Our National Day of Canada of celebration is July 1st

Posted on by rjoiner2021

This post has nothing to do with clock collecting or repair, but why not take a moment to celebrate Canada’s 158th birthday?

On June 20, 1868, a proclamation signed by the Governor General, Lord Monck, called upon all Her Majesty’s loving subjects throughout Canada to join in celebrating the anniversary of the formation of the union of the British North American provinces into a federation under the name of Canada. This union was established on July 1, 1867, with the passing of the British North America Act. At the time, four colonies united.

Photo by Alesia Kozik on Pexels.com

The July 1st holiday was officially established by statute in 1879 under the name “Dominion Day.”

It wasn’t until 1917 that larger-scale and more extravagant celebrations began. This was during the First World War, when Canada needed an uplifting event to help ease the strain of overseas conflict.

Since 1958, the federal government has organized an annual observance of Canada’s national day. The original format included a Trooping the Colours ceremony by the Ceremonial Guard on Parliament Hill in the afternoon, a sunset ceremony in the evening, followed by a mass band concert and fireworks display.

The author (6th from the left) was a member of the Ceremonial Guard in 1969, taking part in the Changing of the Guard on Parliament Hill, Ottawa

In 1968, the format was expanded to include multicultural performances and professional concerts.

In 1981, fireworks displays were added in 15 major cities across the country.

On October 27, 1982—the year Canada’s Constitution was repatriated from Britain—”Dominion Day” was officially renamed “Canada Day.”

Other than a brief interruption during the pandemic, the ceremony on Parliament Hill has taken place every year since 1958.

In recent years, Canada—like much of the world—has faced its share of political and economic uncertainty. From global market instability to domestic debates over identity, governance, and the environment, we’ve been challenged to re-examine who we are and what we stand for.

Yet through it all, Canada has shown resilience. The ability to question, protest, and engage in open dialogue—hallmarks of a free society—has only strengthened our democratic foundations. Economic pressures have sparked innovation, encouraged local enterprise, and reminded us of the value of community and cooperation.

In navigating uncertainty, we’ve not only reaffirmed our freedoms—we’ve deepened our understanding of what it means to be Canadian. That, in itself, is worth celebrating.

We are the True North, Strong and Free.

Happy Canada Day, everyone—and best wishes to those of you who celebrate your own country’s independence day!

Discover more from Antique and Vintage Mechanical Clocks

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

7 thoughts on “Our National Day of Canada of celebration is July 1st”

  1. Happy Canada Day, from Pennsylvania! We are excited to be spending our vacation in Nova Scotia soon!

    Like

    Reply

  3. Ron

    Thank you so much for this timely reminder –

    The ability to question, protest, and engage in open dialogue—hallmarks of a free society—has only strengthened our democratic foundations. Economic pressures have sparked innovation, encouraged local enterprise, and reminded us of the value of community and cooperation.

    Sent from Samsung Mobile on O2
    Sent from Outlook for Androidhttps://aka.ms/AAb9ysg

    Like

    Reply

  4. https://teteleste.wordpress.com/?author=0

    Progress? What progress?

    Selim III

    Selim III

    The following paper was read by Mr. Grey, in the House of Commons on the 29th of February (1792), the Russian Armament under consideration. The member who presented it, stated it to be the substance of an answer of the Grand Vizier to Sir Robert Ainslie, the British Minister at Constantinople, during the Russian Negotiation.

    “The Grand Seignior wars for himself, and for himself makes peace — he can trust his own slaves, servants and subjects — he knows their faith, has experienced their virtue, and can rely upon their fidelity. A virtue long since banished from your corner of Europe. If all other Christians tell truth no reliance is to be had on England, she buys and sells all mankind. The Ottomans have no connexion with your King, nor your country — we never sought for your advice, your interference or friendship; we have no minister, no agency, no correspondence with you; for what reason offer ye then to mediate for us with Russia; why seek ye to serve an empire of Infidels as you call us Mussulmen? we want not your friendship, aid, or mediation. Your Vizier, of whom you speak so highly, must have some project of deception in view, some oppressive scheme to amuse your nation, whom we are told are credulous, servile and adorers, only of money. Avarice, if we are well informed, is your chief characteristic — you would buy and sell your God — Money is your Deity — and all-things is commerce with your Ministry, with your nation. Come you then to sell us to Russia? No, let us bargain for ourselves; When fate has spun out the thread of our good fortune we must yield; what has been decreed by God and the Prophet of men must and will come to pass. We Ottomans know no finesse. Duplicity and cunning are your christian morals. We are not ashamed to be honest, downright, plain and faithful in our State maxims. If we fail in war, we submit to the will of heaven decreed from the beginning. We have long lived in splendor the first power on earth, and we glory in having triumphed for ages over Christian infidelity and depravity, mixed with all sorts of vice and hypocrisy. We adore the God of nature and believe in Mahomet. You neither believe in the God you pretend to worship, nor his Son, whom you call both your God and your Prophet. What reliance can there be upon such a sacrilegious race? Truth you banish as you do virtue, from all your conduct and actions with each other; read the catalog of the complaints, manifestos, declarations and remonstrances of all the Christian Kings, Monarchs and Emperors, who have lived and warred with each other; you find them all equally blasphemous, equally perfidious, equally cruel, unjust, and faithless to their engagements. Did the Turk ever forfeit his promise, word, or honor? Never! did ever a Christian power keep an engagement but while it suited his own avarice or ambition? No! How then do you think we are to trust you, a nation at this moment, if told truth, ruled by a perfidious administration, without one grain of virtue to guide the machine of State? The Grand Seignior has no public intercourse with your Court; he wants none; he wishes for none. If you wish to remain here either as a Spy, or, as you term yourself an Ambassador for your Court, you may live with those of other christian nations, while you demean yourself with propriety, but we want neither your aid by sea or land, nor your council or mediation. I have no order to thank you for your offer, because it is by the Divan deemed officious; nor have I any command to thank you for the offer of your naval assistance, because it is what the Porte never dreamed of admitting into our seas. What you have to do with Russia we neither know or care, our concerns with that Court we mean to finish as suits ourselves, and the maxims of our laws and state policy.
    If you are not the most profligate Christian nation, as you are charged to be, you are undoubtedly the boldest, in presumption and effrontery, in offering to bring such a Power as Russia to terms; such as you and some other trivial Christians united fancy yourselves equal to command — we know better, and therefore this effrontery of yours amounts rather to audacity, and to an imbecile dictation, which must render your councils at home mean and contemptible, and your advice abroad unworthy of wisdom, or attention from any power, much less the regard of the Porte, which on all occasions wherein its Ministers had listened to you, have experienced evil, either in your designs or in your ignorance — His Sublime Highness cannot be too much upon his guard against the attempts and presumption of a nation so perfidious to the interests of its subjects (or colonists) — but it is the usual way of Christian Princes to sell and cede over their subjects to each other for money. Every peace made amongst you, as we are well informed, is made favorable to the King that best bribes. The Ottoman Ministry have too long and too often given ear to European Councils, and as often as they so did, they either were betrayed, sold or deceived as many then with your interference for the Porte with Russia.
    It has been your aim to embroil all mankind, and thereafter to profit by your perfidy. We ask not, want not, nor desire your commerce, because our Merchants have been sacrificed to your double dealings — you have no religion but gain — avarice is your only God, and the Christian faith you profess is but a mask for your hypocrisy — we will hear no more from you — therefore you are commanded to make no reply.”

    The following paragraph, relative to the subject, is from Mr. Pitt‘s speech delivered the day after the paper was read.
    “I should receive the same sort of address from the Grand Vizier as that which was read yesterday by an honorable member of this house. Indeed I do not know what to think of that composition. Of its authenticity I can say nothing. The hon. gentleman told nothing of it, but that which he was pleased to read of it. Whether he read the whole of it — what was its date — from whence it came — to whom — and why, I cannot possibly guess. All I can say is, that having enquired of the persons most likely to be able to inform me, I have not been able to find out any such paper, or anything like it in nature ; and on it I can say nothing further.”

    Pitt
    The only issue on which opposition shook Pitt in this Parliament was the Oczakov question. This came to a head on 27 Mar. 1791 when, despite division in the cabinet, Pitt sent an ultimatum to Russia to cease warfare with Turkey and evacuate Oczakov, the occupation of which was regarded as an obstacle to the provision of British naval stores from Poland.

    Grey
    He repeatedly pressed for ministerial explanations on the Oczakov affair and injected a sharp personal attack on Pitt into his speech in support of Whitbread’s motion, 29 Feb. 1792.

    Whitbread, made an impression as one of the younger Members blooded by opposition in the Oczakov debates. He distinguished himself when moving resolutions on the subject, 29 Feb. 1792.

    This post in Greek.

    Selim III

    July 16, 2025, 8:12 am 0 boosts 0 favorites

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Ila Murphy Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.