Thoughts on a summer long weekend.

The “Civic” Holiday

Really? The “Civic” Holiday. That’s the best we can do?

This holiday has a lengthy but relatively unknown history, dating back to its 1875 proclamation as “Civic Holiday” by the City of Toronto. Over one hundred years later, in 1968, Toronto renamed it to “Simcoe Day,” in honour of Lord John Graves Simcoe, the first Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, founder of the City of York (Toronto).

Simcoe also was instrumental in establishing the court system, including trial by jury and English common law in Upper Canada, as well as abolishing slavery twenty-four years before the British Empire did so.

Over the years other cities decided a mid-summer long weekend was appropriate, and began establishing their own, starting with Brantford in 1980, originally calling it “Joseph Brant Day,” and changing it two years later to the more generic “Founders Day.”

Oshawa implemented “McLaughlin Day” (1984), Ottawa declared "Colonel By Day" (1996), and Sarnia created "Alexander McKenzie Day" (1998).

Across the country this holiday is known by a variety of names in different cities, but overall it is simply known as “the August Long Weekend” to most.

I’m not sure whether the people of the Sault were just happy enough having an extra long weekend that no one really cared whether or not it had a name, or (and I think more likely) no one could agree upon a name for this un-named landmark of the summer season.

Certainly there are a few names that come to mind as possibilities, should we decide the holiday needs a better moniker:

• Francis H. Clergue Day
  (the American industrialist who founded our primary industrial base)
  
• Étienne Brulé Day
  (the French explorer who “discovered” and re-named the settlement in 1662)
  
• Bawating Day
  (the anglicanization of the original Ojibwa name for the area)
  

Of course, there were other notable historical figures who helped build the city during its formative period: Charles Ermatinger, John Prince, David Pim, for instance.

There are other, more recent individuals who could deserve the honour, as acknowledgement for their accomplishments, but that seems a bit more arbitrary, to me. How does one choose one individual over another for such an honour?

Recognition of individual accomplishments through our "Walk of Fame" program works for these individuals.

So, on a sunny day at the end of July, as I contemplate whether or not we should give consideration to giving the holiday a local name, I wonder if the generic reference is more in keeping with our local culture.

We do not seem to revere our founders in the way that other communities do. From time to time we celebrate the achievements of locals who have gone on to notoriety in their fields, but it seems that those “stars” blaze brightly for a time and then fade to become just another part of the background.

And it would be ironic to celebrate anyone connected with the founding of our city, considering that many residents spend the long weekend travelling, or at the camp, or perhaps one of the many nearby camp grounds.

So, enjoy your August Long Weekend!

---

I am a non-smoker. I’m not a vehement non-smoker, but I am appreciative of the smoke-free initiatives put in place by the various levels of government.

It isn’t that I don’t have sympathy for smokers; I was once a smoker myself, though I count myself fortunate that I never really got “hooked” – I smoked more out of boredom, and for something to do while driving, than from a need to smoke.

Still, while I agree that smokers do have rights, I would respectfully remind them that, as with any “rights” come responsibilities: this includes respecting the equal rights of non-smokers.

When I am walking into or out of the mall, or other building, I appreciate it when I do not have to pass through a cloud of cigarette smoke. I suppose I could just hold my breath but really, why should I have to?

The way I see it, my not smoking does not affect anyone else. When smokers are gathered in one spot to have a puff, I can avoid them and the noxious cloud they produce, unless they are clustered near a doorway.

But while I appreciate the smoking restrictions, I recognize that, in some cases, society has gone overboard.

No, I am not suggesting that smoking ever be allowed indoors, whether in restaurants, bars, bingo halls, or wherever else smokers would like to light-up.

But I believe we have gone about the smoking prohibitions in the wrong manner.

Until and unless the government decides to end the hypocrisy of formally denouncing tobacco use while at the same time deriving revenue from its continued legal use, we must be realistic with our expectation of where smokers can and cannot indulge their habit.

I firmly believe there should be smoking areas. They should be outdoors, and away from entrances to buildings, but there should be clearly defined smoking areas.

Let’s be honest, no one is pacing-off X number of metres from a building entrance before lighting-up. And some will probably light-up the moment they step out of the door, but wouldn’t it be better if they had a designated area where they could go and smoke, unaccosted by non-smokers?

In Thunder Bay, Lakehead University has such areas set up in the parking lots. They are delineated with concrete construction barriers and clearly marked as a Designated Smoking Area.

These are easily avoided by non-smokers, and far enough away from the entrances that the second-hand smoke is not an issue.

I understand the reasoning behind declaring the entire Sault Area Hospital property as “non-smoking.” However, the practicality of this is completely lacking.

Those who do smoke – staff and patients alike – are forced to walk off to the east, crossing the parking lot and the Hub Trail (which runs on SAH property at that point) and stand in the adjacent bush lot in order to have a smoke.

As an alternative, they could walk out to the road, but both Third Line and Great Northern Road are nearly a kilometre away.

A designated area in the parking lot, well away from any entrances, would give smokers a spot to feed their addiction, while keeping them away from those who would rather not inhale cigarette smoke.

Smoking is not illegal.

Yes, I will admit that I would support the complete abolition of smoking. But until that happens, smokers do have rights.

I have no problem with prohibiting smoking within any building or workplace. I also have no problem with designating an appropriate smoking area. What we have in place right now ranges from difficult to enforce to draconian.

As with most issues, there is always a middle ground, and it is that which we should seek.


But… that’s just my opinion.