Talk:Slavery in Canada

Modern Slavery?
Everything in the article ends with the banning of slavery in Canada, unfortunately that is not where slavery ended. Sexual slavery is a huge problem, especially amongst the native population. I'm a student and I am kind of busy at the moment but I could write up a small section on modern slavery in about a week from now if nobody with more experience is up to the task. Just csting this idea out there, it makes no sense to have a 'slavery in Canada' without even mentioning current forms of slavery. Seems revisionist or at least short sighted. Not Joey Clavette (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and created the section. It's admittedly a little shakey but I thought it was important to have one. I ask that anyone who finds a problem with it not remove it completely but fix what problems you see and I wouldn't mind being consulted about it and coming to conclusions through debate. Not Joey Clavette (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Modern, illegal forms of slavery are pretty different than the traditional legalized form of slavery that most readers come to an article like this to look for. In my opinion this article is about that traditional legalized, nationwide form.  It seems out of place to call out "sexual slavery" in the first paragraph of an article about slavery in Canada, when it is explicitly illegal in Canada and shares little in common with historical concepts of slavery based on ethnicity.  It's easy to identify those types of slavery because they happen to large swaths of a population almost universally, like blacks in the US or Jews in Egypt.  Women or men are not, in general, subject to sexual slavery in Canada. If you're going to add this topic out of a sense of social justice you might as well add a section on "economic slavery" for all the minimum-wage workers in Canada.  I respectfully submit that adding these topics are not relevant to this article, even if they have respectable social justice motives.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.245.227.189 (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Cooper's Hanging of Angelique
Her analytical narrative is an interpretation of history, a list of probabilities calculated through an analysis of first person sources, and other then-contemporary sources. It is not fact, but an interpretation, a possibility. It can not be formatted as fact. I have altered the small article on this page giving Afua Cooper's views a more neutral tone. TheEndingDay (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Joe Caron

United Empire Loyalists
Did not some of the United Empire Loyalists being slaves to Canada with them? -- stewacide 06:27, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes. They brought black slaves along with them. -- Mathieugp 07:52, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wage Slavery in Canada Today
Shouldn't this article mention the wage slavery conditions prevalent in Canada today? Such as the countless ads, for example on Craigslist (anytown) Canada, calling for 'live-in caregivers' where pay is $8.00/hr and they charge you rent? Slavery is alive and well today, only difference is you are paid just enough to scrape by--or less. Fore example say you live in Vancouver, BC and you work at any minimum wage job--8.00/hr, which after taxes nets you $1,000/mo. Oh--by the way a studio flat here costs $1,000/mo. so hope you have a trust fund to draw upon if you are paid anywhere near minimum wage in BC. Mountains here are nice though! I'm sure they're trying to figure out a way to charge us all for looking at them...we should have to pay a corporation for this privilege, shouldn't we? Yes, most definitely! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.5.132 (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * While you may have a point to some degree, this is not a partisan communist website.

British aristocracy/Loyalist figures
have added two citation notes to the article. The first deals with the statement that members of the British aristocracy brought slaves to what is now Canada. Might it be possible to indicate who these aristocrats were? The second citation note concerns the figures on the number of slaves brought north during the American Revolution. I question the first number, that asociated with Nova Scotia, as it seems to reflect the number of freed slaves that settled in the colony. The other numbers also seem suspect. More to the point, the numbers simply don't match. The first paragraph in the "Under British rule" section indicates that loyalists brought approximately 2000 slaves to British North America, yet the second paragraph states that the British owned 1400 slaves. Victoriagirl 03:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * DIdn't the Haida and Tlingit practice what was essentially chattel slavery? The children of their slaves were automatically slaves too, right?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.138.204 (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL.. my family has been here forever and slavery was not part of our system…
 * Only if you committed a crime would you have pay or service anther that’s why we did not have jails here…. We also had boarders marketed in the bush....for area law...we all knew each other... we also ran the biggest military here on the continent for eons... it’s the newcomers who would not abbey the law… That’s why slavery did not take here you would get in trouble with us…


 * its ok but slavery isnt


 * ok well kdikdikdi keldile —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.224.31 (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * When I looked into slavery, a year or so ago, I was surprised when I learned who some of the slave owners were.
 * I think the number of slave-owners in Upper Canada at least, was short enough we could list them.
 * Joseph Brant
 * Peter Russell
 * William Jarvis
 * Matthew Elliot
 * Russell, who was acting Governor for several years, when Simcoe returned to the UK due to illness, owned a slave mom and several of her slave children. He was unhappy with her, because she broke china, and ran away, but he wouldn't simply free her.  He tried to sell her, and couldn't find any buyers.  After he died his sister gave one of the daughters, Amy Pompador, to a cousin.  Geo Swan (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

February 2013
I moved this from the article page, as it seems to be more a point for discussion. I am not vouchsafing for the truth of any of this, but am simply moving and refactoring it.
 * "Black slaves lived in the British regions of Canada in the 17th and 18th centuries — 104 were listed in a 1767 census of Nova Scotia, but their numbers were small until the United Empire Loyalist influx after 1783. As white Loyalists fled the new American Republic, they took with them about 2000 black slaves". — The last sentence of this entry is inaccurate. The majority of the 2000 blacks were 'former' slaves who had been granted their freedom by the proclamation of John Murray, Lord Dunmore, on the 7th of November 1775. Dunmore was the last colonial governor of Virginia. Therefore these individuals came to Nova Scotia as Loyalists in their own right and not as the property of white Loyalists. User: Sjameswhiteland (talk}
 * 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 18:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Adding a section on Lower Canada (Quebec), and reference to Monk and court decisions there.
I'm adding a section as strangely this article neglects any mention of Lower Canada or Quebec (I also note it's a bit anachronistic to refer to Ontario here as it was, I believe, still known as Upper Canada when Simcoe governed. But this is just a start. Note it's been a while so help with formatting and citations, etc., welcome. I've put them in but probably not in the best format. Gregalton (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I inserted some text to clarify why slavery was 'innocuous' after Monk's decisions, that is, that he rendered it unenforceable in the province and made it a place to which slaves could flee. Gregalton (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Pre-confederation slavery
The lede is clear that this article covers slavery in the region that now forms Canada, not post-confederation slavery. This repeated edit is not constructive. We are not discussing slavery in Canada as a country, we are discussing the history of slavery in what is now Canada. It's irrelevant whether Canada existed as a country when the slavery happened or when the Treaty of Paris was signed. Meters (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Introduction
The lead makes it seem like slavery was alive and well in Canada until 1833 and fails to recognize the judicial decisions that brought it largely to an end in present-day Canada much earlier, thus making Canada a destination for escaped slaves after the Revolution and the War of 1812. This history parallels what was happening in England and Massachusetts. --Hantsheroes (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It's quite possible that the lead can be improved, but I don't believe that it makes it seem that slavery was alive and well until 1833 as you claim. It seems to me that the original "(There is often confusion over the date at which this occurred; Britain had abolished the slave trade in 1807, but did not abolish slavery itself until 1833, in an act of Parliament that came into effect on 1 August 1834.) Prior to this, however, courts had, to varying degrees, rendered slavery unenforceable" covers this and certainly more accurately than your first version: "Under the influence of the British Empire, judicial decision ended slavery in present-day Canada by the end of the 18th century. " This is simply not correct. I also question your unsourced addition that Canada as a whole was a destination for escaping slaves as early as the Revolution. This is not something that is mentioned in the article. And why do we need to mention Britain banning the slave trade in the lead? This is not particularly germane to this article. This did not eliminate slavery in Canada, and very few (if any) Canadian slaves were imported directly via the trans-Atlantic  slave trade, at least in Upper and Lower Canada. I don't know about the situation situation in the maritime colonies, but i suspect it was the same.
 * It's not for me to bring up each of the changes you made and argue against them. If you wish to make changes to the lead please propose them so that other editors may comment on them and reach consensus. Meters (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the greater confusion is not when the Abolition Act of 1833 happened, the confusion is over how slavery was virtually ended in the colonies by (British) Judges well in advance of this date. The history of what was happening in England in the last quarter of the 18h century is germane to changes that were happening in the British colonies (including Massachusetts) at the same time. I'm fine with the qualifier "varying degrees" in regard to the courts and appreciate how my earlier version "ended slavery" over-stated the case. Ontario and Nova Scotia were destinations during and after the American Revolution and War of 1812 for free Blacks. I don't know about Quebec.--Hantsheroes (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Introduction
Slavery in Canada was practised by First Nations from earliest times and then under European colonization. People of African descent were forcibly brought as chattel slaves to New France, Acadia and the later British North America during the 17th century. Because early Canada's role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade was minor, the history of slavery in Canada is often overshadowed by the more tumultuous slavery practised elsewhere in the Americas, particularly in the southern United States and colonial Caribbean. Those in Canada typically came from the American colonies, as no shiploads of human chattel went to Canada directly from Africa. The number of slaves in New France is reported to be in the hundreds. They were house servants and farm workers. There were no large plantations in Canada, and therefore no large slave work forces of the sort that existed in most European colonies in the southerly Americas, from Virginia to the West Indies to Brazil. There were slaves of African descent and others were Aboriginal (typically called panis, from the French term for Pawnee).

Under the influence of the British Empire, judicial decisions virtually ended slavery in present-day Canada early in the 19th century. In 1772, for example, Britain outlawed the slave trade in the British Isles followed by the Knight v. Wedderburn decision in Scotland in 1778. This decision, in turn, influenced the colonies of present-day Canada. The conditions were such in Upper Canada and Nova Scotia that American slaves made their way to freedom by escaping to present-day Canada during and after the American Revolution and the War of 1812. In Lower Canada after court decisions in the late 1790s, the "slave could not be compelled to serve longer than he would, and ... might leave his master at will." Britain was the first country in the world to abolish the slave trade (1807) and then abolish slavery itself with an act of Parliament (1833).--Hantsheroes (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, it's not for us to bring up each of your changes. If you want us to discuss your changes, please list each change so that each one can be discussed separately and accepted or not, rather than simply presenting us with a copy of your desired version of the lead. As it is, I don't agree with your wholesale change. I've already explained why some of the changes are not acceptable. I'll add a couple more:
 * Do you have any evidence that anyone considers Canada's role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade to have been major? As I have already said, as far as I know, it was virtually nonexistent. Why would we change "Canada's role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade was minor compared to..." to "Because early Canada's role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade is sometimes considered to be minor"?
 * Why do you consider the English cases applicable only in the British Isles germane to Canadian slavery when Canadian slaves were the result of transportation from North American sources? The decisions you cite were not applicable in Canada. The Loyalist's rights to own slaves and to transport them to Canada from the US were encoded after the decisions you cite, and slavery continued to exist even in England lang after those cases. It wasn't until 18707 that England even banned the slave trade. let alone the owning of slaves.


 * The existing mention (not your doing) of the the Lower Canada case needs to be corrected. It explicitly did not deal with whether slavery was legal. and there is some extremely significant information missing. The Justice stated that captured slave should have been incarcerated in a house of detention rather than a jail, and that since there was no such house of detention in Montreal, the jailed slave would be released, as would any slaves in similar cases. Local merchants twice petitioned the Provincial Legislature to clarify what this ruling meant to slaves' and owners' rights, but to no avail. Meters (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention that while the failed 1793 attempt to ban slavery in Upper Canada resulted in a law that no new slaves could be imported into Upper Canada (hence any escaped slave reaching Upper Canada was free) Lower Canada had no such ruling. Meters (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

This statement is accurate and I put it back into the proposed introduction above: Because early Canada's role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade is sometimes considered to be minor, the history of slavery in Canada is often overshadowed by the more tumultuous slavery practised elsewhere in the Americas, particularly in the southern United States and colonial Caribbean.

The following statement is a problem: Slavery is "Canada's best kept secret, locked within the National closet". This statement seems to promote a conspiracy theory of a national cover up of slavery. The source lacks sources to support this argument. Such an argument negates that Canadian historians throughout the 19th and 20th century have documented the existence of slaves in Canada. If it was a secret, it certainly wasn't well kept. --Hantsheroes (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

As you indicate, the English cases were only applicable to the British Isles, however, the influence of the British abolitionist movement was certainly affecting the colonies as reflected in the judiciary making decisions that line up with the case law that the building in England. Loyalist were not granted the right to own slaves in Nova Scotia either through the legislature or the judiciary. Were Loyalists granted the legal right to own slaves in Ontario?--Hantsheroes (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Please indent your talk page replies with colons.
 * Let's deal with one issue at a time. The change from "Canada's role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade was minor compared to..." to "sometimes considered to be minor" is not acceptable. Yes it is true, just as saying that some ice is cold is true. It is classic WP:WEASEL. You are giving the impression that there are those that do not think that Canada's role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade was minor, or even that most think that. Again, "Do you have any evidence that anyone considers Canada's role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade to have been major?" Meters (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree. "Sometimes" is not acceptable.  Someone else put the sentence with "sometimes" in the original. I had deleted the whole sentence. You re-inserted the text with  "sometimes" back into the article on your 18:17, 12 May 2019 edit.  I accidentally copied the whole of your text and put it in the proposed introduction above. I deleted the word "sometimes" from the above proposal.--Hantsheroes (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies. It's late here, so I'm going to look at this again tomorrow when I'm fresh, to ensure I don't mess anything else up. Meters (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Existing intro: "The latter was legal until the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 meaning that "Slavery was the dominant condition of life for black people in [Canada] for well over 200 years".[1][2]

In Nova Scotia, most of the blacks were free after the American Revolution. Only about a third of those who came arrived as Loyalist slaves. Were most of the Blacks in Ontario slaves after the revolution?--Hantsheroes (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Were there slaves in 1833?
"These developments virtually ended slavery in British North America by 1820. No more than a handful of bondsmen could have remained when slavery formally ended throughout the empire with the implementation of the British Emancipation Act on 1 August 1834." Seymour Drescher and Stanley L. Engerman, A Historical Guide to World Slavery (1998) p 107. More precise is: "''Probably the last slaves to become free were two who are mentioned by the late Sir Adam Wilson, Chief Justice successively of the Courts of Common Pleas and Queen's Bench at Toronto. These were "two young slaves, Hank and Sukey whom he met at the residence of Mrs. O'Beilly, mother of the venerable Miles O'Beilly, Q. C, in Halton County about 1830. They took freedom under the Act of 1833 and were perhaps the last slaves in the province."''  Rjensen (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * From what I've read, many slaves entered into fixed terms of servitude. The failure of the Lower Canada Legislature to clarify the rights of slaves and owners after two early 1800's rulings freeing captured Montreal slaves from jail on technical grounds (jail rather than house of correction) was virtually the end of public records on slavery there. There were no more advertisements for slave sales or asking for the return of escaped slaves, and almost no more known private sales. The only known sales after that time were to people who appeared likely to be removing the slave from the jurisdiction (a sailor and fur traders). Meters (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Problems with the "Under French rule" section
The first sentence of this section currently reads "In 1628 the first recorded black slave in Canada was brought by a British convoy to New France." I worked on some related articles, about a year ago, and my recollection of the references I used then was that this section, this sentence in particular, is that this section is quite misleading.

My recollection is that the Native American slaves, almost all captured and sold by rival Native American Nations, dwarfed the small number of slaves of African descent - in New France.

I think the lead paragraph of this section should make this point. Geo Swan (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Supposed confusion over the use of "slavery in Canada" in this article
A named user and an IP have repeatedly made the unsourced claim that there is confusion over the use of the term "slavery in Canada" since Canada was not known by that name until 1867. Meters (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is clear that this covers the pre European, French, British, and Canadian eras. If the wording needs to be tweaked, that's fine, but let's discuss it and reach a consensus on what the wording should be rather than have one editor ( assuming the named editor and the IP are the same user) push through this change to the long-standing content. Meters (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And now the named user is claiming that Rupert's Land is a synonym for Canada prior to Confederation . No. Rupert's Land was the drainage basin of Hudson's Bay. There was no such thing as Rupert's Land during the pre-European or French eras, and much of Eastern Canada was never part of Rupert's Land. Meters (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinged the Canada project for input on how to clarify the issue. Meters (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Slavery was abolished in the British Empire by the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, which was 34 years before Confederation. So any use of the term "slavery in Canada" must refer to some combination of provinces pre-Confederation. And yet the term "slavery in Canada" has been used in reliable sources as far back as the 1920s (see, ). It continues to be used in modern scholarship (, . The use of the term in this article is entirely appropriate and 's disruptive attempt to employ different terminology is not supported by the sources. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The point is the title is misleading and requires clarification, it is not clear to readers that Canada was created a half century after these measures. Would you say “cannibalism in Puerto Rico” without qualifying that it happened before Puerto Rico existed? Same with “human sacrifice in Chile”. You must qualify these so readers don’t believe the self governing country you are referring to enacted these. If you want to refer to British soldiers in Canada before 1876, you would still call them British soldiers, as they would call themselves. My issue is the clearly misleading title that is accompanied by no qualifiers or context and the resulting confusion in the remainder of the document. It was not Canadian soldiers who burnt the White House down, nor was it Canadian men and women who participated in slavery, as is obvious by further reading of the article, so why say so? Canada has a very easily defined start date, let’s recognize that. Theponderinggiant (talk) 03:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, we follow reliable sources. Reliable sources use "slavery in Canada". So do we. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The argument over “was there slavery in Canada” is a little ridiculous because it’s fully on how you define Canada. In that domain it is quite clear when Canada began. Using your doltish definition the American revolution would be Americans vs British, while holding the word revolution in its title, and being impossible to revolt against anyone except your own country, it’s quite clear that the revolution is British citizens vs British citizens, the term American may have been used constantly at the time, but there was not a single American citizen or American law. Because Canada peacefully separated are we different somehow? The line that people crossed between Canadian/British citizen could happen in 100 different places by your definition and by the articles definition, yet only one date is actually agreed upon by historians. Your choice, gleefully mischaracterize it if you wish, but you are only doing harm to those who wish to learn properly and concisely. Theponderinggiant (talk) 04:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

So if there was slavery in Canada… why did it stop when the British ended slavery…:/ I understand the term “slavery in Canada is catchy and used by many news headlines you refer to as reliable sources, yet the timeline simply does not reconcile. Was there “human sacrifice in Chile”? You see, it does not matter how many sources use that title if it is verified, in its own darn article, to be incorrect/mischaracterizing. Theponderinggiant (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My "doltish definition" has the advantage of appearing in reliable sources. I'm not going to get into a metaphysical debate on how to "define Canada"; that would be original research, which is not what we do here. I would suggest starting a blog if you'd like to advance your theories about Canadian history without the use of reliable sources. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Humanrights.ca refers to slavery in Canada as happening in “what is now Canada.” So indeed, quite doltish. Obviously you misunderstand, I’m not arguing for how to “define Canada”, it’s definition is clear and in opposition to your own, which positions Canada as a colony of French and British settlers governed by the French and British. Theponderinggiant (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Exactly which reliable sources position Canada as an entity existing before 1867, when Canada was conceived. Did you exist before you were born? This is the argument you perpetuate, quite unbecoming of someone who also shares pondering in the name. Theponderinggiant (talk) 04:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And as I said The article is clear that this covers the pre European, French, British, and Canadian eras. The term Canada was in use before Confederation, and If we can reach a consensus on how to clarify things, great, but Theponderinggiant you don't get to arbitrarily decide that long-standing version must be changed to what you want, and until we reach a consensus it should stay in the status quo. Meters (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources I listed above, as well as many others that a simple Google search will show, use the phrase "slavery in Canada" to refer to slavery in the area of North America north of the United States. I take it that you would like to change this article's title and style to reflect the term Slavery in what is now Canada. Correct? If so, please seek WP:CONSENSUS for this change and find reliable sources to indicate that this is an accepted term, as opposed to WP:EDITWARring with others. Also, please WP:INDENT your responses in a single thread. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The term "Canada" long predates the current country of Canada, formed in 1867. The use of the term is therefore accurate when describing events in central Canada (Ontario and Quebec).  There may be an issue about using it relation to the Maritimes, but there is some indication that "Canada" became a general term for the entire area, prior to Confederation.
 * * When Cartier was exploring the area in the 16th century, he referred to the area under Donnacona's control, present-day Quebec city, as "Canada". He also referred to the St Lawrence as the "River of Canada":  Canadian Encyclopedia: Canada
 * * "Canada" was the term used by the French government to refer to the area claimed along the St. Lawrence, the Great Lakes and later the Ohio country, as distguished from other areas of New France, such as Acadie and Louisiana: [|Canada (Nouvelle France)]
 * * the term "Canada" had some proverbial usages in European French in the 17th and 18th centuries: "false as a Canadian diamond" was something that was worthless, while Voltaire repeatedly used variants on the phrase that Canada was a few acres of snow:  "Vous savez que ces deux nations sont en guerre pour quelques arpents de neige vers le Canada,"(Candide, 1758)
 * * Article IV of the Treaty of Paris, 1763, provides that the King of France cedes Canada to the King of Great Britain:
 * IV. His Most Christian Majesty renounces all pretensions which he has heretofore formed or might have formed to Nova Scotia or Acadia in all its parts, and guaranties the whole of it, and with all its dependencies, to the King of Great Britain: Moreover, his Most Christian Majesty cedes and guaranties to his said Britannick Majesty, in full right, Canada, with all its dependencies, as well as the island of Cape Breton, and all the other islands and coasts in the gulph and river of St. Lawrence,...
 * * From 1763 to 1791, Britain used the term "Quebec" to refer to the territory formerly known by the French as Canada, but there was still common usage of "Canada" during that period to refer to that territory. See for example the 1777 US Articles of Confederation:
 * "Article XI. Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States."
 * * In 1791, the British government split the old Province of Quebec into Lower Canada and Upper Canada. They were collectively referred to as "the Canadas".
 * * In 1841, the British reunited the two provinces into the Province of Canada, which was sometimes referred to as "Canada", or "the United Canadas".
 * * In 1867, the new country of Canada was created, including what is now Ontario and Quebec, but also the two Maritime provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
 * I suppose an argument could be made that the Maritimes prior to 1867 shouldn't be included in "Canada", but I think that part of the discussion of using "Canada" for the new country was that it had been acquiring a general meaning of all the British provinces in eastern North America, and therefore was an acceptable name for the new country. I'll see if I can find any cites for that.  Alternatively, a general name used to describe regions does not always necessarily align with political boundaries, as the usage of "America" to refer to the United States indicates.  Usage for general purposes can be broader than political definitions, and back-using "Canada" to include the Maritimes doesn't strike me as an unreasonable usage.  It tells the reader that the article is about the area now known as Canada. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * In my opinion there's no use in being too caught up in a strict interpretation of what "Canada" means in an encyclopedic history article. We have seen this come up with other history articles too where the current day name of the country stands in for earlier entities which may have been named differently at the time, simply because it is the most coherent for modern audiences to understand in a lot of cases, and can be clarified in the text. Dan Carkner (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I would add that this approach seems appropriate when a topic spans multiple regimes or names of a country, and no single historical territory or state could accurately contain the (potential) range of the topic. So it's not a matter of imprecision but of compromise of using a known modern shorthand to look back across several regimes. Dan Carkner (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)