No, I will not spoil it, I assure you. But I do not agree with the position he has taken in regard to this small change in the resolution before us. The arguments with which he supported his objections are not the logical arguments he usually brings forward when dealing with questions debated here. We should not delude ourselves as to what the term "dominion" as applied to Canada, means-or at least what it did mean. It was not in my opinion because Canada holds dominion from sea to sea. That was not the sense in which the term was used. The term generally used was "British dominions beyond the seas", and Canada was one of those British dominions. New Zealand was another of those British dominions; Australia was another, although in their acts, of confederation the term "dominion" may not have been used.
The hon. member for Royal referred to the bill to change "Dominion day" to "Canada day". I am on sound ground now, because I opposed that change. I did not see any sense in making such a change. But there seems to me good reason why this change should be made because, after all, Canada's status has changed during the years. Today I do not think many people in Britain, let us say, refer to Britain's dominions beyond the seas. Canada is a sister nation in the commonwealth of nations. As such I think the name Canada is the name that should be used in all our statutes, and I am quite satisfied that we are not-
Subtopic: REVISION AND CONSOLIDATION OF FORMER STATUTE