Talk:Canadian Confederation/Archive 1

London, England or London, Ontario?
Is that London, England or London, Ontario? -- Zoe


 * England, like the wikilink points to. --Menchi 00:29 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The living or the dead?
I just added the reason for the terms "Pre- and Post-Confederation" in Canadian Confederation. But the idea that Confederation is both: They seem contrary to each other. Is it supposed to be? Or is one of the definitions wrong? (I'm guess if so, it'd be the second, living definition). If so, then the intro needs some modifications.
 * 1) an act (grammatically, an instant, although, factually, it lasted over several years) and referred to the 1st act of Confederation (by the Fathers)
 * 2) a lasting living thing (grammatically, continuous) that just proved its vitality by the recent addition of Nunavut. [the definition in in the 1st sentence of the intro]

--Menchi 05:14 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * I would say it can refer to both. "Confederation" means the actual political process in the 1860s, but it can also mean the period after 1867, which we are currently living in.  "Pre-Confederation" can mean all Canadian history up to 1867, and "Post-Confederation" is 1867 to now (and the future).  I wouldn't use "the Confederation" to refer to Canada though.  Just "Confederation" means either the political process, or the whole period afterwards, depending on context.  But just "Confederation" usually would mean the political process, I think.  I hope that makes sense... Adam Bishop 05:30 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * So the Confederation of Canada is unlike other confederations in that the term cannot be applied to an area, but rather, it's a process that took place and may still take place(?). So it's temporal, not spatial? Is that your point? --Menchi 05:42 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's not like Switzerland, in that people wouldn't say "the Canadian Confederation" as another name for Canada itself. It refers to an abstract process rather than a physical area. On the other hand, I have heard the phrase "in Confederation," like "Ontario is the largest province in Confederation."  I would still say it is being used abstractly there though, because you wouldn't say "largest province in the Confederation."  Adam Bishop 05:49 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * By the way, the way the page reads now, it seems that "Confederation of Canada" is being used the same way we would normally use "Dominion of Canada" (even though that's an archaic term). And when I came across this page previously, I immediately associated "Canadian Confederation" with the process of uniting the provinces in the 1860s.  (Whereas if I read a page on "Swiss Confederation," I would think of the country of Switzerland itself.)  Does that make more sense? Adam Bishop 06:03 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * I modified it a bit. Go ahead and improve it if there's more to be clarified. --Menchi 13:28 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * I pretty much just turned this conversation into a few sentences and worked it into the article. It seems less confusing to me, even though it's more complex now.  Adam Bishop 18:10 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Britain and Free trade
I don't know much about the topic, but it seems there's only a very brief glance at the influence of Britain moving to free trade to Confederation, evidenced in this line: "the creation of a new British colonial policy, Britain no longer wanted to maintain troops in its colonies." My Canadian History class touched on it, but since Britain no longer needed colonies to maintain its self-sufficiency in its mercantilist system, it could afford loosen the reigns on Canada more. Maybe someone with a little more knowledge could expand on that thought? --The Fwanksta, May 23, 2007.

"The Usage" section -- about de-centralized provinces
"In terms of political structure, Canada is a federal state and not a confederate association of sovereign states. However, Canada is commonly reckoned—in addition to Switzerland, whose official name in English is the Swiss Confederation—among the world's most decentralized federations."

I think it should be added that constitutionally, the federal gov't still is incredibly powerful through the constitutional powers of reservation and disallowance, declaratory power that can pre-empt any provincial law, the free trade clause (s 121) and the peace, order, and good government clause in s91's pre-amble that gives all residual powers to the federal gov't, as opposed to the US Constitution's 10th Amendment which gives all residual rights to the states and the people.99.245.173.200 17:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

British Columbia
When and how did BC become part of the Confederation? It is shown on the associated map image, but not mentioned in the History section. --Yendor1958 (talk) 07:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's listed in the table, but we don't really have much info about it on Wikipedia...try History of British Columbia. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits to 'Colonial Organization'
I thought I would start to add citations to the Confederation article, but got sidetracked with some issues under 'Colonial Organization'. I tried to introduce language to: acknowledge colonial Newfoundland (this includes reference to the French colonial settlements) mention early Scottish claims to Nova Scotia and the unsuccessful attempt at colonization, (am not aware of early English colonization of Nova Scotia, although the area of 'Acadia' was claimed by England/New England); correct wrong info about loyalist settlement (where does this statement that loyalists were 'unwelcome' in Nova Scotia come from? I keep seeing it on Wikipedia with no reference cited and I can't find any source for this; traditional view is that New Brunswick was created to deal with the anglo population of western Nova Scotia that was overwhelmingly loyalist.  Is there a citation for this notion that the Nova Scotians weren't willing to welcome the loyalists?); deny that Vancouver Island was 'absorbed' into BC (the idea! We were united to BC, it's true, and lost our capital and our name, identity, independence and ... well, we still weren't 'absorbed'... : ) and we got the capital back eventually.) I will try to work on the actual Confederation part and add citations later. Corlyon (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Little Englanders
I see no mention of the Little Englanders in the article. The small group in Britian that wanted the British to seperate with British North America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.2.25 (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.54.5.162, 8 November 2010
cancellation of the Canadian-American Reciprocity Treaty (a free trade policy whereby products were allowed into United States without taxes or tariffs starting in 1854), which was then considered to be beneficial for Canada, in 1865 by the United States, partly as a revenge against Great Britain for unofficial support of the South in the American Civil War

The cancellation of the American-Canadian Treaty ended in 1866, not 1865.

Thanks

70.54.5.162 (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me what source you are using so that I can add the appropriate footnotes. This is needed to comply with Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability. Thank you, Morgankevinj(talk) 21:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  elektrik SHOOS  03:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.54.5.162, 8 November 2010
Under Influencese leading to Confederation:

annexation of differnt areas to the Canadas to United States. Due to the Alabama and Trent affairs, USA planned to annex BNA. canada was faced with a choice, develope a Union among themselves or risk being part of USA. Britain also intervened especially with the Maritimes. They wanted a Confederation so they could with draw their financial support from Canada, and wanted Canada to be financially independent.

70.54.5.162 (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  elektrik SHOOS  03:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

hi im a person who needs ancers and cant find them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.80.93 (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Meeting at Quebec
Ummm, I'm not sure if this is right or not, but I believe that the painting of the "meeting at Quebec" is actually a painting of the meeting at Prince Edward Island. (Grizzwald 06:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC))
 * From all sources I have seen, it's Quebec, with the St. Lawrence River in the background, and the hills south of the city visible beyond the river. Such a background would make sense, because the Quebec Conference took place at the site of today's Montmorency Park, which overlooks the river. Yoho2001 (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Why July 1?
The BNA Act was certified on March 29, followed by a proclamation on May 22 that the effective date of the Act would be July 1. Why that date? Was it carefully selected (and how?) or arbitrary? Why not August 27? Yoho2001 (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably because there is no June 31 ;) - BilCat (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Pro-monarchy passage
In the subsection "British North America Acts" (under History), there's a passage and lengthy quote which rang my bell as crossing the soap-box line (WP:SOAP). It's reminiscent of modern arguments used by monarchists in efforts to glorify all things royal, denigrate U.S. models, and omit any counter-points. Reading this, one gets the feeling the author is arguing a point for the present day, not relating history.

The Macdonald quote is substantial, yet it omits his immediately preceding words, which Canadians might find unpalatable:

"...we have provided that for all time to come, so far as we can legislate for the future, we shall have as the head of the executive power the sovereign of Great Britain. No one can look into futurity and say what will be the destiny of this country. Changes come over nations and peoples in the course of ages. But so far as we can legislate we provide that for all time to come the sovereign of Great Britain shall be the sovereign of British North America."

Then, it's claimed Canada is, today, a kingdom, with a citation leading to a broken link. This, despite discussion in the same paragraph that "kingdom" was explicitly decided against by the Fathers.

It's unclear why emphasis is placed here on monarchy, and given such a positive spin. With information about the queen giving royal assent, making a royal proclamation, the delegates meeting with ministers in London, etc., it's a given that monarchy was retained. This was not a revolution. If there's a legitimate discussion to be had about retention of monarchy in 1867, perhaps there's another page for it. Meanwhile, relevant points should be made concisely, and the Macdonald quote removed. Yoho2001 (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The passage is only pro-monarchy in that it illustrates Macdonald's preference for monarchy, which is the purpose of the quote. You are right about the cite, though; I've fixed it. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Canadian Confederation...or not
Canada is by no means a confederation. It is indeed a federation. Why do they even still use the term confederation when their form of government is so blatantly a federal government? Emphasis upon this issue should be made in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.249.129 (talk) 06:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a indeed a federation. See the "Terminology" section. Gary King  ( talk ) 15:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No -- Canada is a confederation, there are provisions for how to leave Canada -- The Clarity Act. Sovereignty is invested in the federal government but parts of Canada can break off, unlike a true federation. 69.196.188.194 (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Antoine-Aimé Dorion? (AAD)
Should it be mentioned that Antoine-Aimé Dorion (the leader of the Parti Rouge) opposed the Confederation? --Olicool11 (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, if you've got a reference for it. Gary King  ( talk  ·  scripts )  19:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Date System
Is the dating system correct here? I was taught that "Day - Month - Year" is the proper order in Canadian English. The "Month - Day - Year" system present in the article seems like an Americanism. Celynn (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Both are used. I believe that most Canadians in English speaking parts use MDY, but since this is a historical article, I wouldn't be opposed to the use of DMY. Wikipedia has a manual of style on this, WP:DATERET states that an article should remain with the style that it has evolved into, unless there is a strong national tie. The last portion doesn't apply to Canada, because, as stated in the section above, Canada can use both. 117Avenue (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with 117Avenue assessment - DMY is fine - I do prefer MDY as its the way people talk but 117 is right.Moxy (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would actually correct you that most of English Canada actually uses the DMY system. That fact is also mentioned in the various articles on wiki about it. MDY is an (acknowledged) Americanism that's found mild acceptance here. Any Canadian text book will write dates like "1 July 1867." However, if wiki policy is to keep things as is then I won't fight it. Celynn (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * History books yes, but if today you asked a Canadian when Canada Day is, most would say July 1. Ironically asking an American about their's, they would the 4 July. 117Avenue (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a terrible argument. One could counter that with speeches given on Remembrance Day: "On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month..." Celynn (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion, it wasn't a real argument, but in jest. 117Avenue (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Fathers of Confederation
This is a technicality but many consider Joey Smallwood to be a Father of Confederation since through the force of his personality in bringing Newfoundland and Labrador into union with Canada.

Similarly Louis Riel could be considered another Canadian Father of Confederation. Not only did he bring Manitoba into Confederation but he also was clearly the first to assert the rights of First Nations, French and Catholic within the Confederation.
 * This is certainly arguable, though others might argue that Manitoba was already part of Canada prior to Riel taking any authority in this regard. Manitoba was not "brought into confederation" but rather established within territory already owned by Canada, much as Alberta, Saskatchewan, Yukon and Nunavut also were. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Meeting at Quebec - update...

Ummm, I'm not sure if this is right or not, but I believe that the painting of the "meeting at Quebec" is actually a painting of the meeting at Prince Edward Island. (Grizzwald 06:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC))

Answer... Actually no.

To people of that time, the defining Canadian conference occurred at Quebec in October of 1864.

I hope this link stays alive long enough.

http://www.cric.ca/en_html/guide/confederation/confederation.html

Generically what it says that Charlottetown preceded Quebec by two months. Charlottetown (Sept. 1864) advanced the idea of national unity. Charlottetown wasn't meant to be a constitutional gathering. Later the Quebec conference defined and concluded the negotiations as it specifically dealt with Confederation. From Quebec came the "Quebec Resolutions" which laid out the foundation to the British North America Act.

reference http://collections.ic.gc.ca/confederation/charlotte.html

Robert Harris painted this work in 1883 about twenty years after the fact. To Harris like others of his time, Quebec was the more important conference.As time went on, more provinces joined Confederation because of the original ideas enunciated at the Charlottetown Conference. So as time went on the romantic ideal overwhelmed the importance of the Quebec meeting.

reference http://collections.ic.gc.ca/confederation/quebec.html

Incidently according to this source the original Harris painting was burned in the Parliament Building fire of 1905. If someone hadn't taken an illegal photograph copy the Quebec Conference image wouldn't exist today.

reference http://www.isn.net/friartuck/rharris.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gord campbell (talk • contribs) 23:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 July 2012
minor edits to fix grammar in Paragraph 2 of Section: "Quebec Conference". Original Sentence is as follows:

For the Reformers of Canada West, led by George Brown, the end what they perceived as French-Canadian interference in local affairs was in sight.

Edit Request is as follows:

For the Reformers of Canada West, led by George Brown, the end of what they perceived as French-Canadian interference in local affairs was in sight.

Steeleworthy (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thank you for pointing that out. Ryan Vesey Review me!  15:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Kingdom?
Is Canada now technically a kingdom? It has a monarch, named a queen (ironically). That Canada has full independence and independent monarch that seems to happen to be in a personal union (by which I mean it was intended) suggests it could in theory be called the Kingdom of Canada. 68.149.156.139 (talk) 09:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy. While we do have a monarch, the Crown (King or Queen) only serves a ceremonial role. Actual functional power and authority is held by the Canadian Parliament, therefore we are a fully sovereign democracy. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually the Crown doesn't only serve a ceremonial role as we can see from the King-Byng affair, Saskatchewan in the 1960s, and most recently with Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2009. More accurately the Crown normally restricts itself to a ceremonial role, as when everything is going well and running as it should there is no need for the "constitutional referee" or "constitutional fire extinguisher" that is the institution of the Canadian crown. And yes, by definition Canada is, and always has been, a kingdom. However, for reasons both practical and historical, Canada has gone by the name "Dominion" instead of "Kingdom" since 1867 (previously it was the "Province" of Canada, and prior to that the "Colonie(s)" of Canada). trackratte (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above comments, but would like to clarify that the Canadian Parliament comprises the Crown (Queen), the Senate, and the House of Commons. The head of state (Queen), executive (Queen and council), and legislative (HOC and Senate) are all under the same umbrella, though each with separate roles.  We don't normally think of it this way, but that is how the Constitution Act defines it.  Rr parker (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rr parker (talk • contribs) 19:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

A massive gap
There is a huge gap in this article as it says nothing about the issue of defence or more correctly who was to pay for the defence of British North America. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that people in 19th century British North America were terrified of the possibility of the United States absolving British North America, and there was a constant demands from Canadian politicians that the British retained a strong military presence to deter the Americans from invading. The attitude of the Canadian politicians was rather like that of a teenager who wants to drive his parent's car whenever he sees fit, but is offended when he is asked to pay for part of the gas bill. The Canadians wanted a British military pressure, but were extremely offended when London demanded that they foot part of the bill. This article does not tell you, but it should that the British were pushing for confederation to get the Canadians to pay more for their defence and one of the main reasons why the government of United Canadas was pushing for the Maritme provinces to join was the fear that would be unable to pay for their defence on their own. I will something about this overlooked aspect of the reasons for Confederation soon. --A.S. Brown (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

"Fathers of Confederation definition" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fathers of Confederation definition. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BDD (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)