada (Toronto: University Associates of Canada, 1948), pp. 175-86. Discussion of the political philosophies of conservatism, socialism and liberalism in Canada, see, for example, G. Horowitz, ‘Conservatism, Liberalism, and Socialism in Canada: An Interpretation’, The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science/ Revue canadienned’Economique et de Science politique 32.2 (May, 1966), pp. 143-71. The name of Liberal-Conservative Party was changed in 1873 as the Conservative Party. In the first phase of nation-building, the Conservative Party was centre to centre-right and the Liberal Party was centre-left.
[76] Underhill, ‘The Development of National Political Parties in Canada’. Robin Mathews, Canadian Identity: Major Forces Shaping the Life of a People (Ottawa: Steel Rail, 1988), p. 26.
[77] The ruling parties of the government in different period of time, see, Appendix.
[78] Continetalism, see, Creighton, Canada’s First Century, p. 36. Free trade, see, ibid., p. 42. Wilfrid Laurier’s and Honoré Mercier’s efforts in this period, see, ibid., pp. 61-4.
[79] The competition of imperialism and nationalism in Québec, see, for example, Mason Wade, The French Canadians 1760-1945 (Toronto: The Macmillan Company of Canada Ltd., 1956), pp. 447-607.
[80] The early history of the CCF, see, for example, Creighton, Canada’s First Century, pp. 208-12. The ideological base of socialists in Canada, see, for example, Mathews, Canadian Identity, pp. 51-67.
[81] ‘Imperial Conference, 1926: Draft Report of Committee on Inter-Imperial Relations’, C. P. 390 (26) November 17th, 1926, File No. CAB/24/182, N.A. Statute of Westminster, 1931 [22 GEO. 5. CH.4] (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1931).
[82] Although settlers in Nunavut (mainly Inuit) claimed to form an independent territorial government in the last decade of the twentieth century, and achieved the success with the Nunavut Act and the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act came into force on 1 April 1999, this change did not affect to the post-war Canadian boundary. This dissertation thus respected the changes in 1949 as the end of boundary construction of Canada. See, Nunavut Act, (S.C. 1993, c. 28), [accessed 9 November 2009]. Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act, (S.C. 1993, c. 29), [accessed 9 November 2009]. Politicians’ changing idea to Canada’s relationship to Britain, see, for example, Robert Bothwell, Ian Drummond and John English, Canada Since 1945: Power, Politics and Provincialism (2nd Edition, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989), p. 37.
[83] See, for example, Margaret Young, ‘Canadian Citizenship and Current Issues BP-445 E’, Law and Government Division, the Canadian Government, October 1997 [Revised August 1998], , [accessed 30 April 2012].
[84] Debates, 22 July 1963, 26th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 3, pp. 2440-5. Kymlicka, Liberalism, Community, and Culture. Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship. Kymlicka, Contemporary Political Philosophy, pp. 343-7. Pierre Elliott Trudeau et al, ‘Announcement of Implementation of Policy of Multiculturalism within Bilingual Framework’, in Debates, 8 October 1971, pp. 8545-8. Although Québécois respected themselves as a ‘nation’, this dissertation will use ‘sub-national’ group to name them to signify their political status in the politics, which is not a fully autonomous entity.
[85] See, Appendix.
[86] Bothwell et al., Canada Since 1945, p. 240.
[87] Creighton, Canada’s First Century, pp. 252-5.
[88] See, for example, Debates, 22 July 1963, pp. 2440-5.
[89] Creighton, Canada’s First Century, pp. 340-9. See also, Bothwell et al., Canada Since 1945, pp. 363-7, 432.
[90] Evelyn Kallen, ‘Multiculturalism: Ideology, Policy and Reality’, Journal of Canadian Studies 17. 1 (Spring 1982), p. 51.
[91] See, Appendix.
[92] For example, Robin Mathew argued Canadian national identity was dialectic owing to the fact that it stemmed from ‘the conflict between a balanced communitarianism and an unleashed competitive individualism’. See, Mathews, Canadian Identity, back cover. Andrew Cohen believed complexity led to the uncertainty of Canadian national identity, which deserved more careful exploration than existing concerns, see, Andrew Cohen, The Unfinished Canadian: The People We Are (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 2007), p. 3.
[93] Philip Resnick, The European Roots of Canadian Identity (Toronto: Broadview Press, 2005), p. 19.
[94] Adrian Favell, Philosophies of Integration: Immigration and the Idea of Citizenship in France and Britain (2nd Edition, New York: Palgrave, 2001), p. 22.
[95] Derek Foster, ‘Canada Days: Non-Canadian Ways’, in Linda K. Fuller (ed.), National Days/National Ways: Historical, Political, And Religious Celebrations Around The World (Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004), pp. 41-58.
[96] See, for example, Michéle Guay, « La fête de la Saint-Jean-Baptiste à Montréal, 1834-1909 », thèse de maîtrise (Ottawa: Université d’Ottawa, 1972). This work reviewed the history of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day celebrations in Montréal from Québécois’ protests in 1834 to the early twentieth century to argue that Québec nationalism and Francophone Canadians’ sense of belonging to own religious heritage motivated and expanded the celebrations. And, Laurier R. Rivet, « La Saint-Jean-Baptiste à Ottawa: 1853-1953 », thèse de maîtrise (Ottawa: Université d’Ottawa, 1976). This work focussed on the history of Society of Saint-Jean-Baptiste in Ottawa from 1853 to 1953 to show that the economic value, family and the youth’s participation and the ideology – unity, patriotism and missionary – of this holiday were significant and combined in the celebrations. Although some studies published before the 1980s mentioned national holidays in Canada, none of them concentrated on the events and rituals of them. This literature review does not include these discussions.
[97] Robert M. Stamp, ‘Empire Day in the Schools of Ontario: The Training of Young Imperialists’, Journal of Canadian Studies 3 (August 1973), pp. 32-42.
[98] Ethnic Canadians also once discussed their celebrations of own festivals as the representation of their identities and heritage. For example, BanSeng Hoe, ‘Structural Changes of Two Chinese Communities in Alberta, Canada’, Canadian Centre for Folk Culture Studies Paper No. 19, A Diamond Jenness Memorial Volume, Mercury Series (Ottawa: National Museum of Man, 1976).
[99] Claude Thibault compiler, Bibliographia Canadiana (Ontario: Longman Canadian Limited, 1973), Index.
[100] Dwight L. Smith, The History of Canada: An Annotated Bibliography (California: American Bibliographical Center-Clio Press Inc., 1983), Index. See also, Resources for Canadian Studies in Britain with Some Reference to Europe, published by the British Association for Canadian Studies, also did not mention any national holidays. Valeire Bloomfield, Resources for Canadian Studies in Britain with Some Reference to Europe (London: British Association for Canadian Studies, 1983), Index.
[101] Daniel Latouche, « Jeunesse et nationalisme au Québec. Une idéologie peut-elle mourir ? », Revue française de science politique », 35e année, n°2, 1985, p. 248.
[102] Donald Luc Boisvert, ‘Religion and Nationalism in Québec: The Saint-Jean-Baptiste Celebrations in Sociological Perspective’, PhD Dissertation (Ottawa: University of Ottawa, 1990). It concerned the interaction of nationalism and the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day in Québec from a sociological perspective by referring to Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx and Max Weber’s theories of religion as the theoretical base to explore the rituals of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day celebrations.
[103] Although Geoffrey Kelley analysed the Diamond Jubilee of Confederation 1927, his work was unpublished. See, Geoffrey Kelley, ‘Developing a Canadian National Feeling: The Diamond Jubilee Celebrations of 1927’, MA Thesis (Montréal: McGill University, 1984). Such interests of the mega-events of national holidays were increased after the 1990s
[104] H. V. Nelles, ‘Historical Pageantry and the “Fusion of the Races” at the Tercentenary of Québec, 1908’, Histoire sociale / Social History 29. 58 (November 1996), pp. 391-415.
[105] Craig Heron and Steven Penfold, ‘The Craftmen’s Spectacle: Labour Day Parades in Canada, the Early Years’, Histoire sociale / Social History 29. 58 (November 1996), pp. 357-89.
[106] Craig Heron and Steven Penfold, The Workers’ Festival: A History of Labour Day in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005).
[107] Robert Cupido, ‘“Sixty Years of Canadian Progress”: The Diamond Jubilee and the Politics of Commemoration’, in Caroline Andrew, Will Straw and J.-Yvon Theriault (eds), Canadian Identity: Region/ Country/ Nation. Canadian Issues XX (Montréal: Association for Canadian Studies, 1998), pp. 19-33. Folk music, aboriginal culture, French cultural heritage and the ‘ambiguous identities’ in a certain province were all respected as Canadian national identity in this conference.
[108] Robert Cupido, ‘Appropriating the Past: Pageants, Politics, and the Diamond Jubilee of Confederation’, Journal of the Canadian Historical Association/ Revue de la Société historique du Canada, n.s. 9 (1998), pp. 155-86. Robert Cupido, ‘The Medium, the Message and the Modern: The Jubilee Broadcast of 1927’, International Journal of Canadian Studies 26 (Fall 2002), pp. 101-23. Robert Cupido, ‘Solidarity without Consensus: Montreal Celebrates the Diamond Jubilee of Confederation’, (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Historical Association, Halifax, N.S., 29-31 May 2003).
[109] For example, Linda Helen Sawchyn, ‘The ‘‘New Canadian’’ and Canada’s 1927 Diamond Jubilee: Representation of National Unity and Identity’, MA Thesis (Edmonton: University of Alberta, 1997). It argued that ‘a specific historical event complicated and challenged the construction of a national unity and the visualization of a homogeneous racial and cultural Canadian identity’. Although this work noticed the tight connection between national ideology and a national holiday, it did not explain how a changing ideological context worked in this process. See also, Helen Davies, ‘The Politics of Participation: A Study of Canada’s Centennial Celebration’, PhD Dissertation (Winnipeg: University of Manitoba, 1999). This work picked up another magnificent Dominion Day celebration, the Centennial in 1967, as the case to explore the social integration via encouraging participants into national and public events while only provided the discussion of a single event. Studies about holidays other than Dominion Day, for example, Garry D. Peters, ‘Tradition and Memory in Protestant Ontario: Anglican and Methodist Clerical Discourses during Queen Victoria’s Golden (1887) and Diamond (1897) Jubilee Celebrations’, MA Thesis (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University, 2000). It analysed the momentous events of Queen’s Birthday, the root of Victoria Day and Empire Day, from the religious perspective to answer why religious and patriotic discourses on Queen Victoria combined in Canada when celebrating Queen’s Birthday.
[110] In 2001, University of British Columbia arranged a conference to discuss the memory and national identity in Canada, which collected two articles by Stephen Burgess-Whiting and Sarah Glassford about Dominion Day. As both of them seemed unfinished, this review will not refer to them.
[111] Alan Gordon, Making Public Pasts: The Contested Terrain of Montréal’s Public Memories, 1891-1930 (Montréal: McGill-Queen’s Press, 2001), pp. 145-65.
[112] Mary Vipond, ‘The Mass Media in Canadian History: The Empire Day Broadcast of 1939’, Journal of the Canadian Historical Association/ Revue de la Société historique du Canada, 14 (2003), pp. 1-22.
[113] Nancy Barbara Bouchier, For the Love of the Game: Amateur Sport in Small-Town Ontario, 1838-1895 (Montréal: McGill-Queen’s Press, 2003), pp. 31-59. Bouchier also used the same perspective to argue Dominion Day celebrations’ efforts in encouraging regional identity. See, ibid., p. 40 and 53.
[114] Jane Nicholas, ‘Catching the Public Eye: The Body, Space, and Social Order in 1920s Canadian Visual Culture’, PhD Dissertation (University of Waterloo: Waterloo, 2006), pp. 61-133. Nicholas deepened this discussion in an article published in 2009, see, Jane Nicholas, ‘Gendering the Jubilee: Gender and Modernity in the Diamond Jubilee of Confederation Celebrations 1927’, The Canadian Historical Review 90. 2 (June 2009), pp. 247-74. Additionally, Lisa Machin explored the ritual aspect of Remembrance Day, which took a perspective from the below in her unpublished work. See, Lisa Machin, ‘Public and Private Customs in the Military: A Case Study of the Cbservance of Remembrance Day by 56 Field Engineer Squadron, St. John’s Newfoundland’, MA Thesis (St. John’s: Memorial University, 2006).
[115] For example, See, Garth Stevenson, ‘The Politics of Remembrance in Irish and Québec Nationalism’, Canadian Journal of Political Science/ Revue canadienne de science politique 37. 4 (December 2004), pp. 903-25. It introduced a comparative discussion between the ceremonies represented Irish and Québec nationalism by analysing la fête de Dollard, the Francophone alternative to Victoria Day as one of the example. José E. Igartua took a comparative view when demonstrated the counterpart to the Quiet Revolution in Anglophone Canada from 1945 to 1971 by discussing politicians’ intention of renaming Dominion Day in the early 1950s and various provincial and local feedback on this issue, see, Igartua, The Other Quiet Revolution.
[116] For example, Patricia Yuen-wan Lin, ‘Cultural Identity and Ethnic Representation in Arts Education: Case Studies of Taiwanese Festivals in Canada’, PhD Dissertation (Victoria: University of British Columbia, 2000). Besides, after 2000, increasing number of books for the school children which introduce the past and present of national holidays and minority festivals in Canada have been published. These books can also be respected as the educational function that the national holidays included. Their main discourse contained in these publications is the promotion of multiculturalism in Canada. Series books such as Remembrance Day and A Poppy is to Remember were specialised for students of Grade K to 3 to pick up the vocabulary of national holiday like Remembrance Day through pictures, exercises and activities. See, Ruth Solski, Remembrance Day, Grades K-3, SSC1-44 (Napanee: S&S Learning Materials, 2003). Heather Patterson and Ron Lightburn, A Poppy is to Remember (New York: Scholastic, 2004). In 2003, Weigl Publisher published a book series called ‘Canadian Holidays’, including Christmas, Easter, Remembrance Day, Thanksgiving, Victoria and Canada Day. See, Jill Foran, Victoria Day; Remembrance Day; Easter; Thanksgiving; Christmas (Calgary: Weigl, 2003). And, Heather Kissock, Canada Day (Calgary: Weigl, 2003). This series is specialised for readers from Grade 3 to 6, containing many stories about the holidays and emphasising multiculturalism as the reason why certain holiday is worth studying. Another book series called ‘Canadian Celebrations for Grade K to 3’ was published in 2009, which continued the efforts of those published in 2003. See, Heather C. Hudak, Remembrance Day; Victoria Day; Canada Day; National Aboriginal Day; Chinese New Year (Calgary: Weigl, 2009). Compared to the previous series, the new one added two holidays represented multiculturalism, National Aboriginal Day and Chinese New Year, and removed three religious holidays, Christmas, Easter and Thanksgiving. This change, obviously, illustrated the growing importance of minority festivals in the education of Canadian young generation, and can be regarded as the recognition to minority cultures in Canada. According to the changes of these educational publications, it can be summarised that
[117] Matthew Hayday, « La francophonie canadienne, le bilinguisme et l’identité canadienne dans les célébrations de la fête du Canada », in Anne Gilbert, Michel Bock and Joseph-Yvon Thériault (eds), Entre lieux et mémoire: L’inscription de la francophonie canadienne dans la durée (Ottawa: Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa, 2009), pp. 93-116. Matthew Hayday, ‘Variety Show as National Identity: CBC Television and Dominion Day Celebrations, 1958-1980’, in Gene Allen and Daniel Robins (eds), Communicating in Canada's Past: Approaches to the History of Print and Broadcast Media (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009), pp.168-93. Matthew Hayday, ‘Fireworks, Folk-dancing, and Fostering a National Identity: The Politics of Canada Day’, The Canadian Historical Review 91. 2 (June 2010), pp. 287-314.
[118] Hayday’s definition of terms, see, Hayday, ‘Fireworks, Folk-dancing, and Fostering a National Identity’, pp. 311-14.
[119] The federal Holidays Act concisely signifies Canada Day, Victoria Day and Remembrance Day are national holidays, which should be celebrated or commemorated nationwide at a fixed time. See, Holidays Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. H-5), [accessed 9 September 2009]. Canada Labour Code (R.S., 1985, c. L-2), [access 9 September 2009]. The Labour Codes regularises the recreational feature of holidays, which also defines the holiday employees could take one day of rest, and thus includes more cases than the Holidays Act with provincial differences. Although the following chapters will consider the provincial legislation that recognise different holidays to the federal code, this dissertation follows the federal legislation to select cases. The federal Canada Labour Code designs ‘the day off to the employees’ as ‘general holiday (jours fériés)’, which includes ‘New Year’s Day, Good Friday, Victoria Day, Canada Day, Labour Day, Thanksgiving Day, Remembrance Day, Christmas Day and Boxing Day as well as any day substituted for any such holiday to section 195’. These holidays can be divided into three groups: religious, seasonal and civic holidays according to the Interpretation Act. See, Interpretation Act (R.S., 1985, c. I-21), [accessed 9 September 2009]. In its list of civic holidays – Victoria Day, Canada Day, Labour Day, Remembrance Day, this Act has one more holiday than the Holidays Act, Labour Day, which will be another case to study owing to its historical significance. Two proclamations recognised National Aboriginal Day and Canadian Multiculturalism Day as new holidays to promote the national ideology, see, ‘National Aboriginal Day - Governor General’s Proclamation 1-9615’, OTTAWA (May 23, 1996), [accessed 5 February 2009]. Clarkson, ‘Proclamation Declaring June 27 of Each Year as “Canadian Multiculturalism Day”’.
[120] As some latest archives related to the changes and feedback to national holidays had not been opened, this study mainly uses those before 1983 which fully covered the most important stage of the changing national ideology.
[121] Anderson, Imagined Communities, pp. 24-5.
[122] Besides, Karim H. Karim once discussed mass media’s role in constructing the dominated multiculturalism discourses in Canada, See, Karim H. Karim, ‘Reconstructing the Multicultural Community in Canada Discursive Strategies of Inclusion and Exclusion’, International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society 7. 2 (1993), pp. 191-5.
[123] The early history of Canadian national newspapers and their political stances, see, Mary Vipond, The Mass Media in Canada (3rd Edition, Toronto: James Lorimer&Compan Ltd., 2000), pp. 12-22.
[124] Ibid., pp. 1-5.
[125] This newspaper was first published in 1844 called The Mail and was established as a Conservative part organ in 1872. It merged with another Tory newspaper The Empire in 1895 and merged with the Liberal Globe in 1936, and thus renamed as The Globe and Mail. After the name change, it keeps the Conservative stance. A brief history of this newspaper, see, for example, Richard J. Doyle, ‘The Global and Mail’, Canadian Encyclopedia, [accessed 13 September 2009].
[126] The Montréal Gazette, 1 July 1867, p. 1.
[127] C. M. Wallace, ‘TILLEY, Sir SAMUEL LEONARD’, Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online, 1891-1900 (vol. XII), (University of Toronto/Université Laval, 2000), [accessed 5 October 2010]. The wide use of ‘dominion’ named other British colonies established in the seventeenth century. See, Archer Butler Hulbert, The Making of the American Republic (New York: Doubleday, Page& Company, 1923), pp. 43-50.
[128] Tilley’s suggestion defeated John A. MacDonald’s ‘Kingdom of Canada’ in the London Conference with the support of Lord Stanley, a Conservative member of Parliament of the United Kingdom and the later Governor-General of Canada, who believed that choosing ‘Kingdom’ might cause ‘the republican sensibilities of the United States wounded’. See, George M. Wrong and H. H Langton (eds), The Chronicles of Canada: Volume VIII - The Growth of Nationality (Tucson: Fireship Press, 2009), p. 61 and 225.
[129] Uses of ‘Confederation Day’ can be found in The Globe, 25 June 1867, p. 2; 26 June 1868, p. 3. At least in this newspaper, Confederation Day is not used to call the founding moment hereafter.
[130] The Globe, 2 July 1868, p. 2; 1 July 1869, p. 1. Before Confederation, books such as The Book of Days contained the long list and history of various religious and seasonal holidays were published, to ‘kindle and sustain a spirit of patriotism tending to unity, peace, and prosperity in our state’ for the editors’ view, which transferred an European heritage to the North America. This statement clearly connected meaning of days, especially holidays, to social cohesion and participants’ sense of belong to the state. See, R. Chambers (ed.), The Book of Days: A Miscellany of Popular Antiquities, in Connection with the Calendar Including Anecdote, Biography, and History (2 vols., London & Edinburgh: W. & R. Chambers Ltd.; Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1862-1864, republished by Detroit: Gale Research Company, 1967), preface. Shortly after Confederation, there were 46 or 47 seasonal and religious holidays in Canada. See, Debates, 10 May 1869, pp. 242-4. Initial ideas of creating Dominion Day as a Canadian national holiday, therefore, absorbed this knowledge of holidays.
[131] Debates, 22 April 1869, 1st Parliament, 2nd Session, p. 44.
[132] Debates, 3 May 1869, p. 163; 10 May 1869, pp. 242-4.
[133] Debates, 10 May 1869, p. 243.
[134] ‘Latest from Montréal’, The Globe, 30 June 1870, p. 1. ‘Latest from Montréal’, The Globe, 21 June 1871, p. 1. ‘Latest from Montréal’, The Globe, 29 June 1871, p. 1.
[135] ‘Latest from Halifax’, The Globe, 1 July 1870, p. 1.
[136] The celebrations, see, for example, ‘Manitoba: Correspondences of the Globe’, The Globe, 22 July 1871, p. 4.
[137] For example, Indians in Montréal organised a grand Indian Festival of Sports on Dominion Day in 1870 spontaneously to present their recognition of this day as members of the Dominion. See, ‘Latest from Montréal’, The Globe, 15 June 1870, p. 1.
[138] ‘Secretary of State for the Provinces - J.G. Scott, clerk, Executive Council, 26/26 June – In re proclaiming Dominion Day a holiday’, 1872, RG6-C-1 v.334 file no. 1278, LAC.
[139] ‘Dominion Day - Cashier of Molsons Bank asks whether this is a legal holiday’, June 1874, RG13-A-2 v.32 file no. 1311, LAC. ‘Dominion Day - Prince Edward Island - Question as to whether it was a legal holiday in reference to Messrs. Cunards claim for interest’, July 1876, RG13-A-2 v.37 file no. 816, LAC.
[140] N. K. Clifford, ‘His Dominion: A Vision in Crisis’, in Peter Slater (ed.), Religion and Culture in Canada/ Religion et Culture au Canada, p. 24. This essay was first appeared in Studies in Religion 2.4 (1973).
[141] For example, John Doty, A Sermon Preached at the Opening of Christ’s Church at Sorel in the Province of Canada, on Sunday the 25th of December 1785 (Montréal: Fleuax Mesplet, 1785).
[142] For example, Duncan Morrison, The Glorious Future of Canada, Jone Rutherford (ed.) (Ontario: General Job Printer, 1872). John C. Baxter, Dominion Day: A Sermon Preached in Stanley Street Church (Montréal: W. Drysdale, 1877).
[143] See, for example, ‘Celebration of Dominion Day’, The Globe, 3 July 1869, p. 4.
[144] A review of religious events of Dominion Day in the late nineteenth century, see, ‘Dominion Day Old and New’, The Globe and Mail, 1 July 1938, p. 6.
[145] Debates, 16 April 1879, 4th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 2, p. 1285. Chapter Six will analyse the origins of Monday Bank Holidays in the United Kingdom.
[146] Debates, 17 April 1879, 4th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 2, p. 1286.
[147] Ibid.
[148] Ibid. And, The Dominion Day Act, 1879, in Revised Statutes of Canada, 1886, Chapter III (Ottawa: B. Chamberlin, 1887).
[149] Debates, 28 April 1879, 4th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 2, p. 1575.
[150] ‘Dominion Day: The Bill Introduced in the Nova Scotia Assembly to Declare it a School Holiday’, The Globe, 19 February 1896, p. 8. The Globe, 2 March 1896, p. 6; 8 February 1897, p. 1.
[151] The Globe, 12 June 1886, p. 7.
[152] C.O. 26/2/186, N.A. and copy of HM M.855 of 11th April 1885; ADM 1/8681/118, Dominion Day: Précis of correspondence in papers titled ‘Colonial Office, 26th February, 1885’, 2 March 1925, N.A.
[153] See, for example, Grand Rowing Regatta: Dominion Day, 1889, under the Auspices of the National Celebration Committee of the City Council of the City of Toronto (Toronto: City Council National Celebration Committee, 1891). J. C. Schultz, Dominion Day, 1891, Winnipeg Public Schools (Winnipeg: Manitoba Free Press Print, 1891). Natal Day Celebrations of the Dominion of Canada and the United States of America, at Nelson, on Wednesday, July 1st and Saturday, July 4th, 1891 (British Columbia: Unknown Publisher, 1891).
[154] Schultz, Dominion Day.
[155] Schultz, Dominion Day, p. 12. Odes for Dominion Day showed the similar opinion to this article. See, for example, the Ode collected in Aeneas McDonell Dawson (ed.), Dominion Day, Caractacus, Malcolm and Margaret (Ottawa: Free Press Office, 1886). Ode for Dominion Day (Ottawa: Unknown Publisher, 1900).
[156] The Globe, 20 July 1901, p. 14.
[157] ‘Dominion Day in Berlin, Germany’, The Globe, 17 July 1903, p. 2.
[158] ‘Québec Legislature’, The Globe, 16 May 1888, p. 1.
[159] The Globe, 2 July 1890, p. 3. Similar report, see, 3 July 1899, p. 5.
[160] The Globe, 15 July 1918, p. 6.
[161] J. Harry Smith, Newfoundland Holidays (Toronto: The Ryerson Press, 1952), pp. 68-9.
[162] Debates, 23 June 1885, 5th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 4, p. 2773.
[163] Ibid.
[164] Debates, 30 June 1891, 7th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 1, column 1536-43.
[165] Ibid.
[166] Debates, 1 July 1891, 7th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 1, column 1579-80.
[167] Debates, 28 June 1892, 7th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 2, column 4320-1.
[168] Debates, 29 June 1894, 7th Parliament, 4th Session, vol. 2, column 5046-7.
[169] Ibid, column 5046.
[170] Ibid, column 5094.
[171] Debates, 28 June 1895, 7th Parliament, 5th Session, vol. 2, column 3545.
[172] Debates, 22 January 1917, 12th Parliament, 7th Session, vol. 1, pp. 9-13.
[173] ‘Privy Council Office (Canada) - Dominion Day Dinner – London’, 1915, RG25-B-1-b, v.262 file no. P-3-74, LAC. And, Debates, 22 January 1917, pp. 9-13.
[174] Debates, 22 January 1917, p. 38.
[175] Disagreements, see, for example, Debates, 25 January 1917, 12th Parliament, 7th Session, vol. 1, pp. 149-50. The federal government’s decision of the arrangement, see, Debates, 26 January 1917, 12th Parliament, 7th Session, vol. 1, p. 175.
[176] Debates, 6 February 1917, 12th Parliament, 7th Session, vol. 1, p. 524; 7 February 1917, 12th Parliament, 7th Session, vol. 1, p. 587.
[177] Debates, 31 May 1917, 12th Parliament, 7th Session, vol. 2, pp. 1805-6.
[178] The Ottawa Citizen, 3 July 1917, p. 1. The next section will review ‘O Canada’ and its earlier performance in Québec.
[179] Ibid., p. 7.
[180] Appreciations of the Attached Western and General Report No. 75. 3 July 1918, File No. CAB/24/151, N.A.
[181] Debates, 27 June 1924, 14th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 4, p. 3757; 30 June 1924, 14th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 4, pp. 3858-9.
[182] Debates, 30 June 1924, pp. 3858-9.
[183] See, for example, Cupido, ‘“Sixty Years of Canadian Progress”’; ‘Appropriating the Past: Pageants, Politics, and the Diamond Jubilee of Confederation’. Nicholas, ‘Catching the Public Eye’, pp. 61-133; ‘Gendering the Jubilee’. Sawchyn, ‘The “New Canadian” and Canada’s 1927 Diamond Jubilee’.
[184] Nicholas, ‘Catching the Public Eye’, p. 72.
[185] Mary Vipond, ‘National Consciousness in English-Speaking Canada in the 1920s: Seven Studies’, PhD Dissertation (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1974), pp. 248. Quoted from ibid., pp. 74.
[186] Debates, 30 June 1926, 15th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 5. pp. 5158-9 and 5164. Critiques of Diamond Jubilee, see, Debates, 14 December 1926, 16th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 1, pp. 6-7.
[187] Debates, 15 February 1927, 16th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 1, p. 350.
[188] Ibid., pp. 349-51. Debates, 17 February 1927, 16th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 1, pp. 409-13.
[189] Debates, 17 February 1927, p. 412.
[190] See, Diamond Jubilee of Confederation: General Suggestions for the Guidance of Committees in Charge of Local Celebrations (Ottawa: Government Printing Bureau, 1927). Sixty Years of Canadian Progress 1867-1927: Diamond Jubilee of the Confederation of Canada (Ottawa: F.A. Acland, 1928). Report of Executive Committee National Diamond Jubilee of Confederation (Ottawa: F.A. Acland, 1928).
[191] Nicholas, ‘Gendering the Jubilee’, pp. 252-3.
[192] Dominion Day Act, 1927, in The Revised Statutes of Canada 1927, Ch.49 (Ottawa: F.A. Acland, 1927).
[193] William Lyon Mackenzie King, The Message of the Carillon: And Other Addresses (Ottawa: Macmillan, 1927), pp. 3-13.
[194] National Thanksgiving by the People of Canada, July 3rd, 1927. Order of Proceedings, Diamond Jubilee of Confederation, 1927 (Ottawa: Government Printing Bureau, 1927). Diamond Jubilee of Confederation: Programme of National Celebration at Ottawa, Dominion Day, Friday July 1st, 1927 (Ottawa: Unknown Publisher, 1927). ‘The Diaries of Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King’, MG26-J13. July 1, 1927. File No. 4883-4. LAC, [accessed 18 November 2010].
[195] Nicholas, ‘“Where There Is No Vision the People Perish”’, pp. 121-9. The Globe, 1 July 1927, p. 13.
[196] Debates, 14 April 1927, 16th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 2, p. 2500.
[197] Nicholas, ‘“Where There Is No Vision the People Perish”’, p.119. The Globe, 1 July 1927, p. 13; 2 July 1927, p. 1.
[198] William Lyon Mackenzie King (ed.), National Thanksgiving by the People of Canada, July 3rd, 1927. Order of Proceedings, Diamond Jubilee of Confederation, 1927 (Ottawa: Government Printing Bureau, 1927).
[199] The Globe, 2 July 1927, p. 4.
[200] Debates, 17 February 1927, p. 412. The Globe, 19 March 1927, p. 6. Mason Wade, The French Canadians 1760-1945, (Toronto: The Macmillan Company of Canada Ltd., 1956), p. 809.
[201] Debates, 17 February 1927, p. 412.
[202] ‘Dominion Day celebration at Tokyo Legation’, Department of External Affairs, 1929. RG25 v.1548 part 2, file no. 621, LAC. ‘Dominion Day celebration’, Department of External Affairs, 1930, RG25 v.1573 no. 623, LAC.
[203] ‘Dominion Day celebration’, 1930.
[204] Ibid.
[205] Debates, 1 July 1942, 19th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 4, pp. 3834-8. Westminster Abbey, ‘An Act of Commemoration and Thanksgiving to Mark the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Confederation of the Dominion of Canada, Dominion Day 1942’, William Lyon Mackenzie’s Correspondence, MR C-6809, v.329, no. 281087-94, LAC.
[206] J. M. LeMoine (ed.), ‘Origin of the Festival of Saint Jean Baptiste Festival’, From the French of Mr. Benj. Sulte (Montréal: Morning Chronicle, 1880), p. 1.
[207] Ibid., pp. 2-5. Gordon, Making Public Past, p. 146.
[208] Denis Monière, Ludger Duvernay et la révolution intellectuelle au Bas-Canada (Les Éditions Québec/Amérique: Montréal, 1987), pp. 73-94. LeMoine, ‘Origin of the Festival of Saint Jean Baptiste Festival’, pp. 8-9.
[209] Monière, Ludger Duvernay et la révolution intellectuelle au Bas-Canada, pp. 73-94.
[210] Ibid., pp. 97-8.
[211] Guay, « La fête de la Saint-Jean-Baptiste à Montréal », pp. 136-55.
[212] Statute de la Société St. Jean-Baptiste de Québec, Fondée le 16 aôut, 1842 (Québec: N. Aubin et W. H. Rowen, 1842).
[213] Ibid., pp. 14-15.
[214] Guay, « La fête de la Saint-Jean-Baptiste à Montréal », pp. 156-210. Symbols and representations, see Paul de Malijay, Saint Jean-Baptiste L’Evangile et Le Canada: Souvenir de la fête national du 24 juin 1874 (Montréal: La Minerve , 1874). Myth of the patron and the Canadian, see, Histoire de St. Jean-Baptiste, Parton des Canadiens-Francais, 24 juin 1880 (Unknown Publisher, 1880). History of the association and other Catholic churches in Québec, see, W. Chapman, Guide et Souvenir de la St-Jean-Baptiste (Montréal: The Post Printing and Publishing co., 1884). Nationalist sermons on Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, see, L’abbé M.-T. Labrecque, Sermon pour La Fete de Saint Jean-Baptiste: Prononcé a la Basilique de N.-D. de Québec le 25 juin 1888 (Québec: Imprimerie Générale A. Coté et Cie, 1888).
[215] Boisvert, ‘Religion and Nationalism in Québec’, pp. 119-66.
[216] Rivet, « La Saint-Jean-Baptiste à Ottawa », pp. 10-35.
[217] See, LeMoine, ‘Origin of the Festival of Saint Jean Baptiste Festival’.
[218] Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Québec, Fetê nationale des Canadiens-francais du Canada et des Etats-unis : convention nationale 25 et 26 juin 1880, CIHM, No.13779. Claude Paulette, Je me souviens, depuis 1834 (Montréal: LeMéac/ Rencontres francophones de Québec, 1980), pp. 46-68.
[219] H. J. J. B. Chouinard, Fetê nationale des Canadiens;francais, célèbre à Québec en 1880: histoire discourse, rapports, statistiques, documents, messe, procession, banquet, convention (Québec: A Côte, 1881).
[220] Canadian Heritage, ‘National Anthem: O Canada’, [accessed 10 October 2010].
[221] Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Québec, Fetê nationale des Canadiens-francais du Canada et des Etats-unis. Société nationale Canadienne-Francaise Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Paris, 1887, CIHM, No. 24558.
[222] Gordon, Making Public Past, p. 148.
[223] Dominion Day Celebration 1889 (Toronto: Unknown Publisher, 1889).
[224] Gordon, Making Public Past, pp. 149-50. Guay, « La fête de la Saint-Jean-Baptiste à Montréal », pp. 246-70.
[225] Gaudet, Fête célébrées au Canada, p. 77. The Globe, 22 June 1909, p. 6.
[226] Susan Mann Trofimenkoff, Action Française: French Canadian Nationalism in the Twenties (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1975), pp. 43-4. Quoted in Gordon, Making Public Past, p. 156. Discussions on Adam Dollard des Ormeaux and la fête Dollard will be included in the section of Victoria Day.
[227] Gordon, Making Public Past, pp. 159-60.
[228] ‘The Chinese Immigration Act, 1923’. Histories of Chinese immigrants in Canada and the Chinese Benevolent Association will be reviewed in Chapter Five.
[229] The Chinese Times, 23 May 1924, p. 3.
[230] William A. Callahan, China: The Pessoptimist Nation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 23-6. Although Callahan’s work focussed on the contemporary use of ‘humiliation’ in the Chinese context, the term’s long practice from the 1840s to date was consistency.
[231] The Chinese Times, 3 July 1916, p. 3.
[232] See, for example, The Chinese Times, 30 June 1915, p. 2.
[233] The Chinese Times, 30 June 1924, p. 3; 30 June 1925, p. 2; 30 June 1926, p. 3.
[234] The Chinese Times, 2 July 1924, p. 3.
[235] Typical Chinese way of celebrating traditional festivals will be discussed in Chapter Five.
[236] The Chinese Times, 3 July 1924, p. 3.
[237] The Chinese Times, 30 June 1925, pp. 1-2; 30 June 1926, p. 3.
[238] The most significant ceremony in 1928 had about 600 to 700 participants according to The Chinese Times’ count, see, The Chinese Times, 3 July 1928, p. 3. The CBA and other political societies’ ceremonies for Chinese Humiliation Day, see, for example, The Chinese Times, 30 June 1928, p. 3; 4 July 1928, p. 3; 29 June 1929, p. 2; 30 June 1929, p. 3; 3 July 1930, p. 3; 30 June 1936, p. 2; 30 June 1941, p. 4.
[239] The Chinese Times, 2 July 1930, p. 3; 4 July 1932, p. 3.
[240] The Chinese Times, 2 July 1927, p. 3.
[241] Ibid.
[242] Ibid., p. 2.
[243] See, for example, The Chinese Times, 2 July 1929, p. 3; 30 June 1936, p. 2; 30 June 1938, p. 2; 30 June 1941, p. 4.
[244] The Chinese Times, 30 June 1930, pp. 1-2.
[245] Ibid., p. 3. Similar publication included, for example, The Chinese Times, 30 June 1936, pp. 2-3; 30 June 1938, pp. 2-3.
[246] For civic reason, see, The Chinese Times, 30 June 1932, p. 2; 30 June 1933, p. 2. For Dominion Day, see, The Chinese Times, 29 June 1935, p. 2; 30 June 1936, p. 2; 30 June 1938, p. 2; 30 June 1941, p. 4; 30 June 1943, p. 4.
[247] The Chinese Times, 30 June 1933, p. 1 and 3; 3 July 1933, p. 1.
[248] The Chinese Times, 30 June 1933, p. 1, trans. Lianbi Zhu.
[249] The Chinese Times, 29 June 1935, p. 1; 30 June 1935, p. 1; 2 July 1935, p. 1; 30 June 1937, p. 1; 30 June 1944, p. 4; 29 June 1945, p. 7; 30 June 1945, p. 4; 29 June 1946, p. 2; 2 July 1947, p. 3.
[250] The Chinese Times, 30 June 1943, p. 3; 4 July 1944, p. 2; 3 July 1945, pp. 2-3; 4 July 1945, p. 3.
[251] The Chinese Times, 30 June 1947, p. 2.
[252] Peter F. Fohee, ‘Symbols in the Streets: Parades in Victorian Urban Canada’, Urban History Review XVIII. 3 (February 1990), pp. 237-8.
[253] ‘Labor’s Big Day’, The Globe, 7 September 1936, p. 4.
[254] The Globe, 24 July 1872, p. 6.
[255] Ibid.
[256] Fohee, ‘Symbols in the Streets’, p. 239.
[257] ‘Labour Day Studies: A Canadian Idea?’, The Globe and Mail, 6 September 1993, p. A10.
[258] Heron and Penfold, ‘The Craftmen’s Spectacle’, pp. 357-89.
[259] Ibid., p. 362.
[260] The Globe, 7 September 1886, p. 1.
[261] Philip Sheldon Foner, May Day: A Short History of the International Workers’ Holiday, 1886-1986 (New York: International Publishers, 1986), p. 3.
[262] Heron and Penfold, The Workers’ Festival, p. 32.
[263] The Globe, 17 July 1890, p. 1.
[264] The Globe, 11 August 1890, p. 3.
[265] Congrès des métiers et du travail du Canada, Délibérations de la huitième session du Congrès des métiers et du travail du Canada : tenue à Toronto, Ont., jeudi, vendredi, lundi, mardi et mecredi, 8,9,12,13 et 14 septmebre 1892 (Toronto: l’autorisation du Congrès, 1892).
[266] A. R. MacDonald, Ottawa. ‘Askq. a holiday on Labour Day for Experimental farm employees’, 21&22 August 1893, Department of Agriculture, RG17 v.762, file no. 88352, LAC.
[267] ‘Labour Day 1893. To be observed as holiday by government’. North West Mounted Police, 1893. RG18-A-1, v.85. file no. 577. LAC.
[268] Debates, 7 May 1894, 7th Parliament, 4th Session, vol. 1, column 2410.
[269] Statutes of Canada, 1894, p. 371.
[270] Gregory S. Kealey. ‘1919: The Canadian Labour Revolt’, Labour/Le Travail 13 (Spring 1984), p. 11.
[271] Debates, 4 September 1896, 8th Parliament, 1st Session, column 712-13; 2 September 1903, 9th Parliament, 3rd Session, column 10489; 7 September 1903, 9th Parliament, 3rd Session, column 10712-3.
[272] Minister of Labour, ‘What recourse employees have against employer for refusal to grant a holiday on Labour Day’, 1909, RG13-A-2 V.1918, file no. 1171, LAC. Similar question was asked in 1921. See, Central Trades and Labour, ‘Can industries be compelled to close on Labour Day. Ste. Hyacinthe, Québec, 1921’. RG13-A-2 v.261, file no. 1921-1748. LAC.
[273] Heron and Penfold, The Workers’ Festival, pp. 115-42.
[274] The Globe, 4 September 1894, p. 7.
[275] Ibid., pp. 6-7.
[276] See, for example, The Chinese Times, 30 August 1919, p. 2.
[277] See, ibid. And, Historical Labor Day 1898, Souvenir and Official Programme (Toronto: Unknown Publisher, 1898). Labor-Day Souvenir under the Auspices of the Allied Trades and Labor Association (Ottawa: The Ottawa Printing Company, 1898).
[278] Reception Committee of Toronto District Labor Council, in honor of 21st Annual Convention of Trades and Labor Congress of Canada, Labor Day and Trades and Labor Congress Souvenir, 1905, Held at Toronto, Sept. 18-23 (Toronto: Unknown Publisher, 1905), p. 5.
[279] Melissa Turkstra, ‘Constructing a Labour Gospel: Labour and Religion in Early 20th-century Ontario’, Labour/Le Travail 57 (Spring 2006), p. 99.
[280] Sarah Schmidt, ‘Domesticating Parks and Mastering Playgrounds: Sexuality, Power and Place in Montréal, 1870-1930’, MA Thesis (Montréal: McGill University, 1996), p. 38.
[281] The Globe, 8 September 1894, p. 6; 7 September 1926, p. 14.
[282] The Globe, 5 September 1922, p. 4.
[283] The Globe, 8 December 1905, p. 6.
[284] See, Labour Day Programme, 1939, MG28-I-103, v.277 file no. 1939, LAC. ‘The Gazette, glace boy, Nova Scotia, Labour Day issue, 4 September 1943’, MG28-I-103, v.310 file 3, LAC.
[285] ‘A Message for Labour Day’, 1939. MG28-I-103, v.277 file no.1939, LAC.
[286] Ibid. ‘A Message for Labour Day’, 1943. MG28-I-103, v.277 file no.1943, LAC.
[287] ‘A Message for Labour Day’, 1941. MG28-I-103, v.277 file no.1941, LAC.
[288] See, ibid. And, ‘A Message for Labour Day’, 1942. MG28-I-103, v.277 file no. 1942, LAC. ‘A Message for Labour Day’, 1944. MG28-I-103, v.277 file no.1944; ‘A Message for Labour Day’, 1945. MG28-I-103, v.277 file no. 1945. LAC.
[289] For example, Hobsbawm, ‘Mass-producing of traditions’. E. J. Hobsbawm, ‘Birth of a Holiday: The First of May’, in Chris Wrigley and John Shepherd (eds), On the Move: Essays in Labour and Transport History, Presented to Philip Bagwell (London: The Hambledon Press, 1991), pp. 104-22. Foner, May Day.
[290] Craig and Penfold, The Workers’ Festival, p. 284.
[291] Ibid., p. 285.
[292] Ibid., p. 82.
[293] Kealey, ‘1919’.
[294] On the May Day of 1920, The Chinese Times started to give very positive comments on the worldwide May Day celebration. This attitude sustained until the end of the Second World War. Canadian Chinese’s interest of May Day rooted in the grand celebrations and the expanding events of it in China. See, for example, The Chinese Times, 30 April 1920, p. 2; 2 May 1920, p. 2.
[295] ‘Had Few Labor Troubles’, The Globe, 2 May 1907, p. 14. ‘May Day Troubles in Labor’s Fields’, The Globe, 2 May 1912, p. 14. ‘May Day of Discontent’, The Globe, 3 May 1926, p. 4. ‘Class-Conflict Day’, The Globe, 3 May 1915, p. 6.
[296] ‘Toronto Socialists Plan May Day Conference’, The Globe, 29 April 1918, p. 6.
[297] ‘Montréal May Day Parade Is Banned by City Police’, The Globe, 30 April 1927, p. 1. ‘May Day Labor Parade Passed up in Montréal’, The Globe, 21 April 1928, p. 8.
[298] ‘Red Banners Fall Aslakehead Police Break up Parades’, The Globe, 2 May 1931, p. 1.
[299] Central Executive Committee of the Communist Party of Canada, ‘May Day! And Programme of the Communist Party of Canada (1919)’, [accessed 27 August 2009].
[300] Ian Angus, ‘A Brief History of Canadian Trotskyism, 1928-1939’ (1977), [accessed 30 August 2009].
[301] Anne Walters, The History of May Day: Outline for Study and Discussion (Toronto: National Education Department Young Communist League, 1937), RG18-F-3, v.3526, file part 2, LAC.
[302] Angus, ‘A Brief History of Canadian Trotskyism’.
[303] ‘Had Few Labor Troubles’, The Globe, 2 May 1907, p. 14.
[304] ‘May Day! And Programme of the Communist Party of Canada (1919)’.
[305] Statutes 8 Victoria Ch. 4 (1845). Quoted in Bouchier, For the Love of the Game, p. 31.
[306] Bouchier, For the Love of the Game, pp. 31-59. ‘The Queen’s Birthday: Celebrations in Toronto’, The Globe, 26 May 1868, p. 2.
[307] ‘Official Programme of Queen’s Birthday’, Victoria, British Columbia. 1867, CIHM no. 14432; 1877, CIHM no. 15985; 1878, CIHM no. 15961; 1881, CIHM no. 15960; 1889, CIHM no. 15758; 1890, CIHM no. 15957; 1891, CIHM 15781; 1892, CIHM no. 15782; 1893, CIHM no. 15784; 1894, CIHM 15785; 1895, CIHM no. 15939; 1896, CIHM no. 15693, no. 15779; 1898, CIHM no. 15959; 1899, CIHM no. 15786, no. 15962; 1900, CIHM no. 15778, no. 15940.
[308] Bouchier, For the Love of the Game, pp. 31-59.
[309] ‘Official Programme of Queen’s Birthday’, Victoria, British Columbia, 1867, 1877, 1878, 1881, 1889-96, 1898-1900.
[310] Bouchier, For the Love of the Game, pp. 31-59.
[311] Leisure and competitive function has been discussed in Bouchier’s work. Garry D. Peters made great contribution on the religious element in the celebrations of Queen’s Birthday in Ontario. See, Peters, ‘Tradition and Memory in Protestant Ontario’. Although Peters has noticed the importance of Victoria Day in creating the tradition and memory of Victorian Canada, he did not fully explore this issue in the context of the post-twentieth century.
[312] Debates, 21 May 1885, 5th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 3, column 2030.
[313] See, Debates, 20 May 1886, 5th Parliament, 4th Session, part 2, column 1886; 12 May 1891, 7th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 1, column 157; 16 May 1894, 7th Parliament, 4th Session, vol. 1, column 2490; 17 May 1894, 7th Parliament, 4th Session, vol. 1, column 2940-2; 18 May 1894, 7th Parliament, 4th Session, vol. 1, column 3004-5; 22 May 1894, 7th Parliament, 4th Session, vol. 1, column 3163-75; 20 May 1895, 7th Parliament, 5th Session, vol. 1, column 1355-7; 21 May 1895, 7th Parliament, 5th Session, vol. 1, column 1452; 18 May 1900, 9th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 2, column 5699-700; 23 May 1900, 9th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 2, column 5885-7.
[314] G. E. McCraney, ‘A Suggestion from Milton’, The Globe, 23 January 1897, p. 12.
[315] Senator Bill, An Act to Commemorate the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria by Making Her Birthday a Holiday For Ever (Ottawa: S. E. Dawson, 1897).
[316] ‘The Queen’s Day’, The Globe, 4 May 1897, p. 2.
[317] Ibid.
[318] Ibid.
[319] Ibid.
[320] Wheel Outings in Canada (Toronto: Canadian Wheelmen’s Association, 1895). Sir Wilfrid Laurier Correspondence, 18 April 1894, MR C-748, v.43, no. 14009, LAC.
[321] Debates, 5 May 1897, 8th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 1, column 1738.
[322] Debates, 8 June 1897, 8th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 2, column 3583.
[323] ‘The Queen’s Day’, The Globe, 4 May 1897, p. 2.
[324] Debates, 27 February 1901, 9th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 2, column 503.
[325] Debates, 13 March 1901, 9th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 2, column 1433.
[326] Ibid., column 1434.
[327] Ibid.
[328] ‘Suggestion regarding Mr. Horsey’s bill regarding Victoria Day’, 1901, RG13-A-2, v.118, file no. 1901-279, LAC.
[329] Debates, 28 March 1901, 9th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 2, column 2201.
[330] Sir Wilfrid Laurier Correspondence, MR C-784, v.190, no. 54390, 19 March 1901, LAC.
[331] Debates, 2 May 1901, 9th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 2, column 4255; 14 May 1901, 9th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 2, column 5093. ‘Victoria Day Act’, The Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906 (2 vol., Ottawa: S. E. Dawson, 1906), p. 1787.
[332] ‘Suggestion regarding Mr. Horsey’s bill regarding Victoria Day’.
[333] The Globe, 26 May 1902, p. 1 and 7; 25 May 1903, p. 7; 22 May 1903, p. 12; 26 May 1903, p. 8. ‘House of Province Picnic’, The Globe, 22 May 1907, p. 4.
[334] ‘Holiday Crowds Enjoy An Outing’, The Globe, 25 May 1905, p. 1. ‘Why Have A Flag’, The Globe, 26 May 1931, p. 4. Union Jack was the most popular flag for events of 24 May in the early twentieth century, although Canadian historical society had realised maple leaf, not Dominion Arms, should be used in related ceremonies in 1900, see, ‘Victoria Day: Union Jack A Symbol of Heritage’, The Globe and Mail, 22 May 1961, p. 17.
[335] ‘Patriotism Features Holiday Celebration: Feelings of People Tokened in Display of Allies’ Colors’, The Globe, 25 May 1915, p. 7.
[336] The Globe, 26 May 1908, p. 1.
[337] ‘Six Nation Indians and the Queen’s Birthday’, The Globe, 2 September 1899, p. 8. ‘Six Nations Agency - Correspondence Regarding Victoria Day celebrations on the Six Nations Reserve. 1882-1916’, MR C-11176, v.2185, file no. 37415, LAC.
[338] For example, The Chinese Times, 22 May 1915, p. 2; 23 May 1916, p. 2.
[339] Debates, 10 May 1938, 18th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 3, p. 2711.
[340] Ibid.
[341] Ibid, pp. 2711-12.
[342] Boyd E. Beamish, ‘Citizens Back Proposal to Shift Holiday Dates Giving Long Week-Ends’, The Globe and Mail, 7 November 1938, p. 17. ‘Business Men Back Monday for Holidays: But Christmas, Good Friday not Included’, The Globe and Mail, 17 November 1938, p. 15. Robert M. Stamp, ‘When is the 24th of May?’, The Globe and Mail, 17 May 1986, p. A20.
[343] Discussion of the period of training the young imperialists, see, Janice M. Mill, ‘Building a Nation of Nation Builders: Youth Movement, Imperialism and English Canadian Nationalism, 1900-1920’, PhD Dissertation (Toronto: York University, 2004).
[344] ‘Origin of Empire’, in Sir Wilfrid Laurier Correspondence, MR C-849, v.466, no. 125829-35, 13 June 1907, LAC.
[345] Stamp, ‘Empire day in the Schools of Ontario’, p. 33.
[346] Ibid., pp. 33-4. ‘“Empire Day” Advocated’, The Globe, 6 August 1898, p. 10. The Globe, 12 August 1898, p. 10.
[347] Stamp, ‘Empire day in the Schools of Ontario’.
[348] ‘Empire Day’, The Globe, 17 May 1899, p. 7. ‘Empire Day Celebration’, The Globe, 23 May 1899, p. 8. Debates, 18 May 1900, column 5699-700.
[349] Stamp, ‘Empire day in the Schools of Ontario’, p. 35. Women’s Canadian Club, A Suggested Programme for Empire Day Celebration, 1915, in the School of New Brunswick (New Brunswick: Unknown Publisher, 1915).
[350] ‘Origin of Empire’.
[351] J. Castell Hopkins, The Origin and History of Empire Day (Toronto: Unknown Publisher, 1910). Frank Yeigh, Empire Day in Canada, Friday, May 19th, 1911, the Story of British Empire in Nutshell (Toronto: Unknown Publisher, 1911). Ontario Department of Education, Empire Day in Ontario: Tuesday, May 23rd 1912 (Ontario: Unknown Publisher, 1912). Ontario Department of Education, Empire Day in Ontario, Friday May 23rd 1913 (Toronto: L. K. Cameron, 1913). Ontario Department of Education, Jubilee of Confederation 1867-1917, Empire Day, Wednesday, May 23rd, 1917 (Toronto: A. T. Wilgress, 1917). Order of The Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Annals of Valour: Empire Day, Friday, May 23rd, 1919 (Toronto: A. T. Wilgress, 1919).
[352] Booklet ‘Empire Day 1915’ for The King. 1915, RG25-A-3-a, v.1164, file no. 1915-1307. LAC.
[353] Sir Wilfrid Laurier Correspondence, MR C-857, v.499, no. 134939, ‘Origin of Empire’, 11 January 1908, LAC.
[354] Sir Wilfrid Laurier Correspondence, MR C-858, v.503, no. 135864-5, 2 February 1908, LAC.
[355] Sir Wilfrid Laurier Correspondence, MR C-858, v.503, no. 135866, 5 February 1908, LAC.
[356] Sir Wilfrid Laurier Correspondence, MR C-874, v.566, no. 153373-4, 18 May 1901, LAC.
[357] William Lyon Mackenzie King’s Correspondence, MR C-2315, V.170, no.144870-5, ‘Publications - Victoria Day Booklet’, 12 January 1929, LAC.
[358] Stamp, ‘Empire Day in the Schools of Ontario’, p. 33. Sir Wilfrid Laurier Correspondence, MR C-900, v.666, no. 181475-85,13 February 1911, LAC. ‘Hugh Atwell - Resolution - Requesting that in future Victoria Day be also designated as Flag Day’, 4 April 1911, RG6-A-1, v.149, file no. 894. LAC. Debates, 25 May 1925, 14th Parliament, 4th Session, vol. 4, p. 3168.
[359] Sir Wilfrid Laurier Correspondence, MR C-800, v.263, no. 72722-3, 25 April 1903, LAC. The British way of organising events for Empire Day will be discussed in Chapter Six.
[360] Sir Wilfrid Laurier Correspondence, MR C-1171, v.414, no. 215372-73, 29 and 30 March 1901, LAC.
[361] Philippe Vervaecke, « L’invention du patriotisme impérial: usages politiques des fêtes d’Empire en Grande-Bretagne, 1877-1938 », Histoire@Politique. Politique, culture, société, N°11, mai-août 2010, [accessed 30 Oct 2010].
[362] ‘Hamilton News to Make Victoria Day Celebration A Big Affair’, The Globe, 27 April 1907, p. 5. ‘How Canada Celebrated: School Children’s Parade Feature of Victoria Day’ The Globe, 25 May 1907, p. 1. The Globe, 23 May 1907, p. 7. Victoria Day, The Globe, 24 May 1916, p. 6. ‘Toronto Schools All Mark Holiday’, The Globe, 24 May 1923, p. 13. William Lyon Mackenzie King’s Correspondence, MR C-2305, v.155, no. 132189-91, ‘Holidays - National - Empire Day’, 23 March 1928, LAC.
[363] Debates, 15 May 1922, 14th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 2, pp. 1769-70; 17 May 1922, 14th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 2, p. 1905; 16 May 1923, 14th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 3, p. 2795; 22 May 1923, 14th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 3, p. 2983.
[364] Stamp, ‘Empire Day in the Schools of Ontario’, pp. 39-41.
[365] Debates, 24 June 1925, 14th Parliament, 4th Session, vol. 5, p. 4849.
[366] Debates, 31 May 1926, 15th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 4, p. 3866.
[367] Stamp, ‘Empire day in the Schools of Ontario’, p. 41.
[368] ‘Honor Woman Who Founded Empire Day: I.O.D.E. Decorates Grave of Mrs. Fessenden in Ancestor Cemetery’, The Globe and Mail, 23 May 1938, p. 21. William Lyon Mackenzie King’s Correspondence, MR C-3734, v.155, no. 214175-85, 29 June 1938, LAC.
[369] ‘A Day for Self-Analysis’, The Globe and Mail, 24 May 1941, p. 6.
[370] Debates, 15 April 1943, 19th Parliament, 4th Session, vol. 3, p. 2201; 24 May 1943, 19th Parliament, 4th Session, vol. 3, p. 2936.
[371] William Lyon Mackenzie King’s Correspondence, MR C-7049, v.356, no.309388-91, ‘British Commonwealth - Empire Day - International Press Treatment’, 14 June 1944, LAC.
[372] Stamp, ‘Empire day in the Schools of Ontario’, p. 41.
[373] Gordon, Making the Public Past, p. xiv.
[374] Ibid.
[375] ‘Widow of Windsor Liked Risqué Jokes’, The Globe and Mail, 24 May 1999, p. A10.
[376] E.-Z. Massicotte, Dollard des Ormeaux et Ses Compagnons: Notes et documents (Montréal: Le Comite du Monument Dollard des Ormeaux, 1920), p. 15.
[377] Ibid.
[378] Wade, The French Canadians 1760-1945, pp. 576-7.
[379] Bourbeau-Rainville, Dollard des Ormeaux: Drame en vers en neuf tableaux (Montréal: Librairie Beauchemin Limiteé, 1911).
[380] Ibid., pp. 9-10.
[381] ‘Widow of Windsor Liked Risqué Jokes’.
[382] J. D. Tourigny, Fêtes Patriotiques et Récits Populaires des Evénements qui s'y Rapportent (Deuxiéme Edition, Montréal: Imprimerie de la Sally, 1921), p. 51.
[383] Stevenson, ‘The Politics of Remembrance in Irish and Québec Nationalism’, p. 910.
[384] Tourigny, Fêtes Patriotiques et Récits Populaires des Evénements qui s'y Rapportent.
[385] Lionel Groulx, Si Dollard Revenait: conférence (Montréal: l’Action française, 1919).
[386] Tourigny, Fêtes Patriotiques et Récits Populaires des Evénements qui s'y Rapportent, pp. 51-89.
[387] Stevenson, ‘The Politics of Remembrance in Irish and Québec Nationalism’, pp. 921-3.
[388] See, for example, ‘The Making of Peace’, The Globe, 12 April 1919, p. 1.
[389] ‘Convenience to Business’, The Globe, 3 September 1919, p. 24. Debates, 4 September 1911, 11th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 1, pp. 25-6.
[390] ‘Make Thanksgiving Nov. 11’, The Globe, 23 September 1919, p. 13. Debates, 4 September 1919, pp. 25-6; 16 September 1919, 11th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 1, p. 306. Pedlow’s first resolution on this issue was on 11 March 1918 yet no bill was formed until 4 April 1919. See, Debates, 18 September 1919, 13th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 1, p. 431.
[391] Debates, 18 September 1919, p. 431. Although Pedlow regarded the first Thanksgiving Day in Canada was proclaimed on 22 December 1798, there were some earlier records of the religious services on the day for Thanksgiving, which have similar purposes for commemoration to the later ones. See, Andrew Eliot, A Sermon preached October 25th 1759. Being a Day of Public Thanksgiving Appointed by Authority, for the Success of the British Arms this Year, especially in the Reduction of Québec, The Capital of Canada (Boston: Daniel and John Kneeland, 1759). Edward-Pickering Rich, A Sermon Preached on Thursday, Nov. 29, 1759. Being the Day of Public Thanksgiving for the Success of His Majesty's Arms in Canada, and Taking of Québec (London: Unknown Publisher, 1759). Samuel Woodward, A Sermon Preached October 9, 1760. Being a Day of Public Thanksgiving on Occasion of The Reduction of Montréal and the Entire Conquest of Canada, By the Troops of His Britannic Majesty, under the Command of General Amherst (Boston: Benjamin Mecom, 1760). Thomas Foxcroft, A Sermon Preached in the Old Church in Boston, October 9, 1760. Being the Thanksgiving-Day, on Occasion of the Surrender of Montréal, and the Complete Conquest of Canada (Boston: N.E, 1760).
[392] Canadian Heritage, ‘Thanksgiving and Remembrance Day’, [accessed 3 August 2011].
[393] Debates, 18 September 1919, p. 431. A letter from David Adair published in Montréal Star on 13 March 1918 first claimed a fixed day of Thanksgiving Day. However, David’s main focus was on Thanksgiving Day only.
[394] Ibid., p. 434.
[395] Ibid., p. 433.
[396] Ibid., pp. 435-6.
[397] Ibid., pp. 436-7.
[398] Ibid., pp. 438-9. Other similar discussions, see, Debates, 22 September 1919, 13th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 1, pp. 476-82; 23 September 1919, 13th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 1, pp. 518-24.
[399] Debates, 25 September 1919, 13th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 1, pp. 555-6.
[400] Debates, 8 October 1919, 13th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 1, pp. 904-5. Although there was no bill to approve Pedlow’s motion, from Chinese Canadians’ view, 11 November was a holiday from 1919. Their concerns to the recreational function of a new holiday were in the priority. See, for example, The Chinese Time, 10 November 1919, p. 2.
[401] Debates, 11 May 1921, 13th Parliament, 5th Session, vol. 4, p. 3207; 23 May 1921, 13th Parliament, 5th Session, vol. 4, p. 3773.
[402] Debates, 23 May 1921, p. 3773.
[403] ‘Suspension of all work for two minutes on Armistice Day, 11th November’, 13 October 1921, RG25-A-3-a, v.1302, file no. 1921-1236, LAC. ‘Public Ceremony on Armistice Day’, The Globe, 25 October 1921, p. 8. ‘Canada Keeps Her Warriors’ Memory Green: Armistice Day is Observed throughout Dominion Day in Fitting Ways’, The Globe, 12 November 1921, p. 12.
[404] ‘Armistice Day in U.S. Will Not Be Holiday’, The Globe, 8 November 1922, p. 1.
[405] As these two rituals were also practiced in the United Kingdom at the same time, Chapter Six will compare their
differences in two nations. Ottawa Citizen, 13 November 1922. in W. L. M. King Memoranda and Notes Series, ‘Remembrance Day’, MR C-2721, v.130, no. c95052-3, LAC.
[406] Debates, 6 November 1919, 13th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 2, p. 1835.
[407] Ibid. King George’s emphasises on the two minutes’ silences were repeated in the telegram to the Governor-General of Canada in the years after 1920. This appeal transmitted to most of the Canadian governmental and public institutions. See, ‘Suspension of all work for two minutes on Armistice Day, 11th November’, 13 October 1921, RG25-A-3-a, v.1302, file no. 1921-1236, LAC.
[408] Practices in the United Kingdom, see, for example, Adrian Gregory, The Silence of Memory: Armistice Day, 1919-1946 (Oxford: Berg, 1994).
[409] Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, In Flanders Fields and Other Poems (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1919; reprinted by Montana: Kessinger Publishing, 2004), p. 15. John E. Hurst, ‘John McCrae’s Wars’, in Briton C. Busch (ed.), Canada and the Great War: Western Front Association Papers (Montréal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2003), p. 73.
[410] Hurst, ‘John McCrae’s Wars’, p. 74.
[411] ‘Armistice Terms with Enemy Countries and Armistice Day as a Holiday, Boxes 442-444’, 13 November 1920, 1918-1937, RG24-C-1-a, v.442 File Part 1, file no. HQ-54-21-1-161, LAC.
[412] ‘To Wear Poppy on November 11: Millions to Be Sent to Canada as Remembrance for Fallen Soldiers’, The Globe, 1 August 1921, p. 7. Hurst, ‘John McCrae’s Wars’, p. 76.
[413] ‘Armistice Terms with Enemy Countries and Armistice Day as a Holiday, Boxes 442-444’, 3 November 1921; 20 October 1925; 22 October 1932. ‘Colonial Office (United Kingdom) - Armistice Day’, 1 October 1923, 1923-1924, RG25-B-1-b, v.188, file no. C20/66, LAC.
[414] ‘Armistice Terms with Enemy Countries and Armistice Day as a Holiday, Boxes 442-444’, 22 October 1921. ‘Disabled Soldiers are Making Poppies’, The Globe, 28 October 1921, p. 7.
[415] ‘Veterans Organized for Sale of Poppies’, The Globe, 7 November 1921, p. 8.
[416] Ottawa Citizen, 13 November 1922. William Lyon Mackenzie King’s Correspondence, MR C-4567, v.284, no.240195, 11 November 1940, LAC.
[417] ‘Colonial Office (United Kingdom) - Armistice Day’, 18 October 1923.
[418] William Lyon Mackenzie King’s Correspondence, MR C-3736, v.254, No.216440, 4 November 1938; MR C-3739, V.260, no.221675, 9 November 1938, LAC. British colonies such as Newfoundland, Southern Rhodesia, Bermuda, Granada, Hong Kong, Saint Vincent, Malay, Australia and New Zealand all observed a public holiday on 11 November or for the same purpose. See, ibid., MR C-3691, v.224, no.192180, 23 October 1936, LAC.
[419] For example, Sir Phillip Gibbs, The Soul of a Nation (Toronto: The Globe, 1920).
[420] ‘Armistice Terms with Enemy Countries and Armistice Day as a Holiday, Boxes 442-444’, 30 September 1922; 4 October 1922; 6 October 1922; 10 October 1922; 10 November 1922.
[421] Ottawa Citizen, 10 November 1924. in W. L. M. King Memoranda and Notes Series, ‘Remembrance Day’, MR C-2721, v.130, no. c95055-6, LAC.
[422] ‘Colonial Office (United Kingdom) - Armistice Day’, 31 October 1923.
[423] ‘Public Ceremony on Armistice Day’, The Globe, 25 October 1921, p. 8. ‘Canada Keeps Her Warriors’ Memory Green: Armistice Day Is Observed throughout Dominion Day in Fitting Ways’, The Globe, 12 November 1921, p. 12.
[424] ‘Armistice Terms with Enemy Countries and Armistice Day as a Holiday, Boxes 442-444’, 14 November 1928.
[425] Ibid., 1 October 1928.
[426] Ibid., 20 September 1929.
[427] ‘Armistice Day’, The Globe, 11 November 1921, p. 1.
[428] ‘Armistice Terms with Enemy Countries and Armistice Day as a Holiday, Boxes 442-444’, 18 November 1925.
[429] Ibid., 24 November 1925.
[430] For example, United Farmers of Alberta and Central Bank of Canada once had this claim, in William Lyon Mackenzie King’s Correspondence, MR C-2285, v.127, no. 108502, 19-26 January 1926, LAC.
[431] Debates, 13 February 1929, 16th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 1, pp. 82-3.
[432] ‘Armistice Terms with Enemy Countries and Armistice Day as a Holiday, Boxes 442-444’, 7 March 1929.
[433] Debates, 18 March 1931, 17th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 1, p. 105. ‘Observance of Armistice Day - If Remembrance Day falls on Sunday should celebration be transferred to Monday - From the State Department’, 1932/05/12-1939/03/21, RG13-A-2 , v.2223, file no. 1933-1298, LAC.
[434] Debates, 27 April 1931, 17th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 1, p. 1033-4.
[435] Debates, 28 April 1931, 17th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 1, p. 1035 and 1062-8; 29 May 1931, 17th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 2, p. 2118. ‘Remembrance Day’, The Globe, 30 April 1931, p. 4.
[436] ‘Canadian Bankers’ Association - Montréal - If proclamation is necessary to make November 11, Remembrance Day, a legal holiday’, 1931/09-1931/11, RG13-A-2, v.360, file no. 1931-1530, LAC. Thanksgiving Day was moved to the second Monday of October from then on except for 1935 by proclamation of each year. In 1957, a proclamation issued fixing permanently Thanksgiving Day on the second Monday of October. See, ‘Thanksgiving and Remembrance Day’.
[437] E. C. McCullagh, ‘The Two Minutes Silence’, The Globe, 10 November 1956, p. 6.
[438] Debates, 7 November 1932, 17th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 1, pp. 873-5; 9 November 1932, 17th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 1, pp. 982-3; 7 November 1940, 17th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 1, pp. 2-3.
[439] ‘Armistice Terms with Enemy Countries and Armistice Day as a Holiday, Boxes 442-444’, 30 September 1932, 22 and 28 October 1932, 1 and 14 November 1932, and, The programme of the ceremony 1932, in W. L. M. King Memoranda and Notes Series, ‘Remembrance Day’, MR C-4279, v.205, no. c141748-51, 11 November 1936, LAC. ‘Government’s View of Nov. 11 Holiday Officially Stated: Classed with Labor Day or New Year’s, Ottawa Explains’, The Globe, 6 November 1931, p. 5.
[440] ‘Armistice Terms with Enemy Countries and Armistice Day as a Holiday, Boxes 442-444’, The programme of the ceremony 1932. ‘National Remembrance Day ceremony under the Auspices of the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League’, the year of 1933, in William Lyon Mackenzie King’s Correspondence, MR C-3688, v.218, no. 187688, LAC. The year of 1934, in ibid., MR C-3681, v.207, no. 177856-7, LAC. The year of 1935, in ibid., MR C-3866, v.218, no. 187690, LAC. The year of 1936, in W. L. M. King Memoranda and Notes Series, ‘Remembrance Day’, MR C-4279, v.205, no. 141757-8, LAC. The year of 1937, in William Lyon Mackenzie King’s Correspondence, MR C-3729, v.241, no. 207203-4, LAC.
[441] ‘Today is Birthday of Canadian Nation Ralston Suggests’, The Globe, 11 November 1931, p. 2.
[442] ‘A Day of Remembrance’, The Globe, 11 November 1931, p. 4.
[443] Fred Williams, ‘Remember Our Militia Heroes of Old’, The Globe and Mail, 11 November 1938, p. 6. ‘Remembrance and Thanksgiving Keynote of Solemn Services, Conducted by M. Jane Scott’, The Globe and Mail, 10 November 1945, p. 10.
[444] ‘Remembrance Day’, The Globe, 11 November 1931, p. 4. ‘Churches Observe Remembrance Day; Veterans Attend’, The Globe, 14 November 1932, p. 11. ‘Thousands Gather at City’s Cenotaph as Fallen Honored’, The Globe, 12 November 1934, p. 4.
[445] William Lyon Mackenzie King’s Correspondence, MR C-3726, v.236, no. 202528-31, ‘Peace Action Week, November 8-14, 1937’, LAC. And, ibid., MR C-3734, v.251, no. 214292, 2 November 1938; MR C-3737, v.257, no. 219117-8, 10 November 1938, LAC.
[446] Ibid., MR C-3750, v.279, no.236405, 6 November 1939.
[447] Ibid., MR C-7038, v.341, no. 293774-5, 4 October 1943; no. 293777-8, 23 October 1943.
[448] This change can be noticed in the reducing numbers of discussions on ceremonies of Remembrance Day in the governmental documents. It became a ‘“family affair” for members of British Commonwealth’, see, for example, William Lyon Mackenzie King’s Correspondence, MR C-3736, v.254, no. 216440, 4 November 1938; MR-3750, v.279, no. 236405, 6 November 1939; MR-7038, v.341, no. 293774-5, 4 October 1943, and no. 293777-8, 23 October 1943, LAC.
[449] Resnick, The European Roots of Canadian Identity, p. 21.
[450] Although some discussions extend to the period shortly after 1971, this chapter includes these events to show the direct and immediate result of the changing ideological context.
[451] José E. Igartua discussed politicians’ attempts of renaming Dominion Day from 1946 to 1954 by analysing provincial and local news reports. He argued that these attempts were ‘a political issue involving definition of national unity’ which attacked the British ingredient of the Canadian national identity. See, Igartua, The Other Quiet Revolution, pp. 29-33 and 104-7. Matthew Hayday chose the start of preparing Centennial celebrations as the turning point of Dominion Day celebrations, to explore ‘the development of federal national identity policies in the post-Second World War Canada’ from the perspective of mass media. Nevertheless, he neglected some previous attempts the first wave of renaming contained. See, Hayday, ‘Fireworks, Folk-dancing, and Fostering a National Identity’, pp. 287-314. This section, therefore, will integrate two waves of transformation as a whole, to explore how the altering context affected existing national holidays.
[452] Greeting messages from foreign nations from 1942 to 1945, see, Debates, 6 July 1942, 19th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 4, p. 3931; 2 July 1943, 19th Parliament, 4th Session, vol. 5, pp. 4281-2; 3 July 1944, 19th Parliament, 5th Session vol. 5, pp. 4426-7. And, ‘Holidays - National - Dominion Day’. William Lyon Mackenzie’s Correspondence, MR C-7046, v.352, no. 305519-21, 305539-41, 305741, 305917-20, 306109-11, 306329-35, June – July 1943; MR C-7048, v.354, no. 307938, 308684, 326405-6, July 1944; MR C-7052, v.363, no. 314374-77, 1 July 1944; MR C-7054, v.367, no. 318068-69, 318214-15, July 1944; MR C-7055, v.370, no. 320714-25, 1 July 1944; MR C-7059, v.374, no. 326095-96, 1 July 1944; MR C-7060, v.376, no. 328161-62, 1 July 1944; v.377, no. 328657-58, 3 July 1944, LAC. After the end of the Second World War, more similar greetings were received by the Canadian government, see, ‘Dominion Day - Mr. St-Laurenth’s signature’, 1950-53, MG26-L, v.95, file D-46, file no. 1949-53, LAC. ‘Canadian History - National Status - Dominion Day’, June 1963-Aug. 1965, MG26-N3, v.303, file no. 912.3, LAC.
[453] ‘Holidays - National - Dominion Day’. William Lyon Mackenzie’s Correspondence, MR C-6809, v.329, no. 281095-99, 1 July 1942, LAC.
[454] D.O. G578/66, p. 3. This document is part of the archive D.O. 35/1130 H532/60 dated 1944-1945, entitled ‘empire days, national days etc.’, Dominion Office, N.A.
[455] D.O. G578/66, p. 4. Letter from Ottawa to London, and p. 15-16. N.A.
[456] D.O. G578/66, 12 July 1945, p. 8; 16 June 1945, p. 9; 31 May 1945, p. 10-11. N.A.
[457] Debates, 27 March 1946, 20th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 1, p. 302. ‘Act Respecting Canada Day’, 27 March 1946, RG19, v.305 File Part 1, file no. 101-53-119, LAC. ‘Canada day, bill to appeal the Dominion Day Act and substitute a Canada Day Act, 1946’, in D.O. 35/1130, H532/46. ‘Empire Days, National Days etc. National Days of Allied Nations’. N.A.
[458] Debates, 4 April 1946, 20th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 1, pp. 549-57.
[459] Ibid., p. 552.
[460] Ibid., pp. 550-4.
[461] Ibid., p. 555.
[462] Ibid., p. 561. ‘Act Respecting Canada Day’.
[463] ‘Ceremonies and celebrations, July 1st, Changing title to Canada Day’, 1946, RG6, Box 25, file no. 7215-3, LAC.
[464] For example, ‘Holidays - National - Dominion Day’. William Lyon Mackenzie’s Correspondence, MR C-9170, v.404, no. 365119-20, 21 May 1946, LAC.
[465] See, for example, ‘Prefers Dominion Day’, The Globe and Mail, 13 April 1946, p. 6. ‘Dominion Day Bills Should Die, Farris Argus’, The Globe and Mail, 15 May 1946, p. 8. ‘Canada Day Bill to Be Amended, Senate Decides, Call it National Holiday of Canada Instead’, The Globe and Mail, 7 June 1946, p. 6. Other regional disagreements and discussions, see, Igartua, The Other Quiet Revolution, pp. 29-33.
[466] Igartua, The Other Quiet Revolution, pp. 29-33.
[467] D.O. 35/1130, H532/46. ‘Empire Days, National Days etc. National Days of Allied Nations’, 16 August 1946, p. 9. N.A.
[468] Ibid.
[469] ‘A New Low in Compromise’, The Globe and Mail, 10 August 1946, p. 6.
[470] Debates, 30 June 1947, 20th Parliament, 4th Session, vol. 5, p. 4831. ‘Dominion Day - Mr. St-Laurent’s signature’, 1949-53, MG26-L, v.95, file D-46, file no. 1949-53, LAC. ‘National Status - Dominion Day - General - Prime Minister’s Signature’, 1951, RG2-B-2, v.172, file part 1, file no. N-10-9, LAC.
[471] Debates, 13 May 1947, 20th Parliament, 4th Session, vol. 5, p. 3013.
[472] For example, ‘Dominion Day - Mr. St-Laurent’s signature’, 13 December 1949; ‘Dominion Day’, 24 July 1956, MG26-L, v.47, file no. 912.3, file no. D63 1954-55-56, LAC. ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, celebration of nearest Monday’, RG6 Box 26 no.7215-4, LAC.
[473] Igartua examined several regional newspapers such as The Globe and Mail, The Toronto Star, The Calgary Herald and The Ottawa Journal, including the debates on the name. See, Igartua, The Other Quiet Revolution, pp. 104-7. Debates in parliament about changing Dominion of Canada to Canada, see, Debates, 20 February 1950, 21st Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 1, p. 37.
[474] Debates, 20 February 1950, p. 37.
[475] Debates, 25 April 1950, 21st Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 2, p. 1881.
[476] Ibid., p. 1882.
[477] Debates, 2 June 1950, 21st Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 3, pp. 3149-51.
[478] ‘National Status - Dominion Day - General - Prime Minister’s Signature’, 21 March 1950, RG2-B-2, v.172, file part 2, file no. N-10-9, LAC.
[479] ‘Ask Premier to Retain Name of Dominion Day’, The Globe and Mail, 18 March 1950, p. 14.
[480] The Ottawa Journal, 5 June 1950.
[481] Debates, 28 June 1950, 21st Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 4, p. 6258.
[482] Debates, 1 February 1951, 21st Parliament, 4th Session, vol. 1, p. 15.
[483] Debates, 20 February 1951, 21st Parliament, 4th Session, vol. 1, pp. 514-15.
[484] Ibid., p. 516.
[485] Ibid., p. 518.
[486] Ibid., p. 609.
[487] Ibid., p. 610.
[488] ‘National Status - Dominion Day - General - Prime Minister’s Signature’, 13 March, 21 May, 5, 6 and 27 June 1951, RG2-B-2, v.172, file part 2, file no. N-10-9, LAC. IODE repeated their rejection on 10 July 1957. See, ‘Dominion Day’, 10 July 1957, MG26-L, v.247 file no. 912.3, LAC. More correspondences expressed the rejection to this bill can be found in ‘Ceremonies and celebrations, July 1st, Changing title to Canada Day’, RG6, Box 26, file no. 7215-4, LAC.
[489] Igartua, The Other Quiet Revolution, pp. 104-7.
[490] Debates, 25 April 1952, 21st Parliament, 6th Session, vol. 2, p. 1613.
[491] Although Bryan D. Palmer thoroughly reviewed the ironic identity in Canada in the 1960s, which supplied an extensive regional, national and international background for that period and can be used as a reference to this section, he did not pay much attention to the process of creanting national symbols. See, Bryan D. Palmer, Canada’s 1960s: The Ironies of Identity in a Rebellious Era (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009).
[492] J. L. Granatstein, Canada 1957-1967: The Years of Uncertainty & Innovation, The Canadian Centenary Series (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1986).
[493] Details of the Quiet Revolution, see, Paul-André Linteau et. al, Québec since 1930, translation of: Histoire de Québec contemporain: Le Québec depuis 1930, tome 2, trans. Robert Chodos and Ellen Garmaise (Toronto: James Lorimer & Company, 1991[1989]), pp. 307-599.
[494] Kenneth McRoberts and Dale Posgate, Québec: Social Change and Political Crisis (2nd Edition, Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1981), pp. 103-4.
[495] Bumsted, A History of the Canadian Peoples, pp. 337-78.
[496] McRoberts and Posgate, Québec: Social Change and Political Crisis, pp. 175-95.
[497] Linteau et. al, Québec since 1930, pp. 536-43.
[498] Ramsay Cook, Canada, and Québec and the Uses of Nationalism (2nd Edition, Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Inc., 1995), p. 104. See also, for example, Debates, 16 June 1965, 26th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 2, pp. 2508-9.
[499] Debates, 24 May 1963, 26th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 1, p. 271.
[500] Debates, 25 June 1963, 26th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 2, pp. 1546-9.
[501] Debates, 22 July 1963, p. 2240. According to the House Debates, other members included Clement Cormier, president of St. Joseph’s University, New Brunswick; Royce Frith, a lawyer in Toronto; Jean Louis Gagnon, a journalist and broadcaster in Montréal; Gertrude Laing, a housewife in Calgary; Jean Marchand, general president of the confederation of national trade unions of Québec; J. B. Rudnyckyj, chairman of the department of Slavic studies at the University of Manitoba; Frank R. Scott, dean of law at McGill University, Montréal; Paul Wyezynski, director of the French Canadian literature research centre and associate professor of French literature at the University of Ottawa. Pearson’s believed although the personnel of the commission could not ‘represent every point of view of every group in our country...the diversity of their backgrounds and interests and their broad experiences’ showed ‘they do represent a varied and important cross section of our people’. Moreover, all the members are fluent in French and English.
[502] Ibid., p. 2441.
[503] Ibid., p. 2443.
[504] Debates, 18 June 1964, 26th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 4, p. 4483.
[505] The final report was consisted by six separated volumes, they are: ‘The Official Languages’ (1967), ‘Education’ (1968), ‘The Work World’ (Socioeconomic Status, the Federal Administration, the Private Sector, 1969), ‘The Cultural Contribution of the Other Ethnic Groups’ (1969), ‘The Federal Capital’ (1970), and ‘Voluntary Associations’ (1970). When RCBB’s investigation was undergoing, members of parliament, especially those for Québec from both sides, suggested respecting French and French culture in Canada as part of Canadianism. See, for example, Debates, 9 June 1966, 27th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 6, pp. 6218-21.
[506] Debates, 17 October 1968, 28th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 2, p. 1481.
[507] Ibid.
[508] Ibid., p. 1483.
[509] Ibid., p. 1487.
[510] Debates, 17 December 1968, 28th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 4, p. 4030.
[511] Debates, 21 May 1969, 28th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 8, pp. 8903-27. ‘Statement by the Honourable James Moore, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, on the Occasion of the 40th Anniversary of the Adoption of the Official Languages Act’, 9 July 2009, [accessed 30 November 2010].
[512] Debates, 6 November 1969, 28th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 1, pp. 577-80; 23 June 1970, 28th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 8, pp. 8487-94; 2 February 1971, 28th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 3, pp. 2982-3; 30 September 1971, 28th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 8, pp. 8341-2; 22 December 1971, 28th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 10, pp. 10693-6.
[513] Debates, 30 September 1971, p. 8342.
[514] Ibid.
[515] Debates, 8 October 1971, pp. 8545-8.
[516] Ibid., p. 8545.
[517] Ibid., p. 8580.
[518] Ibid., p. 8581.
[519] Michael Dewing, ‘Canadian Multiculturalism’, Revised 15 September 2009 (Toronto: Parliament Information and Research Service), [accessed 15 September 2011].
[520] Ibid.
[521] Linteau et. al, Québec since 1930, pp. 533-6. Debates, 7 December 1971, 28th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 10, p. 10216; 22 December 1971, 28th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 10, pp. 10693-6.
[522] Hayday, ‘Fireworks, Folk-dancing, and Fostering a National Identity’, p. 289 and 294. And Hayday, ‘Variety Show as National Identity’, p. 173 and 191.
[523] Hayday, ‘Variety Show as National Identity’, p. 173 and 191. See also, Matthew Hayday, ‘Canada Day’, in Encyclopaedia of French Cultural Heritage in North America, [accessed 15 August 2011].
[524] Debates, 9 December 1957, 23rd Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 2, pp. 2084-103.
[525] Ibid., p. 2084.
[526] See, for example, Debates, 1 July 1959, 24th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 3, pp. 5327-8.
[527] Ibid.
[528] Canadian Bill of Rights (S.C. 1960, c. 44, Assented to 1960-08-10), [accessed 15 August 2011].
[529] Debates, 25 June 1963, pp. 1546-8.
[530] The Ottawa Journal, 11 May and 16 September 1961.
[531] ‘At Charlotte Town: Giant Confederation Memorial Centre’, The Ottawa Journal, 18 May 1961. ‘Ready by 1964: PEI Building Honors “Fathers”’, The Ottawa Journal, 28 June 1961. The Ottawa Journal, 30 September 1961. ‘Memorial to Historic Conference’, The Ottawa Journal, 9 March 1963. Ian Burnett, ‘Thinking On these things: Sifting the Ideas to Mark Centennial, New “Citizen’s Committee” Should Re-Examine the “Mile-of-History” and the Proposed National War Memorial’, The Ottawa Journal, 3 March 1963.
[532] Debates, 18 September 1961, 24th Parliament, 4th Session, vol. 8, pp. 8471-2 and 8474-9.
[533] ‘Roger Teillet: Fears Québec May Soon Secede’, The Ottawa Journal, 6 May 1963. James Nelson, ‘Pearson Stresses National Unity’, The Ottawa Journal, 27 August 1963.
[534] See, for example, Debates, 18 September 1961, pp. 8465-82; 19 September 1961, 24th Parliament, 4th Session, vol. 8, pp. 8532-9; 5 February 1962, 24th Parliament, 5th Session, vol. 1, pp. 547-55; 9 March 1962, 24th Parliament, 5th Session, vol. 2, p. 1367; 19 November 1963, 26th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 5, pp. 4911-22 and 4931-47; 20 November 1963, 26th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 5, pp. 4965-84; 21 November 1963, 26th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 5, pp. 5001-12; 17 December 1963, 26th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 6, pp. 5992-6; 27 February 1964, 26th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 1, p. 289; 23 March 1964, 26th Parliament, 2nd Session, vo1. 2, pp. 1357-8.
[535] ‘Stylized maple Leaf: Symbol Selected for centennial’, The Ottawa Journal, 19 January 1965.
[536] There are many discussions on how the debates on Canadian national flag created a new national symbol, see, for example, George F. G. Stanley, The Story of Canada’s Flag: A Historical Sketch (Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1965). John Ross Matheson, Canada’s Flag: A Search for a Country (Ontario: Mika Publishing, 1986). Alistair B. Fraser, The Flags of Canada, 30 January 1998, online publication, [accessed 15 August 2011]. Eva Mackey, The House of Difference: Cultural Politics and National Identity in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002), pp. 55-8.
[537] ‘Canadian History - National Status - Dominion Day’, 4 March 1965, MG26-N3, v.303, file no. 912.3, LAC.
[538] ‘In French, In English: Centennial Hymn Unveiled’, The Ottawa Journal, 2 December 1966. ‘The Centennial Rose’, The Ottawa Journal, 6 May 1966. ‘New stamps’, The Ottawa Journal, 17 January 1967.
[539] Debates, 14 July 1960, 24th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 6, p. 6274.
[540] Ibid., pp. 6274-5.Detailed plan of Canadian Centenary Council was listed on The Ottawa Journal, 13 May 1961. Marcel Faribault, the associate president of the Council said it ‘is made up of 114 representatives of leading Canadian public bodies’, not governmental organisations.
[541] ‘Canadian History - National Status - Dominion Day’, 30 June 1965, MG26-N3, v.303, file no. 912.3, LAC. ‘200 Separatists Shiver at Québec City Rally’, The Globe and Mail, 1 July 1965, p. 37. ‘Toronto Takes It Easy on Canada’s 98th Birthday, Do Not Take Heart in it’, The Globe and Mail, 2 July 1965, p. 29.
[542] ‘Québec Plans No Rejoicing’, The Ottawa Journal, 28 December 1966. Stan McDowell, ‘No Joy in Québec This Centennial Eve’, The Ottawa Journal, 31 December 1966.
[543] ‘Ceremonies and celebrations, July 1st, Changing title to Canada Day’, 3 March 1964, RG6, Box 25, file no. 7215-3, LAC.
[544] ‘Preparatory Material for the Centenary of Confederation - 1967’, 21 April 1966, MG30-D157 v.1 part 02 1966, LAC.
[545] Debates, 28 February 1966, 27th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 2, p. 1869; 20 April 1966, 27th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 4, pp. 4087-95. Details related to National Indian Day will be discussed in Chapter Five.
[546] See, a serial reports ‘Over My Shoulder’ on Ottawa Citizen for commemorating Sir Mackenzie Bowell, 22 and 29 April, 6 May 1961. And D. G. Creighton, ‘First Step to Confederation’, The Ottawa Journal, 14 March 1964. The year of 1965 was the 150th anniversary of John A. MacDonald. As one of the most significant celebrities of confederation, his personal history was reviewed on the newspapers. See, The Recorder and Times, 11 January 1965. James Nelson, ‘St-Partisan Honor Paid Sir John A. MacDonald’, The Recorder and Times, 12 January 1965. ‘Liberals Have Honored Sir John’, The Recorder and Times, 16 January 1965. Peter Jackman, ‘Residents Remember National Leaders Honor MacDonald’, The Ottawa Journal, 12 January 1965. ‘How Canada’s Constitution Was Born’, The Ottawa Journal, 12 January 1967. Moreover, a bill was moved to the parliament aimed at creating ‘Sir John A. Macdonald’s Day as a National Holiday’ on 11 January 1967. See, Debates, 11 January 1967, 27th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 11, pp. 11671-2. And, ‘Liberals have Honored Sir John’, The Recorder and Times, 16 January 1965. The Ottawa Journal, 12 January 1967.
[547] The Royal Bank of Canada Monthly Letter, ‘Celebrating Canada’s Centenary’, July 1961, vol. 42, no. 5; ‘The Centenary of Confederation, January 1966, vol. 47, no. 1; ‘A Citizen of Canada’, March 1966, vol. 47, no. 3; and ‘The Universal and International Exhibition of 1967’, January 1967, vol. 48, no. 1.
[548] ‘Centennial will Emphasize Identity’, The Recorder and Times, 3 December 1962.
[549] ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, 1967’, 14 August 1964, RG6, Box 26, file no. 7215-67, LAC.
[550] ‘Karsh to Do Queen’s Portrait for Centennial’, The Ottawa Journal, 30 July 1966.
[551] Debates, 1 February 1967, 27th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 12, pp. 12513-14.
[552] Debates, 4 July 1967, 27th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 2, p. 2249.
[553] Ibid., pp. 2250-1.
[554] As early as 1952, Liberal member Bona Arsenault of Québec first moved the Confederation Day Act to the parliament on 6 March but it was withdrawn immediately. It showed that Confederation Day was an alternative to Dominion Day for long time, which failed to be recognised. See, Debates, 6 March 1952, 21st Parliament, 6th Session, vol. 1, p. 155. Discussion in 1958, see, Debates, 1 September 1958, 24th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 4, p. 4397.
[555] Debates, 1 September 1958, p. 4397.
[556] Ibid. Similar discussion, see, Debates, 26 June 1963, 26th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 2, p. 1608; 2 July 1963, 26th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 2, pp. 1724-6; 20 July 1964, 26th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 6, p. 5676.
[557] Some Canadians’ preference to Confederation Day can be noticed in, ‘Canadian History - National Status - Dominion Day’, 17 March 1965, MG26-N3, v.303, file no. 912.3; 3 July, 20 and 28 December 1966, 9 June 1967, MG26-N4, v.271, file no. 912.3, LAC. And, Debates, 8 November 1951, 21st Parliament, 5th Session, vol. 1, pp. 849-4; 2 July 1963, pp. 1724-6; 3 July 1963, 26th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 2, pp. 1796-7; 2 July 1964, 26th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 5, p. 4933; 4 June 1965, 26th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 2, pp. 2012-13.
[558] For example, ‘Canadian History - National Status - Dominion Day’, 23 and 24 June 1964, MG26-N3, v.303, file no. 912.3, LAC.
[559] See, for example, Debates, 23 June 1964, 26th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 5, p. 4597; 26 June 1964, 26th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 5, p. 4755 and 4772.
[560] Debates, 4 June 1965, pp. 2012-13.
[561] Forest moved Bill C-119 on 9 February 1966 and Bill C-124 on 31 May 1967 which both called the Canada Day Act. Gray moved Bill C-108 on 16 May 1967, which respected the observances of Dominion Day and suggested that the celebrations should be fixed on Monday. Knowles’s Bill C-129 was moved to the House of Commons on 9 June 1967. See Debates on the dates mentioned above. Rejections to these Bills were also received by the government. See, rejections to Bill C-124, ‘Canadian History - National Status - Dominion Day’, 14 June 1967, MG26-N4, v.271, file no. 912.3, LAC. ‘Ceremonies and celebrations, July 1st, Changing title to Canada Day’, 20 September 1966, 31 July 1968, RG6, Box 25, file no. 7215-3, LAC; ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, celebration of nearest Monday’, 4 July 1967, RG6, Box 26, file no. 7215-4, LAC; rejections to Gray’s bill, see, ‘Canadian History - National Status - Dominion Day’, 7 June 1967, MG26-N4, v.271, file no. 912.3, LAC.
[562] Debates, 22 June 1967, 27th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 2, p. 1805.
[563] Ibid.
[564] Debates, 20 November 1968, 28th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 3, p. 2959.
[565] Bill C-29, An Act Respecting Canada Day, First Reading, October 30, 1969 (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer for Canada, 1969), in ‘Ceremonies and celebrations, July 1st, Changing title to Canada Day’, RG6, Box 25, file no. 7215-3 File part 1, LAC.
[566] Debates, 17 February 1970, 28th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 4, pp. 3698-701; 24 April 1970, 28th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 4, pp. 6269-78; 12 May 1970, 28th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 4, pp. 6872-81. ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, General Enquires’, 3 July 1969, RG6, Box 26, file no.7215-5, LAC.
[567] ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, General Enquires’, 1 July 1969, RG6, Box 26, file no.7215-5, LAC.
[568] ‘Ceremonies and celebrations, July 1st, Changing title to Canada Day’, 13 January; 17 April; 6, 8 and 21 May; 30 June; 8 August; 16 September 1969, RG6, Box 25, file no. 7215-3 File part 1, LAC. ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, celebration of nearest Monday’, 7 October 1970, RG6, Box 26, file no. 7215-4, LAC. ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, General Enquires’, 17 June and 1 July 1969; 29 April, 14 and 30 May, 2 December 1970; 27 April and 30 October 1971, RG6, Box 26, file no. 7215-5, LAC. ‘July 1 Debate Delayed’, The Montréal Gazette, 13 March 1970.
[569] Ibids.
[570] ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, celebration of nearest Monday’, 19 May, 1 June, 3 and 8 July 1969; 15 September 1970 , RG6, Box 26, file no. 7215-4, LAC.
[571] ‘Ceremonies and celebrations, July 1st, Changing title to Canada Day’, 15 and 18 September, 20 October 1969; 20 February 1970, RG6, Box 25, file no. 7215-3 File part 1, LAC.
[572] Ibid.
[573] Ibid.
[574] Ibid.
[575] ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, celebration of nearest Monday’, 6, 16 and 22 October 1970, RG6, Box 26, file no. 7215-4, LAC.
[576] ‘Québec MP Wants July 1 as Canada Day’, The Globe and Mail, 1 June 1967, p. 23.
[577] ‘July 1, Canada Day Coming?’, The Globe and Mail, 5 May 1972, p. 1. The Ottawa Journal, 3 July 1972.
[578] ‘Council Seeks 1973 Visit by Queen, After 12 Years’, The Globe and Mail, 14 October 1972, p. 5.
[579] ‘Queen Mother Has Full Schedule for Her Six-Day Stay in Toronto’, The Globe and Mail, 25 June 1974, p. 4. See also, William Shawcross, Queen Elizabeth: The Queen Mother: The Official Biography (London: Pan Macmillan, 2009), pp. 819-21.
[580] John Beaufoy, ‘Sighs, Cheers Greet 6th Day of Royal Visit’, The Globe and Mail, 1 July 1971, p. 21. John Beaufoy, ‘Canada Day Farewell for Queen Mother’, The Globe and Mail, 2 July 1971, p. 4.
[581] See, for example, The Globe and Mail, 4 July 1974, p. 7; 24 March 1975, p. 7; 7 April 1975, p. 7; 30 June 1975, p. 6; 25 February 1976, p.10; 11 February 1977, p. 7; 8 June 1977, p. 6.
[582] Debates, 24 June 1943, 19th Parliament, 4th Session, vol. 4, p. 3986.
[583] Ibid.
[584] Debates, 24 June 1954, 22nd Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 6, pp. 6607-8.
[585] Ibid.
[586] Debates, 24 June 1955, 22nd Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 5, p. 5233; 24 June 1958, 24th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 2, p. 1561; 24 June 1959, 24th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 4, p. 5083; 24 June 1960, 24th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 5, pp. 5355-6; 24 June 1961, 24th Parliament, 4th Session, vol. 7, pp. 6985-6; 24 June 1963, 26th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 2, pp. 1469-70; 24 June 1964, 26th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 4, pp. 4851-3.
[587] Debates, 24 June 1959, p. 5083.
[588] Ibid.
[589] Debates, 24 June 1963, pp. 1469-70.
[590] Debates, 24 June 1961, pp. 6985-6.
[591] Debates, 22 June 1956, 22nd Parliament, 3rd Parliament, vol. 5, p. 5283.
[592] Debates, 24 June 1963, pp. 1469-70.
[593] Daniel Chartier et Mouvement national des Québécoises et Québécois, La fête nationale du Québec: un peuple, une fierté (Montréal: Lanctôt, 2007), p. 49. Debates, 24 June 1964, pp. 4851-3.
[594] Debates, 24 June 1964, pp. 4851-3.
[595] Richard J. Needham, ‘A Huzza of Holidays’, The Globe and Mail, 24 June 1964, p. 6.
[596] ‘Communists, Trotskyists Use Separatists, Report Warns’, The Globe and Mail, 27 June 1969, p. 8. Early positive reports on this holiday, see, for example, ‘St. Jean Baptiste is Colorful Feast’, Toronto Daily Star, 25 June 1945, p. 10. The ideological climate in the late 1960s Francophone Canada, see, Linteau et. al, Québec since 1930, pp. 495-8.
[597] ‘PM Will Fly Support to 4 Trouble Ridings, The Globe and Mail, 19 June 1968, p. 2.
[598] Ronald Lebel, ‘10,000 Cheer Trudeau in Duvernay and Dollard’, The Globe and Mail, 25 June 1968, p. 9.
[599] Debates, 17 June 1969, 28th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 9, p. 10241.
[600] Lewis Seale, ‘Bombing Blackmail in Québec, Trudeau Assails Armed-Camp Mood’, The Globe and Mail, 17 June 1969, p. 1. ‘Baptiste Society Plans Invitation to Trudeau’, The Globe and Mail, 18 June 1969, p. 4. From 1963, increasing attacks and bombings occurred in Québec and caused huge damage, which was part of FLQ (Front de libération du Québec) movement for a socialist Québec via propaganda and terrorism and continued to 1971. See, Bernd Horn, From Cold War to New Millennium: The History of The Royal Canadian Regiment, 1953-2008 (Toronto: Dundurn Press Ltd., 2011), pp. 93-104. FLQ movements, see, William Tetley, The October Crisis, 1970 (Montréal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2007).
[601] Debates, 18 June 1969, 28th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 10, p. 10307, 10313 and 10400-1.
[602] John Burns, ‘Organizers of Fete Bow to Trudeau, Cancel Diplomats’ Invitations’, The Globe and Mail, 20 June 1969, p. 1. The Globe and Mail, 27 June 1969, p. 8.
[603] See, for example, Richard Cleroux, ‘St. Jean Baptiste Celebrations Free of Trouble, the Miracle on the Mount in Montréal’, The Globe and Mail, 24 June 1975, p. 8.
[604] William Johnson, ‘Bells Peal, Horns Honk and the Emphasis Is on Participation, Montréals Dance and Sing in Tribute to St. Jean Baptiste’, The Globe and Mail, 25 June 1971, p. 1.
[605] See, Heron and Penfold, The Workers’ Festival, pp. 193-278.
[606] ‘Another May Day’, The Globe, 2 May 1934, p. 6.
[607] See, for example, C. L. Nelzberger, ‘Europe Nervous as Reds Prepare for May Day’, The Globe and Mail, 1 May 1948, p. 7. Edward Curtes, ‘May Day Plans: Reds Meet Opposition in Europe’, The Globe and Mail, 30 April 1949, p. 17.
[608] ‘May Day Special’, The Globe and Mail, 2 May 1946, p. 8.
[609] Claude Larivierè, Le 1er Mai: fête internationale des travailleurs (Québec: Les Editions Albert Saint-Martin, 1975).
[610] Ronald Lebel, ‘Québec Vote Brings Gains on Exchanges’, The Globe and Mail, 1 May 1970, p.1 and 4. ‘Labor Leaders not Martyrs, Caouette Says’, The Globe and Mail, 7 April 1973, p. 3.
[611] Debates, 24 May 1943, p. 2936; 28 April 1950, 21st Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 2, p. 1980; 23 May 1950, 21st Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 3, pp. 2743-4.
[612] Palmer, Canada’s 1960s, pp. 181-209.
[613] Debates, 15 April 1943, p. 2201. In this period, Conservative party labelled itself as National Government, and changed to Progressive Conservative in 1942.
[614] Debates, 20 May 1943, 19th Parliament, 4th Session, vol. 3, p. 2871; 19 May 1944, 19th Parliament, 5th Session, vol. 3, p. 3045.
[615] Ibids.
[616] Debates, 22 May 1946, 20th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 2, p. 1768.
[617] Debates, 13 May 1947, p. 3013; 27 April 1949, 20th Parliament, 5th Session, vol. 3, pp. 2630-1.
[618] ‘Empire Day’, 19 November 1948; 29 January, 19 March and 6 May 1949. MG26-L, v.49 file no. E-14, Sept. 14th - 1948-49, LAC.
[619] Ibid., 14 June 1949.
[620] Debates, 27 February 1951, 21st Parliament, 4th Session, vol. 1, pp. 739-41; 2 March 1951, 21st Parliament, 4th Session, vol. 1, pp. 863-5; 12 October 1951, 21st Parliament, 5th Session, vol. 1, p. 5; 3 March 1952, 21st Parliament, 6th Session, vol. 1, p. 31; 21 March 1952, 21st Parliament, 6th Session, vol. 1, pp. 683-90; 22 April 1952, 21st Parliament, 6th Session, vol. 1, pp. 1499-1502. Fred Williams, ‘Victoria Day Has Its Lesson’, The Globe and Mail, 25 May 1942, p. 6. ‘This Holiday’, The Globe and Mail, 24 May 1950, p. 6. ‘National Status - Dominion Day - General - Prime Minister’s Signature’, 13 March, 21 May; 2, 5, 6 and 27 June 1951, RG2-B-2, v.172, file part 2, file no. N-10-9, LAC.
[621] ‘Victoria Day – Opposing’, 2, 12, 20 and 24 May 1952; 3 February and 14 May 1953, MG26-L, v.168, file no. v-11, LAC. ‘Canadian History - National Status - Victoria Day’, 3, 6, 25 and 27 June 1963; 24 July and 1 August 1963; 20 March 1964, MG26-N3, v.305, file no. 912.8, LAC.
[622] ‘Celebration of Empire Day - May 24th - Change of name to Commonwealth Day – 1958’, 7 July 1951, RG25-G2, v.4344, file part 1, file no. 11390-40, LAC. Victoria Day. MG26-L, 31 May 1952, v.168, file no. v-11, LAC.
[623] Palmer, Canada’s 1960s, p. 190.
[624] Ibid., pp. 190-1.
[625] Discussion on Montréal riots, see, ibid., pp. 195-203.
[626] See, Vipond, ‘The Mass Media in Canadian History’. ‘Celebration of Empire Day - May 24th - Change of name to Commonwealth Day – 1958’, 12 July 1951, RG25-G2, v.4344, file part 1, file no. 11390-40, LAC.
[627] ‘Celebration of Empire Day - May 24th - Change of name to Commonwealth Day – 1958’, 16 July 1951, RG25-G2, v.4344, file part 1, file no. 11390-40, LAC.
[628] ‘A Commonwealth Day’, The Globe and Mail, 24 May 1947, p. 7.
[629] ‘Celebration of Empire Day - May 24th - Change of name to Commonwealth Day – 1958’, 8 August 1951.
[630] Ibid., 30 December 1958. Debates, 25 February 1959, 24th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 2, pp. 1372-3.
[631] ‘Commonwealth Ousts Empire in Title of Day’, The Globe and Mail, 25 May 1959, p. 12. ‘Keep Empire Day Alive’, The Globe and Mail, 12 May 1941, p. 6.
[632] Debates, 25 February 1959, pp. 1372-3.
[633] ‘Celebration of Empire Day - May 24th - Change of name to Commonwealth Day – 1958’, 23 May 1959. ‘The World of Learning: Observing Commonwealth Day’, The Globe and Mail, 14 May 1963, p. 7. In the 1950s, Commonwealth Day has a synonym called Citizenship Day, but it was not officially recognised as a holiday, see ‘Franght but Footloose’, The Globe and Mail, 16 May 1958, p. 6.
[634] ‘Canada and the Commonwealth - Commonwealth day’, 14 March 1964, MG26-N3, v.266, file no. 810.7, LAC.
[635] Ibid.
[636] Ibid.
[637] Debates, 2 September 1964, 26th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 7, p. 7569.
[638] ‘Canada and the Commonwealth - Commonwealth day’, 30 April 1965.
[639] Ibid.
[640] ‘Canada and the Commonwealth - Commonwealth day’, 20 May 1965. Debates, 21 May 1965, 26th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 2, pp. 1553-4.
[641] Debates, 21 May 1965, pp. 1553-4.
[642] For example, Les Jeunes Laurentiens, a nationalist institution located in south Québec, organised celebrations on 24 May and published booklets to popularise the deeds of Dollard. Organiser also used rose as the symbol of this event. See, Paul Vaillancourt, « Fêtons ‘Dollard’ le 24 mai 1946. Qu’au jour de sa fête, la rose vermeille, goutte de son sang, fleurisse toutes les poitrines où circule le même sang et qui vibrent aux mêmes aspirations », La Rose de Dollard, (1946 et 1947). More local activities of Les Jeunes Laurentiens, see, David Rajotte, « Les Jeunes Laurentiens. Jeunesse, militantisme et nationalisme dans le Canada français des années 1940 », Mémoire de M. A. (Histoire) (Québec: Université de Montréal, 2006), pp. 115-39, ébechistory/encyclopedia/JeunesLaurentiens-universsocial.html [accessed 4 September 2011].
[643] Debates, 21 May 1965, pp. 1553-4. ‘Montréal Goons Join Separatists, Protest Victoria Day: 85 Arrests’, The Globe and Mail, 19 May 1964, p. 1. ‘A Dangerous Minority’, The Globe and Mail, 26 May 1965, p. 6. The Globe and Mail, 29 May 1965, p. 9.
[644] ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, General Enquires’, 24 May 1966, RG6, Box 26, file no.7215-5, LAC. ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, 1967’, 10 April 1967, RG6, Box 26, file no. 7215-67, LAC.
[645] Palmer, Canada’s 1960s, pp. 181-209.
[646] ‘Queen Victoria started it: Six nations Indians Devour Cheese, Bread’, The Globe and Mail, 19 May 1970, p. 4.
[647] Foran, Victoria Day, p. 16.
[648] Debates, 20 January 1959, 24th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 1, pp. 119-20.
[649] Debates, 20 May 1963, 26th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 1, p. 29; 21 June 1963, 26th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 2, pp. 1460-7.
[650] Debates, 7 November 1969, 28th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 1, pp. 638-9; 9 November 1973, 29th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 7, pp. 7691-3.
[651] Smith, Newfoundland Holidays, pp. 68-9.
[652] Scott Young, ‘Remembrance Day Revisited’, The Globe and Mail, 3 December 1963, p. 6. ‘Remembrance Day: Canadians from Coast to Coast Pay Solemn Tribute to Dead of Two Wars’, The Globe and Mail, 11 November 1950, p. 6.
[653] ‘The Federation Asks and the Government Answers, Remembrance Day Became School Holiday for A Better Celebration of This Holiday’, The Globe and Mail, 23 October 1964, p. 6. ‘Talk to Students: Proposes Abolition of Remembrance Day’, The Globe and Mail, 11 November 1967, p. 4.
[654] Scott Young, ‘Legislation to Remember?’, The Globe and Mail, 15 August 1968, p. 7. ‘Give it Back to the Heart’, The Globe and Mail, 20 August 1968, p. 6.
[655] The Constitution Act, 1982, Department of Justice Canada, [accessed 1 May 2009].
[656] Ibid.
[657] Canadian Multiculturalism Act, (1985, c. 24 (4th Supp.)), Department of Justice Canada, [accessed 1 May 2009]. Canadian Multiculturalism Act, 1988, [accessed 1 May 2009].Discussion of how the federal government operated multiculturalism from 1971 to the early 1980s, see, Catherine Christopher, ‘Multiculturalism and Nation-building’, PhD Dissertation (Alberta: University of Calgary, 1983).
[658] See, for example, Sarah V. Wayland, ‘Immigration, Multiculturalism and National Identity in Canada’, International Journal on Group Rights 5 (1997), p. 47. Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship, p. 13.
[659] The official name of this accord was called 1987 Constitutional Accord which mainly focussed on the autonomy of Québec and the citizenship of immigrants. As the conference discussed these issues was held in Meech Lake, the Accord was also named Meech Lake Accord. See, Meech Lake Accord, [accessed 22 January 2010]. Another proposed amendment to Constitution Act moved in 1992 in Charlottetown which mainly focussed on the welfare of the First Nations and also concerned the status of Québec. After the referendum, Charlottetown Accord was defeated. Text of Charlottetown Accord, [accessed 22 January 2010]. Although both Meech Lake Accord and Charlottetown Accord aimed at amending the Constitution Act 1982 to further recognise the minority rights, Meech Lake Accord paid more emphasis on Québec issues.
[660] Quebecois’s attitude to Canada Day, see, for example, Andre Picard, ‘More Festivities Canceled in Québec, Sherbrooke, Longueuil Join Protest’, The Globe and Mail, 29 June 1990, p. A3.
[661] Official Language Act, (Assented to 31st July 1974), [accessed 25 August 2011]. Debates, 15 October 1974, 30th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 1, pp. 376-7.
[662] Debates, 14 March 1975, 30th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 4, pp. 4130.
[663] Ibid., pp. 4130-3.
[664] Ibid., pp. 4133-4.
[665] See Herbert’s statement in Debates, 29 June 1981, 32nd Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 11, p. 11044.
[666] Debates, 2 May 1977, 30th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 4, p. 4035; 3 June 1977, 30th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 6, pp. 6269-72; 22 March 1978, 30th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 4, p. 4035; 21 June 1978, 30th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 6, p. 6622. ‘Canada day Committee - Report, correspondence, contract and invoices re. preparation of written report on operations of the Committee’, 7 August 1977, MG30-E516, v.1 file no. 1977, LAC.
[667] See, for example, ‘Canada day Committee - Report, correspondence, contract and invoices re. preparation of written report on operations of the Committee’, 18 July and 7 August 1977, MG30-E516, v.1 file no. 1977, LAC. ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, General Enquires’, 24 May, 18 June and 8 July 1977, RG6, Box 26, file no. 7215-5, LAC.
[668] See, for example, ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, celebration of nearest Monday’, 12 July 1972, RG6, Box 26, file no. 7215-4, LAC. ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, General Enquires’, 5 and 9 May, 13 June, 7 November 1972; 19 June 1973; 16 July and 30 December 1974; 20 March, 4 April, 27 and 31 May, 16 and 24 June 1975; 7 May and 23 December 1976; 16 January, 3 and 30 May, 16, 20, 28 and 30 June 1977, RG6, Box 26, file no. 7215-5, LAC.
[669] Attitudes of the immigrants, see, for example, ‘Canada Day’, The Globe and Mail, 1 July 1977, p. 4. W. Gunther Plaut, ‘A Land in Which Thanksgiving Isn’t Quaint’, The Globe and Mail, 1 July 1977, p. 7. Canadian Heritage, ‘Origin of the Name – Canada’, [accessed 20 January 2009].
[670] See Herbert’s statement in Debates, 29 June 1981, p. 11044.
[671] See, Debates, 27 June 1977, 30th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 7, p. 7094; 26 June 1978, 30th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 6, p. 6762. ‘Ceremonies and celebrations, July 1st, Retention of Title Dominion Day’, 24 June 1978, The Canada Gazette part 1, RG6, Box 25, file no. 7215-2, file part 2, LAC. ‘Memorandum to the Minister to be used as a basis for a memorandum to Cabinet on Festival Canada, 1977, second draft’, in ‘Ceremonies and celebrations, July 1st, Changing title to Canada Day’, 1977, RG6 Box 24, no. 7215-1, file no. 2, LAC.
[672] ‘Memorandum to the Minister to be used as a basis for a memorandum to Cabinet on Festival Canada, 1977, second draft’, in ‘Ceremonies and celebrations, July 1st, Changing title to Canada Day’, 1977, RG6 Box 24, no. 7215-1, file no. 2, LAC.
[673] Ibid.
[674] ‘Canada day Committee - Report, correspondence, contract and invoices re. preparation of written report on operations of the Committee’, 7 August 1977, MG30-E516, v.1 file no. 1977, LAC.
[675] ‘Every Day Is A Holiday but Only in Canada’, The Globe and Mail, 3 June 1978, p. 6.
[676] Gordon H. Roston, ‘Recommendations for a Federal Government July 1st Program 1978’, Byward Consultants Ltd. in ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations - July 1st 1978’, 1978, RG6 Box 29, no. 7215-78, part 1, LAC.
[677] Ibid.
[678] Ibid.
[679] ‘Summary of the Report on the Private Sector’s Participation in Organizing Canada Day Celebrations in Québec’, in ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations - July 1st 1979’, 1979, RG6 Box 30 no. 7215-79 file part 1, LAC.
[680] G. Hamilton Southam, ‘About Canada’s Birthday’, in ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, General’, 31 October 1979, RG6 Box 25 no. 7215-1 file part 4, LAC. ‘Memorandum to cabinet, The celebration of Canada’s birthday July 1st, the honourable Gerald A. Regan’, in ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, General’, 30 November 1981, RG6 Box 25 no. 7215-1 file part 5, and RG6 Box 30 no. 7215-79, file part 3-4, LAC.
[681] Debates, 30 October 1978, 30th Parliament, 4th Session, vol. 1, p. 587. See also Herbert’s statement in Debates, 29 June 1981, p. 11044.
[682] Debates, 30 November 1978, 30th Parliament, 4th Session, vol. 2, p. 1670.
[683] Ibid., p. 1671.
[684] Ibid., p. 1674.
[685] Ibid., pp. 1672-4.
[686] Ibid., p. 1670.
[687] Debates, 13 March 1979, 30th Parliament, 4th Session, vol. 4, p. 4113.
[688] Ibid., pp. 4114-6.
[689] Debates, 2 May 1980, 32nd Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 1, p. 662; 6 May 1980, 32nd Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 1, pp. 764-70. See also, Herbert’s statement in Debates, 29 June 1981, p. 11044.
[690] ‘Secretary of State Announces 1980 Festival Canada Program’, in ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, Canada Day Committee’, 9 May 1980, RG6 Box 26 no. 7215-6 vol. 1, LAC. Hayday, ‘Fireworks, Folk-dancing, and Fostering a National Identity’, p. 305.
[691] ‘Secretary of State Announces 1980 Festival Canada Program’, in ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, Canada Day Committee’, 9 May 1980, RG6 Box 26 no. 7215-6 vol. 1, LAC.
[692] Ibid.
[693] Debates, 13 May 1980, 32nd Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 1, p. 1000; 15 May 1980, 32nd Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 1, p. 1105.
[694] See, Debates, 22 May 1980, 32nd Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 1, p. 1291.
[695] Ibid.
[696] Ibid. Debates, 23 May 1980, 32nd Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 2, p. 1347.
[697] Debates, 6 March 1981, 32nd Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 7, p. 7979.
[698] Ibid., p. 7983.
[699] ‘Ceremonies and celebrations, July 1st, Retention of Title Dominion Day’, 29 and 30 June; 1, 14, 23 and 29 July; 8, 21 and 28 August 1981, RG6 Box 25 7215-2 file part 2, LAC.
[700] Ibids.
[701] ‘Ceremonies and celebrations, July 1st, Retention of Title Dominion Day’, 22 September and 22 October 1980, 6 May 1981, RG6 Box 25 7215-2 file part 2, LAC.
[702] Debates, 22 June 1981, 32nd Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 11, p. 10830.
[703] Ibid.
[704] ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, General’, 15 August 1980, RG6 Box 25 no. 7215-1 file part 4, LAC. The first reading of Bill C-37 was on 19 June 1980. See, Debates, 29 June 1981, p. 11036.
[705] Debates, 29 June 1981, pp. 11036-8.
[706] Ibid., pp. 11038-42.
[707] Ibid., pp. 11042-4.
[708] Ibid., pp. 11044-5.
[709] Newspaper clippings quoted by Herbert included: Pembroke Observer, 29 June 1963; Kingston Newspaper, 2 July 1963; The Globe and Mail, 29 April 1970; Regina Leader-Post, 6 October 1969; Toronto Telegram, 15 April 1970; Le Devoir, 30 June 1970; Montréal Gazette, 6 July 1970 and 5 May 1972; La Presse, 5 May 1972; Ottawa Citizen, 8 May 1972; Financial Post, 15 July 1972; News & Chronicle, 24 April 1975. And, Betty Weinstein, Ruben Nelson and Paul-Emile Lamy, ‘Canada Day: A Conception, An Approach and A Proposal’, document prepared for the Department of Secretary of State on 30 October 1979. See, Debates, 29 June 1981, pp. 11036-69. And, ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, General’, 30 October 1979, RG6 Box 25 no. 7215-1 file part 4, LAC.
[710] Debates, 29 June 1981, pp. 11044-5. For example, Herbert quoted the survey published on the fifth page of The Globe and Mail on 29 April 1970 which showed that 90 percent of the surveyees satisfied with the name-change. In the next page, however, there was a letter from a member of parliament who disagreed with this attempt. Taking The Globe and Mail, a Conservative stance national newspaper as an example, it published more articles used Dominion Day, not Canada Day, as the official name of the national holiday, and chose the letters regarded Dominion Day as the better choice in the 1970s.
[711] Debates, 29 June 1981, pp. 11044-5.
[712] The Canadian Gallup Poll Limited, ‘Study of attitudes towards Canada’s Birthday Celebrations, prepared for Canadian association for adult education’, July 1981. in ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, General’, RG6 Box 25 no. 7215-1 file part 6, LAC.
[713] Ibid.
[714] Ibid.
[715] Ibid.
[716] Ibid.
[717] ‘Discussion Paper, Proposal for a Permanent Secretariat on Canada’s Birthday, July 1st’, 31 July 1981, in ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, Canada Day Committee’, RG6 Box 26 no. 7215-6 vol. 2.
[718] The Canadian Gallup Poll Limited, ‘Study of attitudes towards Canada’s Birthday Celebrations, prepared for Canadian association for adult education’, July 1981. in ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, General’, RG6 Box 25 no. 7215-1 file part 6, LAC.
[719] ‘Telegram to PM Trudeau’, 7 March 1981; and Correspondences on 10, 21, 24 and 28 April, 4 May and 2 July 1981, in ‘Ceremonies and celebrations, July 1st, Changing title to Canada Day’, RG6 Box 26 no. 7215-3 File part 3, LAC.
[720] ‘Ceremonies and celebrations, July 1st, Retention of Title Dominion Day’, 20 March 1982, RG6 Box 25 no. 7215-2 File part 2, LAC. ‘Ceremonies and celebrations, July 1st, Changing title to Canada Day’, 27 September 1982 and 21 October 1982, RG6 Box 26 no. 7215-3 File part 3, LAC.
[721] ‘Ceremonies and celebrations, July 1st, Retention of Title Dominion Day’, 29 April 1982, RG6 Box 25 no. 7215-2 File part 2, LAC.
[722] For example, Liberal member Maurice James Harquail for New Brunswick asked for a new Holidays Act on 3 June 1982 to recognise Dominion Day as Canada Day. Shortly afterwards, Liberal member Jean-Guy Dubois for Québec moved a similar motion on 23 June 1982. See, Debates, 3 June 1982, 32nd Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 16, pp. 18049-50; 23 June 1982, 32nd Parliament, 1st Session, p. 18796.
[723] Debates, 9 July 1982, 32nd Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 17, p. 19201.
[724] Ibid., pp. 19201-2.
[725] See, for example, ‘MPs Back Change to Canada Day from Dominion’, The Globe and Mail, 10 July 1982, p. 1.
[726] Eugene Forsey, ‘Excuses for Ending Dominion Day Are Rubbish’, The Globe and Mail, 16 July 1982, p. 7.
[727] Eugene Forsey, ‘The Meaning of Dominion Day’, Address to the Men’s and Women’s Clubs of Edmonton, June 19, 1956, Canadian Labour 1.4 (1956), pp. 11-13.
[728] ‘Canada a.m. CTV network, 18 October 1982, 8:40 a.m., Eugene Forsey’, in ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, General’, RG6 Box 25 no. 7215-1 part 6, LAC.
[729] Ibid.
[730] Ibid.
[731] Debates, 12 July 1982, 32nd Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 17, p. 19214.
[732] Ibid.
[733] ‘Deal on Restraint Bill Sends MPs Packing’, The Globe and Mail, 5 August 1982, p. 9. James Rusk, ‘Senate Plans Public Hearings on Dominion Day Legislation’, The Globe and Mail, 6 August 1982, p. 8.
[734] Jean MacDonald, ‘Example of Despotism’, The Globe and Mail, 15 October 1982, p. 6.
[735] ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, General’, 16 October 1982, RG6 Box 25 no. 7215-1 part 6, LAC. The public opinion, see, ‘Five O’clock Report, 15 Oct 1982, CFRA’, in ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, General’, CBC Radio Network, 15 October 1982, RG6 Box 25 no. 7215-1 part 6, LAC.
[736] “‘Canada Day’ at Last Hurdle”, The Citizen, 12 October 1982. ‘Canada Day Still Sounds Best’, The Toronto Star, 12 October 1982. Laura Sabia, ‘Senate Sanity’, The Toronto Sun, 19 October 1982.
[737] ‘CKO, October 1982’, in ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, General’, RG6 Box 25 no. 7215-1 part 6, LAC.
[738] Débats du Senat, 1st Session, 32e Législature, vol. 128, numéro 239, Le lundi 25 octobre 1982, pp. 4831-33.
[739] Ibid.
[740] Ibid.
[741] See, for example, ‘Canada Day Bill Clears Final Hurdle’, The Globe and Mail, 26 October 1982, p. 10.
[742] Michael Valpy, ‘The High Cost of Senators’, The Globe and Mail, 29 October 1982, p. 6.
[743] ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, General’, 26 October and 30 November 1982, RG6 Box 25 no. 7215-1 part 6, LAC.
[744] William Nellis, ‘Philip Arriving Today for a Six-day Visit’, The Globe and Mail, 30 June 1983, p. 10.
[745] Zena Cherry, ‘Special Canada Day Service’, The Globe and Mail, 1 July 1983, p. 11.
[746] Debates, 14 April 1983, 32nd Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 21, p. 24491.
[747] Debates, 11 May 1983, 32nd Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 25, pp. 25360-7.
[748] Ibid.
[749] See, Debates, 7 June 1984, 32nd Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 4, p. 4449.
[750] Holidays Act, (R.S.C. 1985, c. H-5).
[751] Journals of the House, 29 November 1982, p. 5400.
[752] ‘First Meeting of the National Canada Day Committee, held on 18 and 19 March 1983’, in ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, General’, RG6 Box 25 no. 7215-1 part 6, LAC.
[753] Hayday, ‘Fireworks, Folk-dancing, and Fostering a National Identity’, pp. 311-14.
[754] Local celebrations, see, ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, General’, RG6 Box 25 no. 7215-1 part 9, LAC.
[755] See, for example, ‘Memorandum to Cabinet, Canada Day, 24 March 1983, The Honourable Serge Joyal, Secretary of State’, in ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, General’, RG6 Box 25 no. 7215-1 part 6, LAC. And, ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, Canada Day Committee’, 26 April 1983, RG6 Box 26 no. 7215-6 vol. 2, LAC.
[756] ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, Gallup Poll Survey’, RG6 Box 26 no. 7215-8, file no. Survey 1984, LAC.
[757] See, for example, The National Canada Day Secretariat and Regional Operations, ‘Canada Day Program, Summary of Tasks and Responsibilities of the National and Provincial Canada Day Committees’, in ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st,Verification du Programme - Fête du Canada’, RG6 Box 26 no. 7215-7 part 3, LAC.
[758] See, for example, ‘Evaluation Reports by the Participated Organizations’; ‘The Secretary of State of Canada, Canada’s Birthday Program’, 7 October 1983, in ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, Audit of the Canada Day Program’, RG6 Box 26 no. 7215-7 part 2, LAC.
[759] See ,for example, ‘Plea for Patriotism’, The Globe and Mail, 8 July 1992, p. A15.
[760] The Globe and Mail, 2 July 1985, p. 5.
[761] Graham Fraser, ‘His Town Is Symbol of Nation, PM Says’; Andrew McIntosh, ‘Youngest Mulroney Joins in Fun as 40 New Canadians Sworn in’, The Globe and Mail, 2 July 1987, p. A1.
[762] ‘Canada Day Celebrations, as Diverse as Country Itself’, The Globe and Mail, 2 July 1996, p. A4. Gordon Gibson, ‘Where is Canada on This Canada Day’, The Globe and Mail, 1 July 1997, p. A11.
[763] ‘Fireworks Budget’, The Globe and Mail, 11 May 1990, p. A6.
[764] ‘Canada Day Nothing Special to Many People Survey Shows’, The Toronto Star, 30 June 1988, p. A19.
[765] Daniel Latouche, ‘Whose Birthday Is It Anyway?’, The Globe and Mail, 30 June 1995, p. A14.
[766] See, for example, ‘No Chance to Celebrate Canada Day Abroad’, The Toronto Star, 13 July 1988, p. A24.
[767] Eloah F. Giacomelli, ‘When A Mosaic Is A Jigsaw Puzzle’, The Globe and Mail, 7 May 1993, p. A18.
[768] Critiques, see, for example, ‘Return Dominion Day’, The Globe and Mail, 20 July 1993, p. A16. The Globe and Mail, 29 September 1993, p. A24.
[769] Rheal Seguin, ‘Québec City Cancels Canada Day Festivities’, The Globe and Mail, 28 June 1990, p. A1. ‘PQ Opposes July 1 for Canada Day’, The Hamilton Spectator, 23 May 1992, p. A10.
[770] For example, Ingrid Peritz, ‘Québec Puts the Moves on Canada Day’, The Globe and Mail, 1 July 2000, p. A1.
[771] Debates, 22 June 1995, 35th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 14, p. 14448.
[772] Debates, 15 June 1972, 28th Parliament, 4th Session, vol. 4, p. 3164. ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, celebration of nearest Monday’, 28 June 1972, RG6, Box 26, file no. 7215-4, LAC.
[773] Debates, 21 June 1972, 28th Parliament, 4th Session, vol. 4, p. 3335.
[774] Debates, 26 June 1975, 30th Parliament, 1st Session, vol.7, p. 7086.
[775] Debates, 27 June 1975, 30th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 7, pp. 7123-4. Lambert made similar efforts on changing the standing orders of the parliament on 6 July 1976. Parliament agreed this motion by clarifying that ‘when the holidays of June 24 and July 1 fall on a Thursday, the house shall not meet on June 25 and July 2’, see, Debates, 6 July 1976, 30th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 14, p. 15063.
[776] Debates, 10 April 1975, 30th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 10, p. 4670.
[777] Ibid.
[778] Linteau et. al, Québec since 1930, pp. 445-6.
[779] This tradition first appeared in 1960, and continued to 1968, 1970. In the years of 1969, 1971 to 1976, the SSJB did not declare the theme for celebration. See, Daniel Chartier et Mouvement national des Québécoises et Québécois, La fête nationale du Québec, pp. 49-227.
[780] Ibid.
[781] Ibid.
[782] ‘Quebecers’ Have Change on CD-Roberts’, The Calgary Herald, 2 May 1977.
[783] See also, National Holiday Act (R.S.Q. c. F-1.1, revised version on 8 June 2007), [accessed 10 September 2009].
[784] Richard Cleroux, ‘An Entire Province Celebrates: St. Jean Baptiste Day: The Biggest and Best in Québec’s History’, The Globe and Mail, 24 June 1977, p. 8.
[785] Ibid.
[786] « La fête nationale de 1834 à 2009 », [accessed 22 January 2010].
[787] Ibid. Although the Labour Code 1925 proclaimed by the Québec government had already recognised Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day as a public holiday, legislative approval in 1978, the year of the 370th anniversary of the founding of Québec City by Samuel de Champlain, gave the federal recognition to its status.
[788] The Globe and Mail, 3 March 1978, p. 8.
[789] « La fête nationale du Québec et le Mouvement national des Québécoises et Québécois (MNQ) », ébec-et-le-mouvement-national-des-Québecoises-et-Québecois-mnq.html [accessed 21 February 2011].
[790] ‘St-Jean-Baptiste Day’, The Hamilton Spectator, 25 June 1994, p. A1.
[791] T. R. J. Moulton, ‘Record of Cabinet Decision, meeting of November 24, 1977, Festival Canada, date November 28, 1977, supervisor of Cabinet Papers’, in ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, General’, RG6 Box 24 no. 7215-1 part 3, LAC.
[792] See, for example, Andrew McIntosh, ‘Mulroney Urges Francophones to Stand Firm’; Oakland Ross, ‘Strains of O Canada Jar Québec “National” Holiday’, The Globe and Mail, 25 June 1986, p. A8.
[793] ‘Discussion Paper, Proposal for a Permanent Secretariat on Canada’s Birthday, July 1st’, 31 July 1981’, in ‘Ceremonies and Celebrations, July 1st, Canada Day Committee’, RG6 Box 26 no. 7215-6 vol. 2, LAC.
[794] Richard Handler, Nationalism and the Politics of Culture in Québec (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988), p. 16.
[795] Latouche, « Jeunesse et nationalisme au Québec », p. 248.
[796] Ibid.
[797] « La fête nationale du Québec et le Mouvement national des Québécoises et Québécois (MNQ) ».
[798] Debates, 23 June 1988, 33rd Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 13, p. 16756 and 16758-9; 22 June 1989, 34th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 3, p. 3522.
[799] Graham Fraser, ‘Challenges Ahead: Mulroney Faces Québec Problems’, The Globe and Mail, 1 August 1989, p. A7. Orland French, ‘Musings on Overlooked Ontario Flying Solo’, The Globe and Mail, 20 April 1990, p. A7.
[800] André Picard, ‘Québec Police Threaten Boycott of St-Jean Baptiste Celebrations’, The Globe and Mail, 1 May 1990, p. A4.
[801] André Picard, ‘Police Seek Arsonist Who Torched Office of Nationalist Group’, The Globe and Mail, 22 May 1990, p. A3. ‘Peaceful St-Jean Baptiste Planned’, The Globe and Mail, 23 May 1990, p. A2.
[802] Sandro Contenta, ‘Parade Celebrates “Quiet Power”’, The Toronto Star, 26 June 1990, p. A3.
[803] See, for example, André Picard, ‘Different Slogans, “Different Visions”: Quebeckers Get “Complementary” Canada Day Themes’, The Globe and Mail, 9 May 1991, p. A5. David Creighton, ‘When the Saint Goes Marching on’, 24 June 1991, The Globe and Mail, p. A13. ‘Riot, Parades Mark Québec’s “National” Day’, Kitchener, 25 June 1994, p. A1.
[804] See, for example, Peter Maser, ‘In Québec, Nationalism Is the Basic Fact of Life But That Doesn’t Mean Separatism Is Inevitable’, The Hamilton Spectator, 15 July 1993, p. A7. Aaron Derfel, ‘National Holiday Not Linked to Québec Riot, Bouchard Says’, The Record, 25 June 1996, p. A3.
[805] For example, Debates, 19 June 1991, 34th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 2, p. 2056; 23 June 1992, 34th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 10, p. 12659; 21 June 1994, 35th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 6, p. 5653; 22 June 1994, 35th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 6, p. 5721; 22 June 1995, p. 14449; 1 March 1996, 35th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 1, p. 180.
[806] Debates, 13 June 1996, 35th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 4, p. 3835.
[807] Order-in-Council, No. 1178 (Ottawa: Unknown Publisher, June 12, 1890).
[808] M. H. Scargill, A Short History of Canadian English (Sono Nis Press, 1977), p. 7.
[809] John Allemang, ‘Contemplating a U-turn’, The Global and Mail, 1 September 1990, p. D9.
[810] Ibid.
[811] Ibid.
[812] John Honderich, ‘How Your Star Is Changing New Section and Features Reflect Readers’ Ideas and Concerns’, The Toronto Star, 13 September, p. A2.
[813] Michael Kesterton, ‘Labour Day: A Canadian Idea?’, The Global and Mail, 6 September 1993, p. A10.
[814] ‘For an Independent and Socialist Québec (1978)’, Socialist Voice, May 22, 1978, ébec/Ind-Soc-Québec-1978.htm [accessed, 27 August 2009].
[815] Ibid.
[816] ‘Just What Was Said: Teacher Union Pushing Marxism’, The Globe and Mail, 22 April 1975, p. 7. Robert Bauch, ‘May Day Lessons in Québec Called Communist, Subversive’, The Globe and Mail, 28 April 1975, p. 8.
[817] Robert Bauch, ‘Plus c’est la meme chose: Québec Students Got A Taste of the May Day Manual Yesterday But Its Radicalism Didn’t Change the Scheme of Things’, The Globe and Mail, 2 May 1975, p. 2. ‘Radical Social Change Object of Québec Teachers’ Meeting’, The Globe and Mail, 26 August 1976, p. 9.
[818] ‘May Day Protests Unite Workers’, The Toronto Star, 2 May 1995, p. A14. Don Dutton, ‘Free Trade Deal Attacked at Metro May’, The Toronto Star, 2 May 1988, p. A3. ‘May Day Jeers for Gorbachev’, The Toronto Star, 1 May 1990, p. A1. ‘May Day Is A Day to Celebrate Workers’, The Toronto Star, 13 April 1995, p. A6. Jenny Barchfield, ‘“Exasperation Is Rising”: May Day Marches Marred by Violence as Workers and Unions React to the Global Economic Crisis’, The Toronto Star, 2 May 2009, p. B9.
[819] See, ‘Labour Day Marred by Many Disputes; Ottawa Blasted for Handling of Strike by Parks Workers; Customs Union Restless’, The Toronto Star, 7 September 2004, p. B8.
[820] ‘Ceremonies and celebrations, July 1st, Retention of Title Dominion Day’, 3 March 1982, RG6 Box 25 no. 7215-2 File part 2, LAC.
[821] Labour Law Analysis, ‘Statutory holidays’, 15 November 2001, [accessed 10 September 2009].
[822] Interpretation Act, (R.S.N.L. 1990, c. I-19), [accessed 10 September 2009]. Public Services Resumption and Continuation Act, (S.N.L. 2004, c. P-44.1), [accessed 10 September 2009].
[823] Interpretation Act, (R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 235), [accessed 10 September 2009]. Labour Standards Code, (R.S., c. 246, s. 1), [accessed 10 September 2009].
[824] Interpretation Act, (R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. I-8), [accessed 22 September 2009]. Employment Standards Act, (R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. E-6.2), [accessed 22 September 2009].
[825] Foran, Victoria Day, p. 5.
[826] Ibid., p. 11.
[827] Ibid., p. 12.
[828] Ibid., pp.16-19.
[829] Debates, 12 March 1979, 30th Parliament, 4th Session, vol. 4, p. 4033; 12 March 1984, 32nd Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 2, pp. 1987-8; 11 March 1985, 33rd Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 2, p. 2875.
[830] See, for example, Debates, 11 March 1991, 34th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 13, p. 18270 and 18282-5; 8 March 1993, 34th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 13, p. 16607.
[831] Debates, 12 March 1984, pp. 1987-8.
[832] Ibid.
[833] Debates, 9 March 1992, 34th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 6, pp. 7842-5.
[834] Debates, 11 March 1985, p. 2875.
[835] Ibid.
[836] Debates, 14 March 1994, 35th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 3, pp. 2224-5.
[837] See, for example, Debates, 11 March 1985, p. 2875; 10 March 1986, 33rd Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 8, pp. 11349; 9 March 1987, 33rd Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 3, pp. 3927-30; 14 March 1988, 33rd Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 11, pp. 13677-9; 12 March 1990, 34th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 7, p. 9074.
[838] ‘Victoria Day Holiday Cancelled by Montréal RC School Board’, The Globe, 9 May 1974, p. 1.
[839] Serge Denis, « Les patriotes de 1837 pourraient déloger Dollard des Ormeaux », La Tribune, 19 November 2001, p. A8.
[840] ‘Ceremonies and celebrations, July 1st, Retention of Title Dominion Day’, 5 June 1982, RG6 Box 25 no. 7215-2 File part 2, LAC.
[841] Gilles Laporte, « Projet d’un jour férié en mémoire des patriotes de 1837-1838: La fête des Patriotes, le temps d’agir », 23 November 2001, [accessed 6 December 2009]. Gouvernment du Québec, « Proclamation de la Journée des Patriotes » , No. 2300-82, 6 October 1982, [accessed 6 December 2009].
[842] Laporte, « Projet d’un jour férié en mémoire des patriotes de 1837-1838 ».
[843] Debates, 20 June 1994, 35th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 6, p. 5545.
[844] Ibid., pp. 5545-6.
[845] Ibid., p. 5547.
[846] Ibid., pp. 5548-9.
[847] Ibid., pp. 5550-3.
[848] Debates, 1 November 1994, 35th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 8, p. 7539.
[849] Ibid., pp. 7540-7.
[850] Debates, 9 December 1994, 35th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 9, p. 8990.
[851] Ibid., pp. 8990-5.
[852] Denis, « Les patriotes de 1837 pourraient déloger Dollar des Ormeaux ».
[853] Laporte, « Projet d’un jour férié en mémoire des patriotes de 1837-1838 ».
[854] « Congé férié à l’occasion de la Journée nationale des Patriotes », [accessed 5 December 2009].
[855] Ibid.
[856] Canadian Press, ‘Quebecers celebrate 1st National Patriot’s Day’, 20 May 2003, [accessed 24 February 2009]. An Act Respecting Labour Standards, (R.S.Q. c. N-1.1) [accessed 28 November 2009].
[857] Foran, Victoria Day, p. 16.
[858] Ibid., p. 19.
[859] Ibid., pp. 17-19.
[860] Mary Gooderham, ‘Six Nations Festival Celebrates Friendship: British, Native Cultures Come Together on Victoria Day’, The Globe and Mail, 22 May 1990, p. A8.
[861] ‘Rename Victoria Day’, The Globe and Mail, 29 May 1990, p. A6. ‘Fête of Clay?’, The Globe and Mail, 18 May 1990, p. A06.
[862] Despite Canada, only South Africa and New Zealand have a statutory holiday on their Remembrance Day. About South Africa, see, ‘Remembrance Day’ and ‘Poppy Day’, About the SA Legion, [accessed 22 September 2009]. New Zealand, see, ‘Poppy Day’, [accessed 22 September 2009].
[863] ‘Remembrance Day - Policy and general’, 1944-66, RG30-A-1-c v.13065, file no. 3000-X8, LAC. Debates, 17 November 1978, 30th Parliament, 4th Session, vol. 2, p. 1221.
[864] ‘“Just a Ceremony” to the Young, Legion Mother Says of Nov. 11’, The Globe and Mail, 12 November 1974, p. 9. Julia Turner, ‘Shoot! Bang! Fire! Let Children Play War Game for Remembrance Day’, The Globe and Mail, 7 November 1980, p. 1. Julia Turner, ‘Children Refuse to Play War Game Describe It as Stupid and Harmful’, The Globe and Mail, 8 November 1980, p. 5.
[865] See, for example, Debates, 7 November 1980, 32nd Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 4, pp. 4543-4; 10 November 1981, 32nd Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 11, pp. 12685-6; 4 November 1983, 32nd Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 25, pp. 28777-8; 9 November 1984, 33rd Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 1, pp. 113-14.
[866] Debates, 22 October 1981, 32nd Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 11, pp. 12064-9; 6 November 1981, 32nd Parliament, 1st Session, .vol. 11, pp. 12621-2.
[867] See, for example, Debates, 9 November 1984, pp. 113-14; 7 November 1985, 33rd Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 6, p. 8448; 8 November 1985, 33rd Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 6, pp. 8471-2; 6 November 1986, 33rd Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 1, pp. 1127-8; 28 October 1987, 33rd Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 9, pp. 10488-90; 9 November 1989, 34th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 5, pp. 5759-62.
[868] Debates, 5 November 1987, 33rd Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 9, p. 10774.
[869] Debates, 8 November 1990, 33rd Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 11, pp. 15338-9.
[870] Ibid.
[871] See, for example, Debates, 6 November 1991, 33rd Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 4, pp. 4648-51; 18 November 1991, 33rd Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 4, p. 4902.
[872] Debates, 6 November 1991, pp. 4650-1.
[873] Ibid. And, Debates, 5 November 1996, 35th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 7, pp. 6123-6; 6 November 1996, 35th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 7, p. 6183.
[874] See, for example, Debates, 14 November 1994, 35th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 8, p. 7725; 30 March 1995, 35th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 11, p. 11290; 20 September 1995, 35th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 14, p. 14639; 4 November 1996, 35th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 6, p. 6055.
[875] Rudy Platiel, ‘Natives Perform Special Ceremonies to Honor War Dead’, The Globe and Mail, 12 November 1987, p. A8. Tony Hall, ‘Warriors Forgotten on Remembrance Day’, The Globe and Mail, 10 November 1989, p. A7.
[876] Debates, 23 September 1991, 34th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 2, pp. 2253-4.
[877] Debates, 29 April 1992, 34th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 7, p. 9873.
[878] Ibid., pp. 9874-6.
[879] Ibid., pp. 9876-7.
[880] Ibid., pp. 9879-80.
[881] Debates, 22 May 1992, 34th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 9, p. 11117.
[882] Ibid., pp. 11119-20.
[883] Debates, 1 June 1992, 34th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 9, p. 11198.
[884] Debates, 24 May 1994, 35th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 5, p. 4305.
[885] Ibid.
[886] Debates, 18 October 1994, 35th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 7, p. 6887.
[887] Ibid., pp. 6889-90.
[888] Ibid., pp. 6890-4.
[889] Interpretation Act, (C.C.S.M. c. I80), [accessed 22 September 2009]. Employment Standards Code, (C.C.S.M. c. E110), [accessed 22 September 2009].
[890] Interpretation Act, (R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 235). Labour Standards Code (c. 32), [accessed 19 December 2011]. Interpretation Act, (R.S.O. 1990, c. I.11), [accessed 22 September 2009]. Employment Standards Act, 2000, (S.O. 2000, c. 41), [accessed 22 September 2009].
[891] Interpretation Act, (R.S.Q. c. I-16), [accessed 22 September 2009]. Labour Code, (R.S.Q. c. C-27), [accessed 22 September 2009].
[892] Debates, 6 November 1995, 35th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 16, p. 16237; 7 November 1995, 35th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 16, pp. 16317-8.
[893] ‘Poppies symbol of new tribal holiday’, The Globe and Mail, 13 November 1998. p. A20.
[894] Debates, 15 November 1983, 32nd Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 25, p. 28884; 1 November 1994, p. 7500.
[895] Debates, 7 November 1991, 34th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 4, p. 4760.
[896] Ibid., pp. 4760-1.
[897] Debates, 7 November 1997, 36th Parliament, 1st Session, Edited Hansard, No. 30.
[898] Ibid.
[899] Debates, 17 December 1999, 36th Parliament, 2nd Session, Edited Hansard, No. 42.
[900] Debates, 11 March 2002, 37th Parliament, 1st Session, Edited Hansard, No. 153.
[901] See, for example, ‘Bill C-210, An Act Requiring the National Flag of Canada to Be Flown at Half-mast on Remembrance Day’, First reading, October 15, 2004, [accessed 24 February 2011].
[902] The Remembrance Day Act (C.C.S.M. c. R80), [accessed 20 February 2011].
[903] Rhéal Séguin, ‘Roux Attends Tribute to War Dead, Some Veterans at Québec City Ceremony Accept Apology of Outgoing Lieutenant-Governor’, The Globe and Mail, 12 November 1996, p. A4.
[904] Jeremy Hainsworth, ‘Vancouver First Nations Soldiers March to Mark Aboriginal Veterans Day’, 9 November 2008, [accessed 10 February 2009].
[905] As both of ‘the First Nations’ and ‘the aboriginal peoples’ signifies the indigenous peoples in Canadian terminological context, ‘“First Nation” means “an Indian band, or an Indian community functioning as a band but not having official band status […and] does not include the Inuit or Métis.”[…S]pecific Aboriginal peoples who do claim the title of nation for their linguistic groups are not accorded it in the [dictionary]’. See, in Victor Shea and William Whitla, ‘The Knowledge of Canada/ The Canada of Knowledge: Representing the Nation in Canadian Reference Books’, ESC 29.3-4 (September/December 2003), pp. 56-7, quoted from the Canadian Oxford Dictionary. See also, ‘A Note about Terminology’, in Paul Chartrand et al., Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (Ottawa, October 1996) vol. 1, pp. iii-iv. This chapter will discuss the institutions, policies and legislation related to Canadian aboriginal peoples in general. If the discussion does not mean the First Nations only, it means the aboriginal Canadians.
[906] See, P. H. Gocisell, ‘Today is Indian Day’, Winnipeg Free Press Magazine Section (30 September 1939), p. 6. quoted in R. Scott Sheffield, ‘Winning the War, Winning the Peace: The Image of the “Indian” in English-Canada, 1930-1948’, PhD Dissertation (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University, 2000), p. 61, footnotes no. 8.
[907] ‘Opening the Door’, in Paul Chartrand et al., Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (Ottawa, October 1996), vol. 1, ‘Looking Forward Looking Back’, p. 6.
[908] Ibid.
[909] ‘Stage Three: Displacement and Assimilation’, in Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, vol. 1, p. 166.
[910] Ibid.
[911] See, Indian Treaties and Surrenders, from 1680 to 1890. Indian Treaties and Surrenders, from no. 281 to no. 483. And, John F. Leslie, ‘The Indian Act: An Historical Perspective’, Canadian Parliamentary Review Summer 2002, pp. 23-7.
[912] Hazel W. Hertzberg, The Search for an American Indian Identity: Modern Pan Indian Movements (New York: Syracuse University Press, 1971), p. 83.
[913] Ibid.
[914] Ibid., p. 141.
[915] Ibid., pp. 142-3.
[916] Ibid., p. 83.
[917] Ibid., p. 100.
[918] Ibid. See also, ‘Indians Give Thanks as Hunting Moon Rises’, The Globe and Mail, 26 September 1938, p. 4.
[919] Hertzberg, The Search for an American Indian Identity, pp. 227-8.
[920] Ibid., p. 227. ‘Indian Invite Curtis to be Guest at Fête: U.S. Vice-President Asked to Attend International Gathering at Niagara’, The Globe and Mail, 4 July 1929, p. 3.
[921] Hertzberg, The Search for an American Indian Identity, p. 176.
[922] ‘Indian Invite Curtis to be Guest at Fête’.
[923] Ibid. See also, ‘Altitude Appetite’, The Globe and Mail, 31 August 1937, p. 25.
[924] ‘Indians Give Thanks as Hunting Moon Rises’. ‘Pageantry, Games to Mark Celebration of Indian Day’, The Globe and Mail, 15 September 1938, p. 5. Hertzberg, The Search for an American Indian Identity, p. 83.
[925] ‘Pageantry, Games to Mark Celebration of Indian Day’. ‘Indians Plan Convention’, The Globe and Mail, 27 September 1938, p. 17.
[926] R. D. Francis, Richard Jones and Donald B. Smith, Journeys: A History of Canada (2nd Edition, Toronto: Nelson Education, 2009), pp. 493-4.
[927] The Globe and Mail, 1 March 1939, p. 2.
[928] Jasper Hill, ‘Consideration Urged of Indian Problems: Chief Claims Red Man’s Philosophy of Life Ensures Mental Poise’, The Globe and Mail, 15 April 1942, p. 6.
[929] Ibid.
[930] Sheffield, ‘Winning the War, Winning the Peace’, p. 61.
[931] Igartua, The Other Quiet Revolution, p. 225.
[932] Debates, 20 April 1966, p. 4094.
[933] Ibid., p. 4092.
[934] Ibid., p. 4094.
[935] Ibid.
[936] Ibid., p. 4687.
[937] Ibid., p. 4089.
[938] Ibid., p. 4090.
[939] Ibid., p. 4091.
[940] Ibid., pp. 4092-5.
[941] Debates, 17 June 1966, 27th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 6, pp. 6588-90.
[942] ‘Correspondence’, John G. Diefenbaker fonds, Series IX, File No. IX-A-956-635-Dreaver, 23 June 1966, [accessed 20 March 2011].
[943] Debates, 29 August 1966, 27th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 8, p. 7750. ‘Correspondence’, John G. Diefenbaker fonds, Series IX, File No. IX-A-956-635-Dreaver, 31 August 1966, [accessed 20 March 2011].
[944] INAC, ‘Terminology’, [accessed 20 January 2010].
[945] Carl Waldman, Atlas of the North American Indian (New York: Infobase Publishing, 2007), p. 285. National Indian Brotherhood and Assembly of First Nations, National Day of Solidarity for Indian People, Resolution 39 Passed in Penticton, British Columbia, April 1982, in ‘Public Education: Building Awareness and Understanding’, note no. 5, p. 105.
[946] Ibid.
[947] ‘Stage Four: Negotiation and Renewal’, in Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, vol. 1, p. 193.
[948] See, for example, Debates, 31 March 1992, 34th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 7, pp. 9801-2.
[949] Debates, 27 March 1996, 35th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 3, p. 3000. National Democratic Party is a left-wing party which focuses on the aboriginal rights and established in 1961 by combining the previous CCP and Canadian Labour Congress.
[950] Debates, 19 June 1991, 34th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 2, p. 2090.
[951] Ibid.
[952] Cover page, Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, vol. 1.
[953] AFN, ‘Assembly of First Nations - The Story’, [accessed 15 September 2011].
[954] Debates, 25 November 1992, 34th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 11, p. 14006.
[955] Debates, 3 December 1992, 34th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 11, p. 14508.
[956] Ibid.
[957] Debates, 4 December 1992, 34th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 11, pp. 14657-8.
[958] Debates, 7 December 1992, 34th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 11, p. 14695.
[959] Ibid.
[960] Ibid., p. 14696.
[961] Ibid., p. 14697.
[962] Ibid., pp. 14697-9.
[963] Ross Reid not only put the linguistic issues before the symbolic issues in this speech but mentioned the AFN chose 21 June as the day of celebration. Other debates about also National Aboriginal Language Day noticed the AFN’s particular focus on the aboriginal languages. See, for example, Debates, 31 March 1993, 34th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 14, p. 17840. Liberal member Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew for Northwest Territories (the first Native female member), New Democratic member Taylor and Progressive Conservative member Willie Littlechild for Alberta commanded aboriginal languages had special interest in the linguistic issue without party bias. Besides, the abbreviation of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was INAC, which stood for Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. This department of the federal government was renamed as Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (abbreviation: AANDC) on 13 June 2011.
[964] Debates, 7 December 1992, pp. 14699-700.
[965] . It included the areas from the coast to coast, North to South of the nation: Nipissing Band No. 10, Sudbury, Hamilton, Blue River, Harrison Lake, Penticton, Lewis Creek, Clearwater, North Bay, Countenay, Toronto, Kenora, Yellowknife, Charlottetown, Sturgeon Falls, Garden Valley, Sioux Valley, Kingston, Sioux Lookout, Kamloops, Barriere, Mine Centre, Kipawa, Mission, Victoria and Saskatoon, Fort St. James, Simon Fraser University, Nanaimo, Chemainus, Qualicum Bay and Ladysmith, Oxford House, Grassy Narrows, Bear Island, Crocus Bay, Oil Springs and Nelson House, Alberta, Indian reserves in Ontario and some unmentioned regions. See, Debates, 7 December, 1992, pp. 14699-701; 8 December 1992, 34th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 12, pp. 14806-7; 9 December 1992, 34th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 12, pp. 14915-6; 9 February 1993, 34th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 12, p. 15600; 16 March 1993, 34th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 13, p. 17029; 17 March 1993, 34th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 13, p. 17023; 18 March 1993, 34th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 13, p. 17176; 21 April 1993, 34th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 14, p. 18230; 30 April 1993, 34th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 14, p. 18741; 26 May 1993, 34th Parliament, 3rd Session, vol. 15, p. 19828
[966] Debates, 29 April 1994, 35th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 4, p. 3711.
[967] Debates, 4 April 1995, 35th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 11, pp. 11509-10.
[968] Ibid., p. 11511. Reports included The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples’ interim report on ‘Suicide’, the Senate’s report ‘On the Treatment of Aboriginal Veterans from World War I, World War II and the Korean War’ and the House of Common Standing Committee on Indian Affairs’ report ‘On the Lack and the Inadequacy of Housing in Aboriginal Communities’.
[969] Ibid., p. 11512.
[970] Ibid., p. 11514.
[971] Ibid., p. 11513.
[972] Ibid., p. 11515.
[973] Debates, 21 June 1995, 35th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 14, p. 14311.
[974] According to the official timeline of designating National Aboriginal Day, it put the recommendation of RCAP before the Sacred Assembly’s resolution. Therefore, although the exact date of the RCAP’s recommendation announced could not be confirmed, it can be deduced that it was earlier than the Sacred Assembly held. See, INAC, ‘Background’, [accessed 20 January 2010].
[975] ‘Opening the Door’, in Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, vol. 1, ‘Looking Forward Looking Back’, p. 6.
[976] ‘Public Education: Building Awareness and Understanding’, in Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, vol. 5, ‘Renewal: A Twenty-Year Commitment’, p. 82 and 97.
[977] ‘Residential Schools’, in Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, vol. 5, p. 316.
[978] ‘Public Education: Building Awareness and Understanding’, pp. 97-9 and 103-4. National Indian Brotherhood and Assembly of First Nations, National Day of Solidarity for Indian People. And Québec National Assembly, « Journée nationale des peuples autochtones » , Journal des débats, 33/40 (17 June 1994), p. 2059. See, ‘Public Education’, p.105, notes no. 5 and 6.
[979] INAC, ‘Background’. Waldman, Atlas of the North American Indian, p. 285.
[980] Debates, 12 December 1995, 35th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 17, p. 17582. Mountain Man’s UseNet Archive, ‘Sacred Assembly Proclamation: Aboriginal Peoples of Canada, Hull, Québec’, 6th-9th December 1995, [accessed 20 January 2010].
[981] Debates, 11 December 1995, 35th Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 17, p. 17503.
[982] Debates, 29 February 1996, 35th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 1, pp. 97-105.
[983] Debates, 27 March 1996, p. 3000.
[984] ‘National Aboriginal Day - Governor General’s Proclamation 1-9615’.
[985] INAC leaflet for National Aboriginal Day, ‘Celebrating First Nations’, 21 June 1999 (INAC, 1999) [accessed 16 August 2010].
[986] See, for example, INAC leaflet for National Aboriginal Day, ‘Celebrating First Nations’. Cheryl Leschasin, ‘A Day to Celebrate: National Aboriginal Day Coincides with Summer Solstice’, Northern News Services, 16 June 1997, [accessed 5 February 2009]. Fred Loft, ‘Saturday a National Day of Solidarity with Natives’, The Spectator, 20 June 1997, p. A13. Indian Affairs and Northern Development, ‘Share in the Celebration’ (Ottawa: Unknown Publisher, 1997).
[987] See, for example, Debates, 11 June 1996, 35th Parliament, 2nd Session, p. 3639; 17 June 1996, 35th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 4, p. 3917-8; 20 June 1996, 35th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 5, p. 4173. Debates of the Senate, 20 June 1996, 35th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 135, Issue 34.
[988] Debates of the Senate, 20 June 1996.
[989] Debates, 23 September 1997, 36th Parliament, 1st Session, Edited Hansard, No. 2.
[990] INAC, ‘Ideas for Events’, [accessed 6 February 2009]. ‘Share in the Celebration’.
[991] ‘National Aboriginal Day to Be Covered Friday’, The Daily Mercury, 19 June 2002, p. B5.
[992] INAC, 2004/2005, Year in Review, Alberta Region (Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2005), p. 10.
[993] INAC, ‘Ideas for Events’, and ‘Share in the Celebration’.
[994] Suzanne E. Mills, ‘Limitations to Inclusive Unions from the Perspectives of White and Aboriginal Women Forest Workers in the Northern Prairies’, Just Labour: A Canadian Journal of Work and Society 11 (Autumn 2007), p. 76.
[995] Interpretation Act, (R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c. I-8), [accessed 25 September 2009]. Employment Standards Act, (S.N.W.T. 2007, c. 13), [accessed 25 September 2009].
[996] Thorunn Howatt, ‘No Aboriginal Day off for Feds: Indian Affairs Employees Will Work on Territorial Holiday’, Northern News Services, 19 June 2002, [accessed 5 February 2009].
[997] See, for example, Debates, 30 May 2000, 36th Parliament, 2nd Session, Edited Hansard, No. 103; 19 June 2006, 39th Parliament, 1st Session, Edited Hansard, No. 209. Debates of the Senate, 21 June 2000, 36th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 138, Issue 70. Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples Issue 5 - Evidence, 12 February 2003, 37th Parliament, 2nd Session.
[998] Debates, 18 June 2002, 37th Parliament, 1st Session, Edited Hansard, No. 208; 20 June 2002, 37th Parliament, 1st Session, Edited Hansard, No. 210; 21 June 2005, 38th Parliament, 1st Session, Edited Hansard, No. 120; 20 June 2007, 39th Parliament, 1st Session, Edited Hansard, No. 175.
[999] Pauline Finch-Durichen, ‘Peace and Prayer Day: Different Faiths Join Aboriginals for Worship in Park’, The Record, 22 June 1996, p. B3. ‘Aboriginal Day’, The Toronto Star, 21 Jun 1996, p. A22. ‘Still Defending Inuit Constitutional Rights’, Nunatsiaq News, 28 June 1996.
[1000] Kitigan Zibi Anishnabeg, ‘Aboriginal Day Marred for Que. Community after White Supremacist Vandalism’, 21 June 2007, The Canadian Press, [accessed 8 February 2009].
[1001] Debates of the Senate, 17 April 1997, 35th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 135, Issue 91.
[1002] Mirko Petricevic, ‘Blanket Protest; Native’s Dream Leads Him to Participate in Ottawa Demonstration’, The Record, 13 June 2001, p. B03. Lisa Grace Marr, ‘Protest Will Mute Six Nations Celebration’, The Spectator, 20 June 2002, p. A02. Sharon Boase, ‘Native Community Makes “Great Strides”; But Organizers of National Aboriginal Day Also Worry There Is A Lot of Racism’, The Spectator, 21 June 2006, p. A06.
[1003] ‘First Nations Youth on Life in Canada’, The Toronto Star, 23 June 1998, p. 1. ‘Aboriginal Day Provides Forum for Criticism by Native Peoples’, The Record, 22 June 2001, p. E10. Liz Montero, ‘Land Dispute Unites Natives; “We Do Have A Voice and We Are Exercising Our Voice”’, The Record, 21 June 2006, p. B1.
[1004] Ipsos-Reid Cooperation, ‘Aware of and Participation in National Aboriginal Day (draft report, submitted to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, July 2003).
[1005] Ibid., p. 2.
[1006] Ibid., pp. 2-3.
[1007] Ibid., p. 3.
[1008] Ibid., p. 4.
[1009] Rita Simone Liberato (ed.), ‘The Meeting of Brazilian and Canadian Indigenous Youth’, June 2007, Center for Studies in Food Security (Toronto: Ryerson University, 2007).
[1010] Cyndy Baskin, ‘Indigenous Youth Exploring Identities through Food Security in Canada and Brazil’, MAI Review 3. 5 (2008), pp. 1-7, [accessed 5 December 2011].
[1011] Crystal Maslin, ‘The Social Construction of Aboriginal Peoples in the Saskatchewan Print Media’, MA Thesis (Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan, 2002), pp. 73-9.
[1012] Dewing, ‘Canadian Multiculturalism’.
[1013] Ibid.
[1014] Ibid.
[1015] Ibid.
[1016] The Alberta Human Rights Commission works as the same function as the multiculturalism advisory council in other provinces. Nova Scotia has a provincial Cabinet committee which is in charge of multiculturalism and advisory councils, see, ibid.
[1017] ‘Cultural Assistance Program and Multicultural Initiatives Fund 2002-2003’, [accessed 10 February 2009].
[1018] Ibid.
[1019] Lisa Queen, ‘New Venue, Same Fun at East York Multicultural Day: Event Set for Sunday at East York Community Centre’, 31 May 2007, [accessed 10 February 2009]. And Queen, ‘Multicultural Day Boasts International Flavour’, 4 May 2006, [accessed 10 February 2009]. Guelph, Ontario has similar activities, see, ‘Multicultural Celebration to Fight Poverty in Africa’, Communications and Public Affairs, 12 March 2004, [accessed 10 February 2009].
[1020] See, for example, The Chinese Times, 24 June 1974, p. 1.
[1021] ‘Making the Most of “Multiculturalism Day”, The Toronto Star, 6 May 1990, p. A1.Tami Paikin Nolan, ‘This Knuckle Doesn’t Buckle Skyhawks GM Played Some Arenas of His Own’, The Hamilton Spectator, 25 May 1992, p. B3.
[1022] Clarkson, ‘Proclamation Declaring June 27 of Each Year as “Canadian Multiculturalism Day”’.
[1023] Ibid.
[1024] Ibid.
[1025] Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Issue 9 – Evidence, 1 May 2003, 37th Parliament, 2nd Session,
[1026] ‘Another Day, Another Dollar; The Liberals Are Instituting Multiculturalism Day whether We Want It or Not’, The Report Newsmagazine, 2 September 2002. Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Issue 9, 1 May 2003. Debates, 16 November 2004, 38th Parliament, 1st Session, Edited Hansard, No. 25; 23 June 2005, 38th Parliament, 1st Session, Edited Hansard, No. 122; 27 June 2005, 38th Parliament, 1st Session, Edited Hansard, No. 123; 14 June 2007, 39th Parliament, 1st Session, Edited Hansard, No. 171.
[1027] Glen McGregor, ‘Fun Money Flows More Freely in Liberal Ridings’, Canadian West News Service, 14 January 2006, [accessed 19 December 2011].
[1028] ‘Information from - Alberta Celebrate Canada Committee: Edmonton and Alberta Capital Region’, [accessed 25 April 2009].
[1029] ‘National Multiculturalism Day by Region of Peel’, 26 June 2007, [accessed 9 February 2009]. ‘Population Growth Secretariat Minister’s Message on Multiculturalism Day’, 6 July 2007, [accessed 10 February 2009].
[1030] ‘Québec Gets the Lion’s Share of Canada Day Funding’, (July 1, 2007), [accessed 1 May 2009]. CCNMatthews, ‘The Société d’amenagement de la Riviere-aux-sables Receives $40,000 to Organize Canada Day Celebrations in Jonquiere’, 29 June 2006, [accessed 24 April 2009]. McGregor, ‘Fun Money Flows More Freely in Liberal Ridings’. CCNMatthews, ‘Wakefield Recreation Canada Day Committee Receives Government of Canada Support’, 29 June 2006, [accessed 10 February 2009].
[1031] Dewing, ‘Canadian Multiculturalism’.
[1032] Ibid.
[1033] Ibid.
[1034] Statistics Canada, ‘2001 Census’ and ‘2006 Census’, [accessed 20 April 2011].
[1035] Randy Boswell, ‘Newcomers in Montréal Give Lowest Rating to Multiculturalism, Survey of 3 Biggest Cities Says, Poll Shows New Immigrants in Toronto, Vancouver Much More Satisfied with Canadian Diversity Initiatives’, Canadian West News Service, 27 June 2008, [accessed 24 April 2009].
[1036] ‘Citizenship Ceremony Part of Multiculturalism Event at Science and Tech Museum Monday’, Press Release, 27 June 2005, [accessed 10 January 2010].
[1037] Gianni Ubriaco, ‘Canadians Celebrate Diversity’, 4 July 2006, [accessed 10 February 2009]. Canadian Federation of Fiji Organizations, [accessed 10 February 2009].
[1038] BanSeng Hoe, ‘Structural Changes of Two Chinese Communities in Alberta, Canada’.
[1039] Kay J. Anderson, Vancouver’s Chinatown: Racial Discourse in Canada, 1875-1980 (Montréal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1991), p. 79, 98 and 230.
[1040] Peter S. Li, The Chinese in Canada (2nd Edition, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1998).
[1041] Performing the rituals and celebrations are crucial to Chinese’s sense of belonging to the home-nation and self-esteem as a Chinese from the Confucius’ era, the sixth century B.C., to the 1920s when a new national ideology – nationalism – was created by the Founding Father of Modern China, Sun Zhongshan. See, Wang Gungwu, ‘The Study of Chinese Identities in Southeast Asia’, in Wang Gungwu, China and the Chinese Overseas (Singapore: Times Academic Press, 1991), pp. 198-200.
[1042] Treaty of Nanjing, 1842, USC-UCLA Joint East Asian Studies Center, [accessed 20 April 2011]. As Chinese terms have two transcription systems – one was invented by Catholic missionaries in the nineteenth century based on Cantonese and used in the overseas Chinese communities; the other is officially applied by Chinese government after 1949 and based on Mandarin – this part chooses the official one for most of the translations. If one Chinese term is the official translation of one association or one term in Canadian text, this part keeps the official name to prevent from creating new translations which might cause misleading.
[1043] Anderson, Vancouver’s Chinatown, p. 34. The word ‘coolie’ was given to these early immigrants who signed contracts with and paid a deposit to the middle-men to worked in British colonies and the United States.
[1044] Convention of Beijing, 1860, [accessed 20 April 2011].
[1045] Robert Ward, ‘September 3rd, 1884’, in Gray and Chapleau, Report of the Royal Commission on Chinese Immigration, Evidence, p. 84.
[1046] Persia Crawford Campbell, Chinese Coolie Emigration to Countries within the British Empire (London: P. S. King & Son, LTD., 1923), p. 37.
[1047] Counsel for British Columbia, p. 40. Quoted from ibid., p. 54.
[1048] A Compilation of Statutes of the Dominion of Canada: Relating in Whole or in Part to the Assignment of Duties to Officers of Custom (Ottawa: The Customs Department, 1893), pp.15 and 20-1.
[1049] See, Bill An Act Respecting Labour in Mines (Ottawa: S.E. Dawson, 1900). Bill An Act Respecting and Restricting Chine[se] Immigration (Ottawa: S.E. Dawson, 1900).
[1050] Sir Wilfrid Laurie, 5th Session, 8th Parliament, 63 Victoria, 19, No. 180, Bill: An act respecting and restricting Chinese Immigration (Ottawa: S. E. Dawson, First Reading, 14 June 1900).
[1051] ‘Chinese Resolutions: Carry out Their Pledges before the New Year’, The Globe, 11 February 1904, p. 11.
[1052] ‘Roasting of Wildcats Banned: No Firecrackers, Either, for Frisco Chinese’, The Globe, 8 February 1935, p. 11.
[1053] ‘Ancient Ritual Unfolded in Dances of Festival’, The Globe and Mail, 24 June 1939, p. 4.
[1054] Most of Chinese immigrants’ hometowns were located in Guangdong Province, where well-developed secret anti-Qing government political societies were spread all over. These societies re-built Chinese communities, in Southeast Asia and North America, and became the footholds of anti-Qing government revolutionaries. More details of Chinese political societies in British Columbia, see, David Chuenyan Lai, Chinese Community Leadership: Case Study of Victoria in Canada (Singapore: World Scientific, 2010), pp. 91-109. The first political party of China, the Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang), were grounded in these overseas political societies, which led the revolution to replace Qing Dynasty in 1911 and founded the Republic of China in 1912.
[1055] Hoe, p. 4 and 330-5. As most of the immigrants to Canada before the 1990s are those from Zhe Jiang, Fu Jian and Guang Dong Province (includes Hong Kong and Tai Wan), it is easy for these association to connect the people have same birth place, use similar dialects or have close bloodlines. The majority of Chinese immigrants have belonged to one or several associations to identify themselves and connect to other Chinese as early as the late nineteenth century. See, Anderson, Vancouver’s Chinatown, p. 78.
[1056] Hoe, p. 337.
[1057] The Chinese Times, 22 January 1917, p. 2; 1 January 1919, pp. 2-3.
[1058] The Chinese Times, 1 January 1919, pp. 2-3; 19 February 1920, p. 3.
[1059] The Chinese Times, 8 February 1921, p. 2. Henry R. Lieberam, ‘Year of the Pig Greeted Joyously in Shanghai’, The Globe and Mail, 22 January 1947, p. 8.
[1060] The Chinese Times, 9 February 1921, p. 1.
[1061] ‘The Chinese Immigration Act, 1923’.
[1062] The Chinese Times, 5 February 1924, pp. 2-3.
[1063] Ibid., p. 3.
[1064] The Chinese Times, 24 January 1928, pp. 2-3; 17 February 1931, pp. 2-3; 15 February 1934, p. 3; 30 January 1935, p. 3.
[1065] The Chinese Times, 12 February 1926, p. 2. The uniqueness of firecrackers in Chinese New Year celebrations is its effect in exorcising the monster – Nian, the same word to ‘year’ in Chinese – falls on the New Year’s Eve.
[1066] The Chinese Times, 21 January 1928, p. 3; 9 February 1929, p. 3; 16 February 1931, p. 3.
[1067] The Chinese Times, 30 January 1935, p. 3.
[1068] In 1959, the CBA claimed to Vancouver City Council for the permission of firecracker in Chinese New Year celebrations, and got it achieved. See, The Chinese Times, 7 February 1959, p. 7; The Chinatown News, 18 February 1959, p. 10.
[1069] ‘Ancient Ritual Unfolded in Dances of Festival’, The Globe and Mail, 24 June 1939, p. 4.
[1070] The Chinese Times, 27 January 1941, p. 9; 28 January 1941, p. 6; 5 February 1943, p. 1 and 7; 6 February 1943, p. 7.
[1071] The Chinese Times, 20 February 1939, p. 1; 21 February 1939, p. 2; 27 January 1941, p. 9.
[1072] The Chinese Times, 14 February 1945, p. 3.
[1073] Anderson, Vancouver’s Chinatown, pp. 174-5.
[1074] The Chinese Times, 27 January 1952, p. 1; 28 January 1952, p. 1; 29 January 1952, p. 1.
[1075] The Chinese Times, 13 February 1953, p. 3 and 8; 14 February 1953, p. 3; 16 February 1953, p. 3.
[1076] See, for example, The Chinatown News, pp. 10-11.
[1077] The Chinese Times, 17 February 1958, p. 1; 18 February 1958, p. 1.
[1078] See, for example, The Chinatown News, pp. 10-11 and 13.
[1079] The Chinatown Charlie, ‘Down Pender Street’, 18 February 1959, The Chinatown News, p. 22.
[1080] The Chinatown News, 3 March 1961, p. 13.
[1081] Ibid., p. 22.
[1082] Stan Delaplane, ‘As a Caucasian Sees It: The Year of the Hare’, The Chinese Times, 18 January 1963, p. 8.
[1083] The Chinatown News, ‘Around Chinatown’, 18 January 1964, p. 24.
[1084] The Chinese Times, 6 February 1962, p. 1.
[1085] The Chinatown News, 18 March 1962, p. 23.
[1086] The Chinatown News, 18 February 1964, p. 3, 9 and 30.
[1087] The Chinatown News, 3 March 1964, p. 3.
[1088] The Chinatown News, 18 March 1964, p. 3.
[1089] The Chinatown News, 18 February 1966, p. 24.
[1090] Stan Delaplane, ‘As a Caucasian Sees It: The Year of the Hare’, The Chinatown News, 18 January 1963, p. 8.
[1091] The Chinatown News, 3 February 1965, p. 3 and 38.
[1092] The Chinatown News, 18 February 1966, pp. 20-1.
[1093] See, for example, Shing Wah Daily News, 8 February 1967, p. 4.
[1094] ‘Public Notice: Regulations Governing the Sale and Setting off of Fireworks in the City of Toronto’, The Globe and Mail, 9 May 1972, p. 14.
[1095] See, for example, The Chinese Times, 2 February 1973, p. 2.
[1096] The Chinese Times, 16 February 1972, p. 1.
[1097] William Johnson, ‘Canadian Consciousness Looks for a Hyphen, “Union Jack Culture is no Longer the Official One”’, The Globe and Mail, 12 November 1974, p. 10.
[1098] The Chinese Times, 22 January 1974, p. 1; 24 January 1974, p. 1.
[1099] The Chinese Times, 21 February 1977, p. 8.
[1100] The Chinese Times, 6 February 1978, p. 1; 27 January 1979, p. 4. Shing Wah Daily News, 30 January 1979, p. 3.
[1101] The Chinese Times, 12 February 1983, p. 1; 20 February 1985, p. 1. Shing Wah Daily News, 19 February 1985, p. 4.
[1102] The Chinese Times, 27 January 1982, p. 1.
[1103] Jo Carson, ‘Toronto Cultural Program Gives 550 Children Pride in Their Chinese Heritage’, The Globe and Mail, 23 December 1976, p. F01. ‘Vancouver Schools Engulfed in a Flood of Immigrants’, The Globe and Mail, 11 March 1989, p. D2.
[1104] Debates, 30 January 1984, 32nd Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 1, p. 856.
[1105] See, for example, Debates, 7 February 1986, 33rd Parliament, 1st Session, vol. 7, p. 10567; 29 January 1987, 33rd Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 3, p. 2853; 25 January 1990, 34th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 6, pp. 7454-5.
[1106] Region of Birth of Recent Immigrants to Canada, 1971 to 2006, [accessed 5 April 2009]. And, Statistics Canada, ‘Censuses of population, Ministry of Multiculturalism’, Multicultural Canada: A Graphic Overview, Ministry of Multiculturalism, Government of Canada (1990). Cited in Wei-Na Lee and David K. Tse, ‘Becoming Canadian: How Hong Kong Immigrants Change Their Consumption’, Pacific Affairs 67. 1 (Spring 1994), p. 71. Debates, 26 January 1990, 34th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol. 6, p. 7503. Lin, ‘Cultural Identity and Ethnic Representation in Arts Education’, p. 61.
[1107] Statistics Canada, ‘One Hundred Years of Immigration to Canada (1901-2001)’, [accessed 7 April 2009].
[1108] Lin, pp. 164-5.
[1109] ‘Immigrants, Please Don’t Try to Duplicate Your Homeland’, The Spectator, 11 October 1994, p. A10.
[1110] Debates, 16 February 1999, 36th Parliament, 1st Session, Edited Hansard, No. 182.
[1111] Lee and Tse, pp. 91-2. Gurpreet Singh, ‘A day for barbecues, beer and introspection’, 2 July 2008, [accessed 5 February 2010].
[1112] Nicholas Keung, ‘Seeds of the Dragon Join in Celebration; Canada’s Chinese Community Hails from Every Corner of the Planet’, The Toronto Star, 15 February 2007, p. K4. Nicholas Keung, ‘Chinese Community Connected by Tradition’, The Guelph Mercury, 17 February 2007, p. C8. Prithi Yelaja and Nicholas Keung, ‘The Ties that Bind Us’, The Toronto Star, 24 June 2006, p. B01.
[1113] Mary Chan, ‘Being Chinese Canadian Often Means Feeling Torn between Two Cultures – But That’s Not Necessarily A Bad Thing’, Gauntlet Columnist, 30 January 2003, [accessed 5 February 2010].
[1114] The Globe and Mail, 18 February 1991, p. A6. ‘Getting the Chinese New Year’, The Globe and Mail, 16 January 1984, p. 5. ‘City Forces Workers to Save Money’, The Globe and Mail, 21 April 1993, p. D2. Robert Sheppard, ‘Fasten Your B.C. Seat Belt’, The Globe and Mail, 19 February 1996, p. A15. ‘Events’, The Globe and Mail, 8 February 1997, p. C22.
[1115] Richard Berryman, ‘Christmas IS A Religious Festival, The Hamilton Spectator, 14 December 1991, p. C5.
[1116] Yu Fang Liang, ‘Sharing Love of Christmas; Five New Immigrants Share Their Thoughts on a Canadian Holiday’, The Guelph Mercury, 23 December 2006, p. A9.
[1117] ‘Concerts Reflect Cultural Diversity’, The Globe and Mail, 19 December 1991, p. A8. ‘School Concert Reflects Students’ Diverse Traditions’, The Globe and Mail, 20 December 1994, p. A9. Ken Stone, ‘Sign Debate Highlights A Key Issue’, The Spectator, 20 December 1997, p. D04. ‘Events’, The Globe and Mail, 6 February 1998, p. C10. Brian Dexter, ‘Bunny Chases out Tiger; As the Chinese Usher in the Year of the Rabbit, Celebrations Begin with a Huge Festival at SkyDome’, The Toronto Star, 11 February 1999, p. 1.
[1118] Margaret Terol, ‘Unity in Diversity Celebration Encourages Racial Harmony’, The Record, 13 November 1995, p. B2.
[1119] See, for example, the conclusive chapter of the latest comprehensive study on national days in Europe, David McCrone and Gayle McPherson, ‘Marking Time: The Significance of National Days’, in McCrone and McPherson (eds), National Days, pp. 212-20. The term ‘national day’ in this book is the same to ‘national holiday’ in this dissertation. This book also differentiated the capitalised-N ‘National Day’ with ‘national day’ to highlight the national days stems from the founding myth of the nation.
[1120] See, Michael E. Geisler, ‘The Calendar Conundrum: National Days as Unstable Signifiers’, in McCrone and McPherson (eds), National Holidays, pp. 10-25; David McCrone, ‘Scotland Days: Evolving Nation and Icons’, in ibid., pp. 26-40; Michael Skey, ‘“We Wanner Show ‘em Who We Are”: National Events in England’, in ibid., pp. 41-56.
[1121] Alec G. Hargreaves, Multi-Ethnic France: Immigration, Politics, Culture and Society (2nd Edition, New York and London: Routledge, 2007), p. 17, Figure 1.1. Braudel believed that immigration is ‘new’ phenomena in France, see, Fernand Braudel, The Identity of France, trans. Siân Reynolds (2 vols., London: Collins, 1988 and 1999), vol. 2, pp. 204-18. In Nora’s multi-volume collection of articles in Les Lieux de Mémoire, discussions of ethnic groups in France are limited in number and coverage. He also took immigration as a recent happening in France, see, Pierre Nora (ed.), Les Lieux de Mémoire (7 vols., Paris: Quarto-Gallimard, 1997). Translated as Realms of Memory, 3 vols. trans. Arthur Goldhammer (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996-1998). Other discussion on the pre-revolution Frenchness, see, for example, Liah Greenfeld, Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992), pp. 89-188.
[1122] Michelet’s History of France and Ernest Lavisse’s 27 volumes Historie de France are published during the Third Republic to narrate the national history. Discussion on other social changes, see, for example, Charles Sowerwine, France since 1870: Culture, Politics and Society (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001).
[1123] See, for example, Martin P. Johnson, The Dreyfus Affair: Honour and Politics in the Belle Epoque (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1999). Discussion of French nation-building in the nineteenth century, see, Baycroft and Hewitson, ‘Introduction: What was a Nation in Nineteenth-Century Europe’, in Baycroft and Hewitson (eds), What is a Nation?, pp. 1-13.
[1124] Horace Kallen, ‘Democracy versus the Melting Pot’, 1915, in Horace Kallen, Culture and Democracy in the United States (New York, 1924), pp. 67-125. Quoted in Nancy L. Green, ‘Le Melting-Pot: Made in America, Produced in France’, The Journal of American History 86. 3, The Nation and Beyond: Transnational Perspectives on United States History: A Special Issue (Dec., 1999), p. 1192.
[1125] Adrian Favell, ‘A Politics That Is Shared, Bounded, and Rooted? Rediscovering Civic Political Culture in Western Europe’, Theory and Society 27. 2 (Apr., 1998), p. 222.
[1126] Gérard Noiriel, The French Melting Pot: Immigration, Citizenship, and National Identity (Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1996), p. 278.
[1127] Ibid. Favell, Philosophies of Integration, pp. 43-5
[1128] Nathan Glazer, Ethnic Dilemmas 1964-1982 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983).
[1129] Related discussions, see, Kymilicka, Multicultural Citizenship, p. 14. S. Ireland and J-P. Proulx (eds), Immigrant Narratives in Contemporary France (Westport: Greenwood Press, 2001). Sue Peabody and Tyler Stovall, The Colour of Liberty: Histories of Race in France (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2003). Anne-Marie Thiesse, « Les deux identités de la France », Modern & Contemporary France 9. 1 (2001), pp. 9-18.
[1130] Timothy Baycroft, France (London: Hodder Education, 2008), p. 180.
[1131] Shusterman, Religion and the Politics of Time, p. 237.
[1132] Except for Labour Day which has been approved by statues in 1941, public holidays in France are confirmed by convention collective between the employers’ and employees’ unions. See, Code du travail, Article L3133-1, , et Article L3133-4, [accessed 5 June 2011]. Les jours fériés, [accessed 5 June 2011]. Discussion on the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971, see the next section. Although these legislation also combine the commemorative and recreational functions of national holidays, this combination does not have certain political purpose but a result of the negotiation between the employers and the employees.
[1133] Ibid.
[1134] Shusterman, Religion and the Politics of Time, p. 238. And, Hobsbawm, ‘Mass-producing Traditions’, pp. 263-307.
[1135] For example, on 14 July 1790, celebrations named as la fete de la Federation were held in Paris to commemorate the event happened one year before. Le 14 juillet, [accessed 5 June 2011]. See also, Christian Amalvi, ‘Bastille Day: Dies Irae to Holiday’, in Nora, Realms of Memory, vol. 3, p. 120.
[1136] Amalvi, ‘Bastille Day’.
[1137] Hobsbawm, ‘Mass-producing Traditions’, pp. 271-2.
[1138] Ibid., p. 271. And, Le rapport de séance du Sénat du 29 juin 1880, [accessed 5 June 2011].
[1139] Amalvi, ‘Bastille Day’, p. 119.
[1140] Ibid., pp. 119-20 and 217. McCrone and McPherson, ‘Marking Time’, p. 215.
[1141] Amalvi, ‘Bastille Day’, p. 120.
[1142] Ibid., pp. 120-4.
[1143] Baycroft, France, p. 172.
[1144] Amalvi, ‘Bastille Day, pp. 125-31. A study of the growing of Bastille Day celebrations in one French town could be read in Vallin Pierre, « Fête, mémoire et politique: les 14 juillet en Limousin (1880-1914) ». In: Revue française de science politique, 32e année, n°6, 1982. pp. 949-72. Pierre discussed why Bastille Day celebrations were integrated into French people’s life and how the local rituals were developed. See also, Mona Ozouf, La Fête révolutionnaire 1789-1799 (Gallimard: Paris, 1976). And, Willaime Jean-Paul. « De la sacralisation de la France. Lieux de mémoire et imaginaire national / On the Sacralization of France. Lieux de mémoire and the Nation Imaginary». In: Archives des sciences sociales des religions. N. 66/1, 1988. pp. 125-45.
[1145] Amalvi, ‘Bastille Day’, pp. 136-56.
[1146] Pierre Nora, ‘Introduction to Realms of Memory, Volume III’, in Nora, Realms of Memory, vol. 3, p. ix.
[1147] Hobsbawm, ‘Mass-producing Traditions’, pp. 283-4.
[1148] Ibid., pp. 284-8.
[1149] Ibid.
[1150] Ibid., p. 284.
[1151] Amalvi, ‘Bastille Day’, p.137 and 146.
[1152] Jean Bouvier, René Girault et Jacques Thobie, L’impérialisme à la française 1914-1960 (Paris: Editions de la Découverte, 1986).
[1153] Antoine Prost, ‘Monuments to the Dead’, in Nora, Realms of Memory, vol. 2, p. 323. Paul Lawrence argued that the naturalisation of the immigrants during the inter-war period was coloured by French identity, namely Republicanism, which contextualised the Armistice Day ceremonies in this period of time. Paul Lawrence, ‘Naturalisation, Ethnicity and National Identity in France between the Wars’, Immigrants and Minorities 20. 3 (November 2001), pp. 1-24.
[1154] Prost, ‘Monuments to the Dead’, p. 317.
[1155] Ibid., p. 318.
[1156] Ibid., p. 319.
[1157] Ibid., pp. 319-21.
[1158] Hobsbawm, ‘Mass-producing Traditions’, pp. 271-2.
[1159] Prost, ‘Monuments to the Dead’, p. 307.
[1160] Jacques Lindecker, illustrations de Marcelino Truong, Les bleuets de l'espoir (Paris: Nathan, 1999), in « Histoire de l’oeuvre et de la fleur », [accessed 5 June 2011].
[1161] « Histoire de l’oeuvre et de la fleur ».
[1162] Prost, ‘Monuments to the Dead’, pp. 324-5.
[1163] Ibid., p. 325.
[1164] Eric Jennings, Vichy in the Tropics: Petain's National Revolution in Madagascar, Guadeloupe, and Indochina, 1940-44 (Stanford University Press: Stanford, 2004), pp. 202-9. Jacqueline Lalouette, Jours de fête: jours fériés et fêtes légales dans la France contemporaine (Tallandier: Paris, 2010), p. 12.
[1165] Jennings, Vichy in the Tropics, p. 209.
[1166] Ibid.
[1167] Prost, ‘Monuments to the Dead’, p. 330.
[1168] « Histoire de l’oeuvre et de la fleur ».
[1169] Stora Benjamin, « L’effet « 89 » dans les milieux immigrés algériens en France (1920-1960) », Revue du monde musulman et de la Méditerranée, N°52-53 (1989), pp. 229-40.
[1170] Amalvi, ‘Bastille Day’, p. 152.
[1171] Ibid., pp. 156-8. And, Garcia Patrick. « Les territoires de la commémoration. Une conjoncture de l'identité française : le bicentenaire de la Révolution française (1989) » , Annales historiques de la Révolution française. N°301, 1995, pp. 451-58.
[1172] McCrone and McPherson, ‘Marking Time’, p. 217.
[1173] Hue-Tam Ho Tai, ‘Remembered Realms: Pierre Nora and French National Memory’, The American Historical Review 106. 3 (Jun., 2001), p. 913.
[1174] Favell, Philosophies of Integration, p. 1.
[1175] See, for example, Brendan Bradshaw and Peter Roberts (eds), British Consciousness and Identity: The Making of Britain, 1533-1707 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). Paul Langford, Englishness Identified: Manners and Character 1650-1850 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
[1176] Linda Colley, Briton: Forging the Nation 1707-1837 (New Pimlico Edition, London: Pimlico, 2003).
[1177] Paul Ward, Britishness since 1870 (London: Routledge, 2004), p. 3 and 5. Krishan Kumar, ‘Nation and Empire: English and British National Identity in Comparative Perspective’, Theory and Society 29. 5, (2000), pp. 575-608. Krishan Kumar, The Making of English National Identity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). Krishan Kumar, ‘English and French National Identity: Comparisons and Contrasts’, Nations and Nationalism 12. 3 (2006), pp. 413-32. For the terminology of Britishness, see, Chris Williams, ‘The United Kingdom: British Nationalisms during the Long Nineteenth Century’, in Baycroft and Hewitson (eds), What is a Nation?, p. 273.
[1178] Ward, Britishness since 1870, pp. 1-2.
[1179] Keith Robbins’ discussion, see, Nineteenth-Century Britain: England, Scotland, and Wales – The Making of a Nation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989); and Keith Robbins, Great Britain: Identities, Institutions and the Idea of Britishness (London: Longman, 1998).
[1180] Robert Colls, Identity of England (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 377. A Review of the historiography of Britishness, see, Ward, Britishness since 1870, p. 7.
[1181] Kumar, ‘English and French National Identity’, pp. 423-7.
[1182] Ward, Britishness since 1870, p. 8.
[1183] See the definition of Office for National Statistics, ‘[t]he top-level division of administrative geography in the UK is the four countries - England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland’. See, Office for National Statistics, ‘The countries of the UK’, [accessed 24 November 2011].
[1184] Ian R. G. Spencer, British Immigration Policy since 1939: The Making of Multi-Racial Britain (London: Routledge, 1997), pp. 152-61. See also, Erik Bleich, Race Politics in Britain and France: Ideas and Policymaking since the 1960s (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). Favell, Philosophies of Integration.
[1185] R. Jenkins, Essays and Speeches (London: Collins, 1967), p. 267, in R. D. Grillo, Pluralism and the Politics of Difference: State, Culture, and Ethnicity in Comparative Perspective (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), p. 177.
[1186] John Rex, ‘The Political Sociology of a Multicultural Society’, in John Rex, Ethnic Minorities in the Modern Nation State: Working Papers in the Theory of Multiculturalism and Political Integration (London: Macmillan Press Ltd, 1996), p. 32. Naomi Carmon, ‘Immigration and Integration in Post-Industrial Societies: Quantitative and Qualitative Analyses’, in Naomi Carmon (ed.), Immigration and Integration in Post-Industrial Societies: Theoretical Analysis and Policy-Related Research (London: Macmillan Press Ltd, 1996), p. 23.
[1187] B. Smithies and P. Fiddick, Enoch Powell on Immigration (London: Sphere Books, 1969), p. 37, in Grillo, Pluralism and the Politics of Difference, p. 177.
[1188] Race Relations Act 1968, Chapter 71 (London: HMSO, 1968). Race Relations Act 1976, Chapter 74 (London: HMSO, 1976).
[1189] E. J. B. Rose, Colour and Citizenship: A Report on British Race Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969).
[1190] J. G. A. Pocock, ‘British History: A Plea for A New Subject’, Journal of Modern History 47 (1975), p. 603; and, ‘Conclusion: Contingency, Identity, Sovereignty’, in Alexander Grant and Keith Stringer (eds), Uniting the Kingdom? The Making of British History (London: Routledge, 1995), pp. 292-302.
[1191] See, Norman Davies, The Isles: A History (London: Papermac, 2000). Richard Weight, Patriots: National Identity in Britain 1940-2000 (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2002).
[1192] Studies on regional nationalism in the United Kingdom in chronological order, see, Gwyn A. Williams, When was Wales?: A History of the Welsh (London: Black Raven Press, 1985). Robert Colls and Philip Dodd (eds), Englishness: Politics and Culture 1880-1920 (London: Beckenham, 1986). Gerald Newman, The Rise of English Nationalism: A Cultural History, 1740-1830 (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1987). Robert Fitzroy Foster, Modern Ireland 1600-1972 (London: Penguin Books, 1989). Robbins, Nineteenth-Century Britain. Colin Kidd, Subverting Scotland’s Past: Scottish Whig Historians and the Creation of An Anglo-British Identity, 1689-c.1830 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). Ronald G. Asch (ed.), Three Nations – A Common History? England, Scotland, Ireland and British History, c.1600-1920 (Bochum: Universitätsverlag N. Brockmeyer, 1993). Christopher Harvie, Scotland and Nationalism: Scottish Society and Politics 1707-1994 (London: Routledge, 1994). Judy Giles and Tim Middleton (eds), Writing Englishness 1900–1950: An Introductory Sourcebook on National Identity (London: Routledge, 1995). John S. Ellis, ‘The Prince and the Dragon: Welsh National Identity and the 1911 Investiture of the Prince of Wales’, Welsh History Review 18 (1996), pp. 391-418. Bridget Taylor and Katarina Thomson (eds), Scotland and Wales: Nations Again? (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1999). Murry Pittock, Celtic Identity and the British Image (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999). Colls, Identity of England. Krishan Kumar, The Making of English National Identity. Changes of the legislative context, see, Government of Wales Act 1998, ; Northern Ireland Act 1998, ; Scotland Act 1998, ; Government of Wales Act 2006, [accessed 5 July 2011].
[1193] Raphael Samuel (ed.), Patriotism: The Making and Unmaking of British National Identity (3 vols., London: Routledge, 1989). Hugh F. Kearney, The British Isles: A History of Four Nations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). Alexander Grant and Keith John Stringer (eds), Uniting the Kingdom: The Making of British History (London: Routledge, 1995). Jeremy Black, A History of the British Isles (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1996). Laurence Brockliss and David Eastwood (eds), A Union of Multiple Identities: The British Isles, c.1750–c.1850 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997). Robbins, Great Britain. Raphael Samuel, Island Stories: Unravelling Britain (London: Verso, 1998). Alexander Murdoch, British History 1660-1832 (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998). John Redwood, The Death of Britain? (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1999). Antoinette Burton, ‘Who Needs the Nation? Interrogating “British” History’, in Catherine Hall (ed.), Cultures of Empire: Colonisers in Britain and the Empire in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries: A Reader (Manchester: Routledge, 2000). Christopher Harvie, ‘The Moment of British Nationalism, 1939 - 1970’, Political Quarterly 71 (2000), pp. 328-40. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Who Do We Think We Are? Imagining the New Britain (London: Penguin, 2001). Richard J. Finlay, ‘Review Article: New Britain, New Scotland, New History? The Impact of Devolution on the Development of Scottish Historiography’, Journal of Contemporary History 36 (2001), pp. 383-93. Keith Robbins, ‘Devolution in Britain: Will the United Kingdom Survive?’ European Studies 16 (2001), pp. 53-65. Arthur Aughey, Nationalism, Devolution and the Challenge to the United Kingdom State (London: Pluto, 2001). Weight, Patriots.
[1194] BBC, ‘Brown Speech Promotes Britishness’, 14 January 2006, [accessed 15 May 2011].
[1195] House of Commons Debates 21 February 1871, vol. 204, cc661-2.
[1196] Bills of Exchange and Holidays: A Bill to Make the Law Uniform as to the Time when Bills and Notes Falling Due upon Holidays Shall be Payable (London: The House of Commons, 8 June 1871). Additionally, Christmas Day and Good Friday ‘as the traditional days of rest and Christian worship (as were Sundays) did not need to be included in the Act’. In Northern Ireland, St Patrick’s Day (17 March) was appointed by a special Act of Parliament in 1903, and 12 July (Anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne in 1690) was appointed by the Governor of Northern Ireland in 1926. See, ‘Bank Public Holidays’, N.A. [accessed 15 May 2011].
[1197] Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971, [accessed 15 May 2011]. And, ‘Bank Public Holidays’.
[1198] Ibids.
[1199] Ibids.
[1200] St. Andrew's Day Bank Holiday (Scotland) Act 2007, [accessed 15 May 2011].
[1201] In Northern Ireland, the Anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne bank holiday is proclaimed annually by the Secretary of State, see, ‘Bank Public Holidays’.
[1202] See, ‘The Politics of Bank Holidays’, 29 April 2011, BBC, [accessed 15 May 2011].
[1203] Eric Midwinter, Salisbury (London: Haus Publishing, 2006), p. 1. The tradition of Saint Monday generally declined after the Bank Holiday Act 1871 enacted in the United Kingdom with decreasing number of such kind of holidays, see, Douglas A. Reid, ‘The Decline of Saint Monday 1766-1878’, Past and Present 71, pp. 76-101. Even so, newly declared bank holidays were still fixed on Mondays.
[1204] Gary Cross, A Quest for Time: The Reduction of Work in Britain and France, 1840-1940 (London: University of California Press, 1989), pp. 83-6. Jeffry Kaplow, « La fin de la Saint-Lundi. Etude sur le Paris ouvrier au XIXe siècle », Temps Libre n°2, [accessed 15 May 2011], pp. 107-18.
[1205] Hobsbawm, ‘Mass-Producing Traditions’, pp. 236-308.
[1206] Hobsbawm, ‘Mass-Producing Traditions’, p. 283.
[1207] Stephen Yeo, ‘A New Life: The Religion of Socialism in Britain, 1883-1896’, History Workshop 4.1 (1977), p. 8.
[1208] Hobsbawm, ‘Mass-Producing Traditions’, p. 286. See, for example, ‘Report on Revolutionary Organisations in the United Kingdom’, 27th April 1922, Home Office, CAB/24/136, p. 1. N.A.
[1209] Hobsbawm, ‘Mass-Producing Traditions’, pp. 286-8. Hobsbawm, “Birth of a Holiday’. ‘Report on Revolutionary Organisations in the United Kingdom’, 3 May 1923, Cabinet Paper, CAB/24/160, pp. 3-4. N.A.
[1210] See, for example, ‘Report on Revolutionary Organisations in the United Kingdom’, 7 May 1919, Home [pic][1211] |#%,-:K??‘Ÿ¦§¢ £ ¥ !"%øæøÜÐÇÐú´Ã«¢«ÃºÃ—?†~sja†WJhO-h›5CJOJQJhŒc†CJOffice, CAB/24/79, pp. 1-3; 29 April 1920, Home Office, CAB/24/104, p. 1; 4 May 1922, Home Office, CAB/24/136, pp. 8-11. ‘A Survey of Revolutionary Movements in Great Britain in the Year 1920’, January 1921, Home Office, CAB/24/118, pp. 17-20. N.A.
[1212] Mike Cronin and Daryl Adair, The Wearing of the Green: A History of St. Patrick’s Day (London and New York: Routledge, 2002), pp. 81-2.
[1213] House of Commons Debate 6 April 1900, vol 81 c1447.
[1214] Vervaecke, « L’invention du patriotisme impérial », pp. 12-14.
[1215] ‘Letters to the Editor. “Empire Day”’, The Times, 25 April 1899, p. 3.
[1216] Bank Holiday Act Amendment: A Bill to Amend the Bank Holidays Act, 1871, and the Holidays Extension Act, 1875, and to Make Provision for An Additional Bank Holiday, to Be Called “Victoria Day” (London: House of Commons, 9 July 1901).
[1217] Bank Holidays Acts amendment. A Bill to Amend the Bank Holidays Act, 1871, and the Holidays Extension Act, 1875, and to Make Provision for An Additional Bank Holiday, to Be Called “Empire Day” (London: House of Commons, 28 February 1902).
[1218] House of Lords Debates 1 December 1902 vol 115 cc813-23.
[1219] House of Commons Debates 5 June 1905 vol 147 c700; 24 May 1906 vol 157 c1409; 28 May 1906 vol 158 c46; 30 May 1906 vol 158 c400.
[1220] See, for example, House of Commons Debates 18 March 1907 vol 171 cc476-7; 18 April 1907 vol 172 c1171; 25 April 1907 vol 173 c288.
[1221] For example, more than 1,000 schools in London celebrated Empire Day in 1908. See, English, ‘Empire Day in Britain, 1904-1958’, p. 249. And, J. O. Springhall, ‘Lord Meath, Youth, and Empire’, Journal of Contemporary History 5. 4 (1970), pp. 103-6.
[1222] The British Monarchy, ‘Trooping the Colour’, [accessed 25 November 2011].
[1223] Trooping the Colour, ‘History’, [accessed 25 November 2011].
[1224] Trooping the Colour, ‘Details of the Sovereign’s Birthday Parade from 1895 to Date’, [accessed 25 November 2011].
[1225] Kenneth J. Panton, Historical Dictionary of the British Monarchy (Lanham: Scarecrow Press, 2011), p. 388.
[1226] Ward, Britishness since 1870.
[1227] English, ‘Empire Day in Britain’, p. 249.
[1228] Ibid., p. 247.
[1229] Ibid.
[1230] Gregory, The Silence of Memory, pp. 5-6. Newall, ‘Armistice Day’, pp. 226-9.
[1231] ‘Armistice Terms with Enemy Countries and Armistice Day as a Holiday, Boxes 442-444’, 27 October 1922, 6 November 1922, LAC.
[1232] Ibid., 2 November 1920, 24 October 1924, 11 October 1926, 26 October 1921, 24 October 1924. ‘Suspension of all work for two minutes on Armistice Day, 11th November’, 13 October 1921. William Lyon Mackenzie King’s Correspondence, MR C-3694, v.228, no. 195727, 17 October 1936; MR C-3730, v.242, no. 208435, 14 October 1937; MR C-4870, v.317, no. 269292, 30 October 1941; MR C-6813, v.334, no, 286498, 27 October 1942; MR C-7045, v.351, no. 304583, 25 October 1943, LAC.
[1233] ‘Armistice Terms with Enemy Countries and Armistice Day as a Holiday, Boxes 442-444’, 13 October 1928, LAC.
[1234] Gregory, The Silence of Memory, pp. 188-90.
[1235] John Poulter, ‘ReMembering the Nation: Remembrance Days and the Nation in Ireland’, in McCrone and McPherson, National Days, pp. 57-72.
[1236] Gregory, The Silence of Memory, p. 103.
[1237] Gregory, The Silence of Memory, pp. 153-9.
[1238] Ibid., pp. 190-214.
[1239] Ibid., p. 219.
[1240] Ward, Britishness since 1870, p. 8.
[1241] Gregory, The Silence of Memory, pp. 220-1.
[1242] Ibid., p. 222 and 227.
[1243] House of Commons Debates 14 June 1966 vol 729 cc250-1W.
[1244] See, for example, House of Commons Debates 20 February 1970 vol 796 cc199-200W; 11 May 1972 vol 836 cc427-8W.
[1245] The report on the protests in 2011, see, for example, BBC, ‘Violence at May Day Protest’, ; and, Amelia Hill, ‘May Day Protest against Government Cuts’, [accessed 7 December 2011].
[1246] House of Commons Debates 16 March 1910 vol 15 c351; 23 March 1911 vol 23 c608; 16 March 1917 vol 91 cc1437-8; 28 March 1933 vol 276 cc842-3.
[1247] St. Andrew’s Day, House of Commons Debates 29 April 1914 vol 61 cc1677-8. St. David’s Day, House of Commons Debates 4 April 1910 vol 16 cc34-5; 10 April 1913 vol 51 cc1402; 4 May 1914 vol 62 cc20-1; 18 May 1914 vol 62 cc1560-1. St. George’s Day, House of Commons Debates 4 April 1910 vol 16 cc34-5; 4 May 1914 vol 62 cc20-1; 14 April 1921 vol 140 c1327W; 14 March 1923 vol 161 c1568; 11 March 1929 vol 226 c800; 27 March 1933 vol 276 c677.
[1248] House of Commons Debates 23 March 1914 vol 60 cc29-30.
[1249] See, House of Commons Debates 15 April 1913 vol 51 cc1795-6; 21 February 1918 vol 103 c938W; 18 April 1918 vol 105 c560; 22 April 1918 vol 105 cc678-9; 2 April 1919 vol 114 cc1179-80; 12 March 1924 vol 170 cc2343-4W; 8 November 1928 vol 222 cc198-9; 28 February 1945 vol 408 c1371. Usage of saints’ symbols in the post-war period, see, House of Commons Debates 2 March 1948 vol 448 cc199-201. In the post-1980s, see, St. Andrew’s Day, House of Commons Debates 30 November 1983 vol 49 cc871-2; 21 July 1994 vol 247 c545W; 24 October 1994 vol 248 c455W; 10 January 1995 vol 252 c10W. St David’s Day, House of Commons Debates 15 December 1976 vol 922 cc1588-9; 23 January 1984 vol 52 c427W; 30 June 1986 vol 100 cc396-403W; 1 March 1993 vol 220 c20W and c43W; 1 March 1994 vol 238 c653W; 1 March 1995 vol 255 c569W; 2 March 1995 vol 255 cc1203-14; 20 November 1995 vol 267 c37W; 25 January 1996 vol 270 cc489;1 February 1996 vol 270 cc864-5W; 31 July 1997 vol 299 cc421-2W; 6 February 1998 vol 305 c831W; 26 March 1998 vol 309 cc751-3; 1 March 2000 vol 610 cc552; House of Lords Debates 11 March 1995 vol 561 cc1494; 5 June 1998 vol 590 cc1348-50. St. George’s Day, see, House of Lords Debates 6 October 1986 vol 480 cc43; House of Commons Debates 13 January 1987 vol 108 cc194; 26 May 1999 vol 332 cc292; 18 June 1999 vol 333 cc706; 16 July 1999 vol 335 cc722.
[1250] St. Andrew’s Day’s, House of Commons Debates 26 November 1946 vol 430 c286W; St. David’s Day’s, 1 March 1951 vol 484 cc2293-4; 1 March 1954 vol 524 cc841-2; 4 March 1955 vol 537 cc2498; 11 February 1957 vol 564 cc976; 1 March 1961 vol 635 cc1693-701; 1 March 1967 vol 742 cc417-20 417.
[1251] For example, daffodil was pinned by some House members on St. David’s Day, House of Commons Debates 1 March 1963 vol 672 cc1593-661.
[1252] House of Commons Debates 30 May 1951 vol 488 cc211-2.
[1253] House of Commons Debates 30 November 1966 vol 737 cc456-9 456.
[1254] House of Commons Debates 11 May 1953 vol 515 cc920.
[1255] House of Commons Debates 14 July 1954 vol 530 cc571-4; 14 March 1963 vol 673 c203W.
[1256] For example, House of Commons Debates 18 May 1954 vol 527 c115W; 7 March 1957 vol 566 cc91-2W; 7 March 1958 vol 583 c171W; 21 May 1958 vol 588 cc1325; 17 December 1969 vol 793 cc1325-6; 29 April 1970 vol 800 c357W.
[1257] House of Commons Debates 28 April 1959 vol 604 c108W; 14 May 1959 vol 605 cc1419-20; 5 April 1960 vol 621 cc189-90; 28 March 1961 vol 637 cc119-20W; 2 May 1961 vol 639 c1125; 11 June 1964 vol 696 cc616-8.
[1258] House of Commons Debates 24 April 1967 vol 745 cc1070
[1259] St. Andrew’s Day, see, House of Common Debates29 November 1977 vol 940 cc409-14; 6 July 1993 vol 228 cc211-5; Deb 25 January 1994 vol 236 cc199-200; St. George’s Day, see, House of Commons Debates 23 April 1968 vol 291 cc569-74, cc601-4, and vol 763 cc53-67; 26 June 1969 vol 785 cc1871-2; 4 March 1976 vol 906 cc1580-2; 23 April 1982 vol 22 cc525; 23 April 1987 vol 114 cc793-4; 9 June 1999 vol 332 cc586.
[1260] Two famous speeches on St. George’s Days are, Enoch Powell,
‘What Do They Know of England Who Only England Know?’, 24 April 1961, *.html [accessed 5 June 2011]; and, ‘Rivers of Blood’, 20 April 1968, [accessed 5 June 2011]. And Kumar, The Making of English National Identity, p. 267.
[1261] House of Commons Debates 1 March 1978 vol 945 cc467-592; 22 November 1978 vol 958 cc1338-94; 30 November 1978 vol 396 cc1416-33; 12 February 1987 vol 110 cc461-70; 19 February 1987 vol 110 cc1074-82; 25 February 1988 vol 128 cc444-50.House of Lords Debates, 21 June 1978 vol 393 cc1208-9. From the early 1980s, St. David’s Day became a ‘traditional time’ to discuss Welsh Affairs. See, for example, House of Commons Debates, 25 February 1982 vol 18 cc992-1014; 28 February 1985 vol 74 cc494-555; 2 March 1988 vol 128 cc1008-72.
[1262] House of Commons Debates 3 June 1997 vol 295 cc187-247.
[1263] House of Commons Debates 10 July 1973 vol 859 c291W. House of Commons Debates 15 November 1977 vol 939 c179W; 15 January 1980 vol 976 c689W; 29 January 1980 vol 977 c557W; 1 May 1980 vol 983 cc1623-4; 30 April 1981 vol 3 c428W; 8 May 1981 vol 4 c147W; 29 June 1982 vol 26 cc751-5; 14 May 1984 vol 60 cc50-1W; 24 May 1984 vol 60 c542W; 11 June 1984 vol 61 cc632-4; 23 April 1991 vol 189 c378W; 4 December 1991 vol 200 c133W; House of Lords Debates 28 April 1988 vol 496 cc294-5; 22 February 1990 vol 516 cc383-5.
[1264] House of Commons Debates 29 June 1982 vol 26 cc751.
[1265] House of Lords Debates 15 July 1987 vol 488 cc1029-32.
[1266] House of Commons Debates 29 June 1982 vol 26 cc752.
[1267] House of Commons Debates 28 June 1971 vol 820 cc27-8.
[1268] House of Lords Debates 15 December 1971 vol 326 cc1251-2.
[1269] House of Lords Debates 17 March 1986 vol 472 cc822-4; House of Commons Debates 4 July 1985 vol 82 cc538 and 574; 16 July 1985 vol 83 c92W. Discussion of St. Patrick’s Day and Irish nationalism, see, for example, John Nagle, ‘Multiculturalism’s Double Bind: Creating inclusivity, difference and cross-community alliances with the London-Irish’, Ethnicities, 8. 2 (2008), pp. 177-98. Gayle McPherson, Malcolm Foley and Aaron McIntosh, ‘Parading Conspicuous Identity: St. Patrick’s Day, New York’, in McCrone and McPherson, National Days, pp. 197-209. Cronin and Adair, The Wearing of the Green.
[1270] Ward, Britishness since 1870, p. 9.
[1271] Ibid., pp. 9-10.
[1272] House of Commons Debates 4 May 1977 vol 931 cc199-200W; 16 December 1999 vol 341 cc278-9W.
[1273] House of Commons Debates 18 April 1991 vol 189 c218W; 25 March 1996 vol 274 c437W; 9 May 2000 vol 349 cc374-5W; 16 May 2000 vol 613 cc200-9; 18 March 2002 vol 382 c42W.
[1274] Recognition to St. Andrew’s Day as a bank holiday, see, House of Commons Debates 28 November 2002 vol 395 cc470. This discussion was competed with recognising Burns’ Day, another date for commemorating a great Scottish, yet no recognition achieved. See, House of Commons Debates 25 January 1995 vol 253 cc348-9. Recognition of St. David’s Day as a bank holiday, see, House of Commons Debates 26 October 2000 vol 355 c166W; 8 January 2001 vol 360 c354W; 5 March 2001 vol 364 c82W; 9 July 2001 vol 371 c358W; 2 November 2001 vol 373 c904W; 21 January 2003 vol 398 c204W; 12 March 2003 vol 401 cc346-96. Recognition of St. George’s Day as a bank holiday, see, House of Commons Debates 8 July 2004 vol 423 cc1004-5.
[1275] House of Commons Debates 15 May 2000 vol 350 c63W; 16 May 2000 vol 350 c111W; 2 May 2002 vol 384 cc1096; 21 November 2002 vol 394 cc45-6WS; 17 June 2003 vol 407 cc149W; 19 April 2004 vol 660 cc5-8; 23 April 2004 vol 420 cc585-6.
[1276] House of Common Debates 11 May 2001 vol 368 cc446-7W; 27 April 2004 vol 420 c863W; 29 April 2004 vol 420 c1205W. Discussion on Queen’s Golden Jubilee, see, House of Commons Debates 12 March 2002 vol 381 c926W; 21 March 2002 vol 382 cc510-1W; 25 March 2002 vol 382 c547W, cc583-4W, c683W, cc735-6W, c883W; 26 March 2002 vol 382 cc894-5W, cc987-8W; 11 April 2002 vol 383 c558W, cc587-8W, c664W; 1 June 2002 vol 386 c1194W.
[1277] House of Common Debates 25 October 2000 vol 355 cc334-55.
[1278] McCrone, ‘Scotland Days’, p. 35.
[1279] Ibid., pp. 35-8.
[1280] Ibid., p. 38.
[1281] ‘Brown Speech Promotes Britishness’, 14 January 2006, BBC, [accessed 15 May 2011].
[1282] Ibid.
[1283] Toby Helm, ‘Labour Plans a British Day to Aid Patriotism’, 29 May 2007, [accessed 15 May 2011]. Daily Hansard, 12 November 2008: Column 319 WH, ; 3 Dec 2008: Column 104-7, [accessed 15 May 2011].
[1284] Ibid.
[1285] For example, McCrone and McPherson (eds), National Days.
[1286] Although Hobsbawm pointed out the difficulty of clarifying the political and social aspects of invention of traditions, in origin and practice as they blended with each other, he did not unfold the dialectic relationship between the two aspects, which is the reason why this dissertation sets the commemorative-recreational paradigm.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
Related searches
- national holidays and observances 2020
- national holidays in october 2020
- national holidays in england
- national holidays in britain
- national holidays in great britain
- national holidays in the uk
- national holidays in uk
- national holidays and observances for 2021
- national holidays in 2021
- national holidays and observances
- 2021 national holidays and observances
- usa national holidays in 2021