March 13, 1979

?

Some hon. Members:

Oh, oh!

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   HOLIDAYS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED REPLACEMENT OF DOMINION DAY BY CANADA DAY
Permalink
PC

Donald W. Munro

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):

I will come to another point. It is not just found in the Psalms. I see someone woke up on the other side. Also it is to be found in Zechariah, chapter nine, verse ten; perhaps not too many people know about this. It reads:

-and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.

In French it reads as follows: "Son empire ira de la mer a la mer et du fleuve aux extremites de la terre." The word "empire" is used in this case and not dominion or it will dominate, because it is a noun rather than a verb.

Surely that is really what this country is trying to do: to have its empire, its power, its strength from sea to sea. Yet we have a member on the government side proposing that that notion be destroyed.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   HOLIDAYS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED REPLACEMENT OF DOMINION DAY BY CANADA DAY
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

Canada, sea to sea.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   HOLIDAYS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED REPLACEMENT OF DOMINION DAY BY CANADA DAY
Permalink
PC

Donald W. Munro

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):

I did not see Canada in any version of the Bible that I was able to find, with all due respect.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   HOLIDAYS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED REPLACEMENT OF DOMINION DAY BY CANADA DAY
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

You stick to the Bible and we will stick to history.

Holidays Act

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   HOLIDAYS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED REPLACEMENT OF DOMINION DAY BY CANADA DAY
Permalink
PC

Donald W. Munro

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):

I had something to do with the making of this history too, and I hope the hon. member did.

Now I will deal with this possible origin of the divisiveness characteristic of this word. I may have found it. The word "dominion" has nothing pejorative about it at all in the English language. In the shorter Oxford I read that it is derived from the Latin dominionem from dominium, which is a concept in Roman law meaning lordship, ownership, property. That is perfectly straightforward and that is perfectly applicable to a nation which is coming together to unite and have a power in its own right. There is a further definition which is the power or right of governing or controlling. Perhaps the mover of this particular motion would be prepared to negotiate that one fifth or maybe four fifths. Dominion means there is no negotiation. It means one nation.

Perhaps, where we run into trouble is in the variant to dominion to dominate or to domineer. They are semantic differences. The origins are somewhat different but we can sense them. There is something pejorative in dominating and domineering because those words relate to arbitrary rule, despotic or imperialistic rule. That is not what we intend by the word dominion. If anyone is trying to seek a means of eliminating the division in this country, I ask him to go back to the flag debate and read the thousands of pages of Hansard to see the division that that created. It took a long time. I know there are many who are not happy with the flag which is now ours, but they accept it because the flag under which Canadians fought and died has been removed.

Why was that done? Because it had a Union Jack on it. They did not stop to think that Hawaii, the fiftieth state of the United States, still has a Union Jack on its flag, as does South Africa. Maybe if we could get the council of churches out of there we would be all right and it would stay there. If I am not mistaken, Newfoundland has the Union Jack as its flag.

Why are we seeking to eliminate the divisiveness? I think someone is trying to create it rather than eliminate it. There has been a general campaign by this government. It has been obvious since 1 have been in this House that the government is trying to eliminate all royal symbols and emblems. Is that in order to eliminate divisiveness?

Let us remember that there are people in this country who may venerate these symbols and emblems. Why are you going to walk over them? Why not recognize that we in this House have certain attachments to traditions and heritage? Granted, this government not long ago fostered a heritage movement. It is not a department of heritage, but a heritage commission or something like that, which will preserve that from the past which is invaluable.

Terminology, tradition, and even the flag are parts of our heritage that should be preserved. I spoke of the Post Office. "Royal Mail" no longer exists. It is now "Canada Mail, Poste Canada." Let us look at the origin of the fleur-de-lis. It had its

March 13, 1979

Holidays Act

origin in the personal flag of Louis XIV. That is a royal emblem, so what are they kicking about?

The royal escutcheon and the Canadian escutcheon were eliminated for a time from RCMP vehicles. In the Post Office there is no longer royal mail.

I read the article that Senator Forsey wrote in 1956 wherein he reminded us that our first title was Kingdom of Canada. I think a kingdom without a personal king in residence is a difficult concept to get hold of, but not dominion. That is fine. Had we stuck with Kingdom of Canada, I bet that some of the anti-royalists around here would soon move to have that name eliminated.

As my friend, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), mentioned toward the end of his speech, part of our tradition is the Commonwealth. I find it tragically ironic that the day after we celebrated Commonwealth Day as guests of the Commonwealth high commissioners we are here trying to eliminate the divisiveness caused by the word dominion which is part of the Commonwealth. I do not understand what the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) has going for him or what he thinks. I do not know where he found this divisiveness. He should move about the country to see how much divisiveness there would be if this bill should become law.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   HOLIDAYS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED REPLACEMENT OF DOMINION DAY BY CANADA DAY
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

Rubbish!

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   HOLIDAYS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED REPLACEMENT OF DOMINION DAY BY CANADA DAY
Permalink
PC

Donald W. Munro

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):

It is not rubbish. It is absolutely true. I was born in this country and I know all about that. I represent a part of the country which is proudly in favour of dominion. It was proudly in favour of the Red Ensign because they fought under it. Let us not have any of this divisiveness nonsense. Canada is the name, dominion is our title.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   HOLIDAYS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED REPLACEMENT OF DOMINION DAY BY CANADA DAY
Permalink
IND

Stanley Stanford Schumacher

Independent

Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to review for a few moments the history of the continuing campaign to destroy the heritage and symbols of this country of which we are so proud, Canada. This has occurred over the years I have been privileged to represent the people of Palliser in this chamber.

In 1970 Mr. James Brown, then the hon. member for Brant, the great grandson of George Brown, one of the Fathers of Confederation, introduced a similar bill. When it was sent to the justice and legal affairs committee, some interesting things happened. I was a member of the committee at that time. After hearing from Dr. Eugene Forsey, now Senator Forsey, a great and learned gentleman, the committee decided it would not accept the term Canada Day. It passed an amendment to the bill calling for a change in name from Dominion Day to Confederation Day. I am not here this afternoon to promote Confederation Day. I am here to promote the maintenance of Dominion Day, a proud and glorious name for the anniversary of the birthday of this great nation.

I wish to refer to an editorial in the Calgary Herald for Saturday, March 14, 1970, nine years tomorrow, headed "Desecration". I quote from the article:

Erosion of those historic traditions which gave Canada its distinctive character continues at a rapid pace.

It is now nine years later and the prediction of the Herald on that occasion has not been as they thought. The editorial continues:

Now there are people in Ottawa's governing circles who wish to expunge the term Dominion from living memory, even though it was conferred as title upon this nation more than a century ago and was made binding by usage and custom thereafter.

Mr. James Brown, a Liberal MP from Brant, Ontario, has a bill before the Commons' justice committee which would change the name of Canada's national birthday from Dominion Day to Canada Day. It would further distort history and pervert it to the use of nothing more than holiday convenience by having it fall on the first Monday in July, rather than on its legitimate date of July 1.

With this sort of thing going on during the past several years, it is small wonder that many older Canadians are wondering what is happening to their country and many younger Canadians are growing up not caring about it in the least.

Dr. Eugene Forsey, a political scientist, pointed out to the committee that the title Dominion is entrenched in the British North America Act, the nation's constitution. In other words, it is law. Not that this means very much to parliamentarians any more, considering acts that they pass which are of extremely doubtful constitutional validity.

The committee, making one of those empty gestures toward public opinion which have become commonplace of late, decided to postpone further consideration of the bill until after Easter. This would allow the public to comment upon the idea.

If participatory democracy follows its established course, no one will pay the slightest attention to what the Canadian people may think and another act of vandalism against the country's honorable heritage will be perpetrated.

Canadians used to sneer at the Russian Communists for rewriting history, making the past conform to present political expediency. Canadians need laugh no longer at others when they contemplate what is being done to their own past history. They can only weep.

Those words were written nine years ago tomorrow but, as far as I am concerned, the situation could not be more aptly expressed than it was in that editorial.

The effort by the government to change the name continued. In May of 1972 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) told us he hoped to have legislation passed in time for July 1 of that year. That came to naught. In 1975, another effort was made; fortunately, it too, failed. In 1977 the government again introduced legislation to change the name. The Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) stated in correspondence that he was trying to respond to the views of certain Canadians. He never told us who they were, though; there has never been an adequate explanation of the need for this change. I have to say I received many letters on that occasion in opposition to such a change, some of them from young children. I received a petition from six-year old, seven-year old, and eight-year old children attending the J. K. Malloy school in Calgary saying, "Please, Mr. Roberts, keep the name 'Dominion Day' because it means something to us."

What concerns me more than anything else is the fact that the government frequently violates the law of the land, for example, by allowing the CBC-I might even say encouraging it-to use the words "Canada Day" on every occasion upon which it refers to the birthday of this country on July 1. The

March 13, 1979

CBC should be using the term "Dominion Day", the legal name for that day.

It disturbs me to find the government constantly trying to subvert the law when it lacks the gumption to change that law.

1 hope that if this bill receives its just desserts it will go to the bottom of the order paper and remain there until the end of this parliament. I trust there will be no move to revive it by unanimous consent, no sneaky tactics for bringing it back again, and that we shall see the end of it. For nine years this measure has encountered concerted opposition. There is no real feeling in the House in favour of passing it. I hope this business will stop and that the government will respect the law and ask the CBC to use the proper term in the future for our nation's birthday.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   HOLIDAYS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED REPLACEMENT OF DOMINION DAY BY CANADA DAY
Permalink
PC

Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack

Progressive Conservative

Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):

Mr. Speaker, because of the established strength and greatness of this country, this broad Dominion of Canada, I would not have thought it necessary that any member of the House should take up time on this or any other day in an effort to change the name of our great national holiday, Dominion Day, which was laid down by the Fathers of Confederation, to some other name. I am proud to speak on behalf of most of the citizens of the constituency of Frontenac-Lennox and Addington who prefer to maintain the name "Dominion Day".

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   HOLIDAYS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED REPLACEMENT OF DOMINION DAY BY CANADA DAY
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   HOLIDAYS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED REPLACEMENT OF DOMINION DAY BY CANADA DAY
Permalink
PC

Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Alkenbrack:

This private member's bill with its negative purpose, put forward by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), reminds me that this is a day and age in which being erratic is as common as anything. The hon. member is acting in a manner which is consistent only with the erratic legislative records of the Trudeau government. The Liberals pretend to espouse and talk of unity, but out of their perfidy comes a bill like the bill before us, described as an act respecting national unity. I would draw attention to the word "respecting". I realize time is limited, but I thought I might sum up my feelings by quoting the words of a respected man who died many years ago, a man who adopted Canada as his country. I speak of that great Scottish-Canadian poet, Robert Reid.

Many members may recall this poem from their school days, and I am glad to place some of it upon our record because it best describes the love we should bear for our country, its sublime beauty, principles, and origins. Written in 1910, the poem begins as follows:

Sing me a song of the great Dominion!

Soul-felt words for a patriot's ear!

Ring out boldly the well-turned measure,

Voicing your notes that the world may hear;

Here is no starveling-Heaven forsaken-

Shrinking aside where the Nations throng;

Proud as the proudest moves she among them-

Worthy is she of a noble song!

There are a number of stanzas but I have time only to quote the first lines. The second verse begins, "Sing me the might of

Energy Supplies

the giant mountains;" the third with, "Sing me the calm of her tranquil forests." In short, Canada, a dominion it is-a dominion let it remain.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   HOLIDAYS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED REPLACEMENT OF DOMINION DAY BY CANADA DAY
Permalink
LIB

John Napier Turner

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):

Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair till eight o'clock p.m.

At six o'clock the House took recess.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   HOLIDAYS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED REPLACEMENT OF DOMINION DAY BY CANADA DAY
Permalink

AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 8 o'clock.


GOVERNMENT ORDERS

ENERGY SUPPLIES EMERGENCY ACT, 1979 MEASURE TO CONSERVE STOCKS


The House resumed consideration of Bill C-42, to provide a means to conserve the supplies of energy within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, and motion No. 1 (Mr. Gillespie) (p. 4047).


LIB

John Napier Turner

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):

Order, please. At five o'clock the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) had the floor, and he had five minutes remaining.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ENERGY SUPPLIES EMERGENCY ACT, 1979 MEASURE TO CONSERVE STOCKS
Permalink
PC

John Carnell Crosbie

Progressive Conservative

Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):

Mr. Speaker, in concluding in my final five minutes I want to tell the people of Newfoundland and of Come-By-Chance, the people who want the oil refinery there that has been inoperative for three years, to open again, that there is only one chance for Come-By-Chance to open in the near future, and that is if the proposal of the First Arabian Corporation is accepted and goes forward. It is the only proposal now in play, and for that to go forward we need some action by the Government of Canada. That is the government that has failed the people of Newfoundland so lamentably in the last three years. It has made no effort to get this refinery under way again.

The things that are necessary for that refinery to go ahead are the following: First, the Government of Canada should put a real priority on offering the United States government some inducement to open their markets in the United States to the east coast refineries that are now operating at only 75 per cent of capacity. Come-By-Chance, while the First Arabian Corporation may be able to open it without that concession, both it and eastern Canadian refineries cannot operate at full capacity without access to the U.S. markets which will only come with

March 13, 1979

Energy Supplies

the extension of the U.S. entitlement program to them. The government has done nothing. It is not trying to induce the United States government to open their markets. It is offering them nothing. It is indifferent. It is guilty of gross negligence and wilful and wanton misconduct in office by taking no action in that direction.

Secondly, to reopen our refinery at Come-By-Chance we need an award to be offered to First Arabian or to the successful proposer of a deal for at least ten years at a nominal rent. It is of no value to the Government of Canada as it now is. They are getting no revenue on it. They never will unless the refinery operates again. That should go to First Arabian now at a nominal rent.

Thirdly, we need a guarantee from the Government of Canada that the powers they are taking under the legislation now before this House will not be used to interrupt exports of refined products from the Come-By-Chance oil refinery for at least a period of something like five to ten years. Otherwise, they cannot get the financing to re-open that refinery, nor can anyone else.

The fourth point is that this group now needs some assistance from DREE. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion should make assistance available to the group that wants to take over this refinery, which has to spend $50 million to put it into proper shape so that it will employ 500 people. DREE assistance should be made available to them to do that to create those jobs in Newfoundland again and the Atlantic provinces.

Fifthly, there needs to be some clarification on their tax position with respect to the companies that are going to supply oil to the refinery and market it.

If the Government of Canada does what is necessary in those directions, then the agency of the Government of Canada, FIRA, the Foreign Investment Review Agency, has to approve the application from this group for a transfer of ownership to foreign-controlled entrepreneurs. We know that there is no company in Canada, no group in Canada that wants to take over and operate this refinery, so that should be automatic, but there should be no delay or any waste of time in the application that goes to FIRA.

We also need, in that connection, quick approval by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland of the only proposal that has been put forward and found in three years' time that satisfies the receivers under the first mortgage. We need quick approval from the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, and we need the co-operation of dissident groups such as the Shaheen group, that they not try to appeal or delay any decision in this matter because of their own interest.

Mr. Shaheen has made a proposal. Mr. Shaheen had the refinery, which resulted in one of the greatest and largest bankruptcies in the history of Canada, a $600 million bankruptcy. Mr. Shaheen and his other companies took out of the Newfoundland refinery and the provincial refinery companies $50 million which was loaned to those companies by Japanese interests, and they have not repaid that sum. The trustee in the

bankruptcy is now suing in the United States trying to get the $50 million back.

How can anyone take seriously a proposal from that group which has already removed $50 million and had the greatest bankruptcy in the history of Canada in Come-By-Chance, particularly when one of the aspects of it involves a commitment on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador hydro that all their oil products should be bought from that refinery so that they can borrow money on the strength of that as part of their proposal?

To get that refinery open we need to overcome these obstacles so that in March of 1980 construction can start leading to the reopening of that refinery in 1981. If that is not done, if the Canadian government does not take these steps, if it does not do the things I am suggesting should be done, if it does not fall into line in the next several months with respect to the points I have made, then the refinery at Come-By-Chance will not open.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ENERGY SUPPLIES EMERGENCY ACT, 1979 MEASURE TO CONSERVE STOCKS
Permalink
LIB

John Napier Turner

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):

Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ENERGY SUPPLIES EMERGENCY ACT, 1979 MEASURE TO CONSERVE STOCKS
Permalink

March 13, 1979