Talk:Canada – United States relations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
To-do list for Canada – United States relations: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

    This seems to be the first page on bi-national relations (I'm working on Canada-France). I think it would be good then to establish some standard practices.

    For example:

    • How do we decide which country is listed first? (E.g. Alphabetical? - in which case I need to change this ones name)

    Also, it would be good to agree on what top-level headings are needed (e.g. History, Defence, etc.).

    Any other ideas?

    1. Sign and date your comments.
    2. Add some red meat - the US claim that the eastern Artic is international waters, Maher Arar, the softwood lumber dispute, the James Sabzali affair.
    GreatWhiteNortherner 04:22, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • I have moved this article to Canada-United States relations, swapping the order of the entries and thereby rendering them alphabetically. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

    Contents

    [edit] Environmental Issues

    I don't understand this passage: "Frequently, in US-Canadian relations, environmental relations have served as the lynchpin for all other relations. This fact is due to in part to differing cultural and political emphases. The Canadian government places a higher premium on energy and the environment then the U.S. government." How have environmental relations been a "lynchpin for all other relations"? What evidence is there that energy is more important to Canada than the United States? HistoryBA 16:59, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    Two words: Kyoto Accord 24.86.59.67 14:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

    Not really clear cut evidence. perhaps Americans just care about their economy more than Canadians? Rds865 (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] US is larger than Canada?

    The article states: "...Canada is overshadowed by its much larger neighbour...". I do understand that the United States might be more visible on the world stage than Canada, but to say that something is "much larger" is to me something that is connected to area. From other articles:

    Canada: 9,984,670 km² (2nd) United_States: Area 9,631,418 km² (3rd)

    Could someone (who is better at English than I am) rephrase that please? --Kdehl July 6, 2005 23:07 (UTC)

    • Perhaps it is in reference to population size. -- Kmsiever 7 July 2005 21:40 (UTC)
      • 'More populous' would better reference population size. JetheroTalk

    Perhaps they're refering to the land mass. Cited here: http://education.yahoo.com/reference/factbook/countrycompare/area/3d.html;_ylt=As1XMsN8kgSx746VWazy_s7PecYF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.107.199.117 (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

    Land mass isn't much larger, more like barely larger.--Ramdrake 20:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Northwest Angle

    Pardon me if I am mistaken, but is it really accurate to describe the Northwest Angle as a territorial dispute? Its more of an oddity than anything else; dispute implies that there has been some form of tension. --Bletch 01:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Conflict with Canada and the Vietnam War page

    The Canada and the Vietnam War page says that Canada supported the US (diplomatically.) This page says the opposite. Which one is correct?

    Roughly speaking, the Vietnam War page. Of course, there are subtleties. WilyD 13:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Statement on Environmental Issues

    "The Canadian government places a higher premium on energy and the environment than the U.S. government."

    This is a totally biased statement. While I may agree with it, I don't think it's appropriate for an encylopedia article. It should be deleted to for NPOV purposes.

    [edit] NPOV

    In the opening sentence 'quipped' is implying the statement was witty. Unless you are humour challenged, the statement was anything but funny. And given the mouse-elephant reaction, it was not well thought through either. Would someone change it to something objective. Thank you -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.191.39.213 (talk • contribs).

    The statement in question comes from a transcript of a speech. It's how THEY wrote it, not us, so that's why it's there. -WarthogDemon 18:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    "guipped" isn't part of the speech. I agree with the first editor, quipped is an opinion and inappropiately used. it should be changed to a neutral description. 142.165.3.43 16:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    I have moved it to a quotes section; it makes no sense as the opening. Marskell 13:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] More personal issues please

    Could something be included about the numbers of citizens of each country who choose to reside in the other - or take its citizenship?

    [edit] Provincially Regulated, not Federal

    Just a note that part of the trade section should be changed. The current article states "Due to the Canadian government's price controls as part of their state-run medical system, prices for prescription drugs can be a fraction of the price paid by consumers in the unregulated U.S. market." However, under the Canadian constitution... I think section 95 a) but it's been a while since I read it, Health Care is regulated by the provinces, and thus each province is different. For example, Alberta due to its oil wealth has an almost entirely free health care system while Ontario tends to just be subsidized. Another example: there is no CHIP (Canadian Health Insurance Plan) but there is an OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan). Thanks Crisco 1492 01:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Northwest Passage

    The article claims Canadians were "incensed" over the Manhattan navigating the Northwest passage but the article on the Northwest passage claims:

    "In 1969, the SS Manhattan made the passage, accompanied by the Canadian icebreaker John A. Macdonald."

    [edit] Canadian/American spellings

    An anon editor has been switching Canadian spellings to American ones, which I have reverted as per WP:ENGVAR. However, I subsequently noted that the article actually contains a mix of Canadian and American spellings (mostly "defense" on the American side, with the rest being Canadian as far as I can tell), and the anon was likely simply trying to achieve some sense of order. However, before making any further changes to the spelling, there should be consensus as to the appropriate course of action. Skeezix1000 19:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

    Just to add, the usual solution (where the article does not have strong ties to one particular English-speaking nation) is to stick to the variety of English first used by the article's creator. However, even the first version of this article contains both Canadian and American spellings. Skeezix1000 19:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    A tricky one, this one. On the one hand, as "defense" was the only American spelling, and the rest were Canadian (as it seems to me) then I would say go with the majority version and change "defense" to "defence" (which I note one was in any case). In addition, the anon editor's other edits e.g. [1] lead me to question his/her good faith in this matter. On the other hand, so many Canadians use American spellings (e.g. neighbor), that those may be a reasonable common denominator (however much it pains me to say so!). --Slp1 20:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    I'd say there's no real need to switch to the U.S. variant, as the Canadian spellings seem to outnumber the American ones. (One could also probably argue that the article probably has closer ties to Canada, as the relationship has more of a direct impact on the smaller nation.) Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 23:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    I thought this was covered at the top of this page. Stop calling Canada the "smaller" nation people we're less populous, not smaller.Imperialconqueror 19:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    Odd, i've been to 3 different High Schools and i've never seen use of U.S. english spellings over Canadian (except some exceptions of colour). I say go with the creators spellings, Canadian or U.S., not both. Bretonnia 16:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    There is no uniform US or Canadian spelling standard that can be applied. Where possible we should use those spellings that might be acceptable in both countries. For instance I've seen "centre", "color", "-ize" spelling (vs "ise"), "neighbor", "sulfur", and "aluminum" on both sides of the border. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any common usage for several others like "defence/defense" or "labour/labor".Zebulin (talk)

    [edit] ????

    "In World War II the U.S. built large military bases in Newfoundland (then a British colony), ..." should it be "a former british colony"? Jackzhp 17:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

    Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Arar affair

    I would like to see a source on this. And is there certainty that there was in fact torture (from a source)? 65.27.139.162 23:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

    You can look at http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/ which gives you links to the inquiry and other things. The inquiry found it likely that Arar was tortured while in Syrian custody. Personally I think the sticky point was that USA refused to recognize his Canadian citizenship and passport.


    Its common knowledge that this happened, there was a huge case on it and Arar got a settlement out of it (not nearly compensation enough). I also met a man who was in the same Syrian toture camp as him as a political prisoner.

    Toture was a certain fact in this case, when he wasnt being tortured he was being held in a cell to small to stand up in and barely kept alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.238.81 (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


    First of all, "acting upon a tip from Canadian law enforcement," the American Ambassador in the Ottawa has already stated that the US did NOT act on a tip from the Canadian Government or any Canadian Body. Second of all, Where are the sources in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.175.143 (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Facts

    The un-sourced statement at the beginning is incorrect. The BRITISH burned down Washington D.C. Study some history before editing please. Contralya 01:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

    • Some words are changed, but it still needs confirmation. I have never heard of Canada sending any troops south during the war, though it could well of happened. It needs a source. Weren't Canada's military considered part of the British military? I know the British moved in from the north, but I am not sure the nation of Canada existed yet back then. Contralya 05:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

    "Canadians often view the war as a successful resistance against an outside aggressor as well as the burning of the White House." bold part is poor grammar. No, Canada as a nation did not exist as a country at this time. The current version is good besides the poor grammar as it implies credit. I could dig through military records to find out if any resident-of-the-land-soon-to-be-Canada was involved but my time is limited. Also,I do believe there was a military incursion into New York state(which was taken back by the cowardice of a local British commander). That being said, it is unwise to get into National myths,as someone(not I) might start an edit war.--Wilson 20:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] War of 1812

    Oh my...this whole article relating a continuation of history false balance is sadly disturbing. Vietnam never attacked the US, but the US did invade Vietnam and eventually pulled out...so why would that be considered a loss and the War of 1812 against BNA (British North America = Upper/Lower Canada) be considered a win on any front. How did the US lose the battle and win the negotiations? The British not in NA were more focused on and weary from the major battles against France...the BNA (aka Canada) had no interest in territory or any such thing from the US and was only interested in keeping the US from invading BNA(aka Canadian territory). What did BNA (aka Canada) "lose" in these negotiations? Where's a native when I need one too...if you check the wiki 1812 link you see the following comment: "The US ended the Indian threat on its western and southern borders." The British or BNA had nothing to do with the Southern border issues...Canada still has nothing to do with it...that was Spain then and Mexico now. The Native (aka "Indian") threat was that they were being slaughtered in a huge act of genocide and tried to fight back and keep their land and culture. And many of the Native tribes allied with BNA (aka Canada) against the US and this relationship went on long past 1812. See the "Dakota War of 1862" and "Sitting Bull" wiki. Don't get me wrong...BNA (aka Canada) did a lot of bad things to the Natives, and other groups, but we are still using the archives in Ottawa to settle land claims from hundreds of years ago. I would hope most natives would consider us the lesser of evils, but we can always do better by them. So honestly...please give one other example of a country that unilaterally declared war, invaded and was then repulsed at at the end of the war that aggressor kept the original territory it had when it started and was judged a victory by history? I would agree as is mentioned that this war was sold as a victory by the US Politicians back home who were embarrassed at how wrong they were as recorded in congress. Revisionist history "Mission Accomplished"! By the time the Bicentennial hits...the documents easily proving what happened will be published by someone...very likely a Canadian...from the best source in the World...the Library of Congress. My suggestion is either be incredibly careful to be neutral and/or show that there is a disagreement on the history...or cite specific records in US Congress or BNA Parliament that can be confirmed. Newspaper articles from the time do not constitute proof Citizen Kan. --Thehighlndr (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

    The war of 1812 is not seen as a "clear victory" for the Americans. The 'result' of the war is still disputed today, although neither America or Britain managed to take over any land. If anything it was a stalemate. And to play Devil's advocate, America declared war on Britain with intent to conquer Canada. Since they didn't manage an acre, one could say that Britain/Canada won. And of course this position is made sketchy by the Brits attempting some invasion in the States. In conclusion, I think it's best if this article remains neutral on the subject. 144.32.56.221 11:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

    Really, I hate to say it but the U.S. won(woah, i feel the condemnation of Canada decending upon me) but let me explain. From a military point of view Canada/Britain won, wasn't even close. However; The negotiations following confirmed most of what the Americans wanted to get out of the scuffle(except canada's annexation,thank heavens). Canada pulls even, U.S. pulls +1. Canada won the war and lost the negotiations.--Wilson 01:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

    Then wouldn't it stand to reason that the difference be mentioned in the article? It's something not everyone really understands, although Ontarian children spend a year learning about it. It's an important part of American/Canadian history and I think it should be clarified here. What Wilson said backs up the first statement that its not a clear victory, since the US lost in the warfare and the Brits lost the negotiations. 144.32.126.12 12:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

    The war was a stalemate (tipped slightly on the British side, since the U.S. failed on their attacks in my opinion, but that would screech bias). Let's not go with general opinion but what is fact, since this is an encyclopedia. Stalemate, that way nobody's patriotism is hurt and the needs of the encyclopedia are sufficed. Bretonnia 16:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

    I've removed "While the War of 1812 is seen as a clear victory by Americans[citation needed], as American Indian raids against western settlements were ended and the British seizure of American shipping ceased" as this statement has not had a source cited in at least three months, if it can be found in a source that also disproves statements of a Canadian or British win then it should be placed back into the text at that point and not before. Lyynn 06:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] "Invasions" in 1812

    I am very saddened by the complete 1984/Big Brotherish revisionist history on US-Canadian relations in general, but especially the War of 1812. You state this completely unsubstantiated claim of "...which saw both sides try to invade the other, and both failed, leaving the status quo." This is contradicted by the 1812 Wiki page and even worse by documents from the US Congress (and Library of Congress) and Canadian Parliament still available to non-lazy people. The US declared War on Britain (see navy blockade that was lifted before declaration, but not notification) and by extension BNA officially...transcripts clearly show the US WarHawks wanted to annex Canada, the US troops invaded Canadian Soil and Canada only attacked US soil in retaliation and gave up attempting to hold any territory. (incl. the embarrassing defeat of US at Fort Detroit) I would assume that those that continually rewrite history will fail to learn from it. Ironically this was the first and most major time in US history where the WarHawks claimed that the US Invasion force would be "Greeted as Liberators" and were dead wrong. BTW: Quoting current people is not a valid historical reference. I really want to know what person wrote the original overview. That us Canadians became best friends with US after attempted invasion is the most important and amazing lost lesson of history. --Thehighlndr (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

    I understand well that the British mounted a campaign against the U.S. and achieved some small victories on its home soil, but how does this constitute an "invasion?" Particularly given the U.S. simply declared war with the obvious intention of annexing British Canada? The phrasing "both countries attempted invasions of each other" is both disingenuous and extremely forgiving of American history. Alyoshenka 00:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

    Action occured on both sides of the U.S. border. I happen to have a timeline handy so...here it is: 1812 june 18-War declared by America july 12-General hull invades upper canada july 17-natives,british,canadian voyageurs capture Mackinac august 16-brock and tecumseh capture detroit october 13-queenston hieghts-american loss, brocks death 1813 april 27-americans capture york(toronto) june 1-hms shannon defeats uss chesapeake june 6&24-americans turned back july 31-toronto retaken oct. 25-american invasion force defeated nov. 11- battle of crysler's farm-americans defeated 1814 july 3-americans capture fort erie july 25-Lundy's lane-stalemate august-british capture and burn washington,D.C. september 11-americans defeat larger british force september 12-british attack baltimore december 24-treaty of ghent ends war january 8-americans win battle of new orleans Also, the Americans had other reasons to go to war with britain besides the prospect of gaining canada, britain's shipping policy comes to mind. --Wilson 01:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] 49th parallel

    Mention should be made of a town that is technically in the US (if I recall correctly, it is at the very bottom of a small peninsula) because of the 49th parallel agreement, but which is in effect administered entirely by Canada. I can't remember for the life of me what the name of the town is, but it is just barely outside Canadian territory and cut off by water for several miles from any US territory, so people regularly move at will between the two countries, almost all employment for the Americans there is technically in Canada, and the kids even go to Canadian schools. It's a weird but quite notable case. The town does have an article here; I read it about 6 mo. ago.

    I also think this article in general is lacking in info on the 49th parllel agreement and what it means, as well as information on US-to-Canada immigration both during the Vietnam era and more recently with the Bush ascendancy. While this aspect of the .us/.ca relations is covered somewhat, it seems a little spotty. The fact that emigrating to Canada from the US is difficult and expensive seems worth covering. I actually tried it myself and failed. The amount of paperwork that has to be done is pretty huge, though in Canada's favor it should also be added that Immigration Canada's director fairly recently, I believe in 2005 or perhaps 2006, issued an internal order relaxing some controls, specifically to account for non-traditional couples such as gay couples and those with common-law unions, such that they are treated like marriages for immigration purposes. It's not in the law books, but was an internal agency memo of some kind; I've read it, and it is for real, though at this point I'd be hard-pressed to find it again.

    Some other stuff that seems like it needs more detailed coverage in this article are a) Ill will toward Canada on the part of particularly jingoistic Americans who condemn the country for being a haven for "unpatriotic" US draft dodgers (this was important during Clinton's US presidency, if we recall), and b) Canadian national pride in the sacking of the US White House, which actually not only runs quite high in my experience, is also virtually unknown to most Americans, because our public school history textbooks barely mention the episode; the average US citizen has no idea at all that Canada razed one of our national landmarks, but I can guarantee you that every Canadian knows this story very well. C) Passports. At least as late as Sept. 2006, it was easy to travel to and from Canada without a US passport. I got into Canada in 2005 with a fairly minimal amount of hassle with only a US driver's license (their chief concern was that the US might not let me back in), but also got back into the US in late 2006 with the same, after answering some silly questions to "prove" I was really an American. The questions were really basic, like "Who was the first President of the United States?", and "How many stripes are there on the US flag and what do they stand for?". For all the talk of the US being concerned about terrorists getting into the US via Canada (another thing this article could cover in more detail), the border controls are incredibly lax. I drove back into the US with a U-Haul truck full of stuff and it was only examined for about 30 seconds; opened, looked at with a comment of "yep, looks like household goods", and waved on through. It would be trivial to get people or a suitcase nuke or whatever across that border. Nevermind that there are numerous border points that are not controlled in any noticeable way. A rowboat will get you back and forth with ease.

    [edit] Speculation

    "Most French Canadians understood that the British Empire already enshrined their rights in the Quebec Act, which the Americans declared as being one of the Intolerable Acts. French Canadians thus could see that within the British Empire their language, law, customs, interests and religion would be protected, while within the United States these would all be opposed" Seems pro-British and has no sources, is there evidence of opposition to French Canadian culture in the US? Also, more than just French Canadians were allowed to join the Union. Since this is about US-Canadian relations, it should be noted, that the right to join given to Canada was a unique privilege. Rds865 (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Pig War

    It strikes me that a sentence on the Pig War is merited. I would do it myself but the wording for that period seems delicate and I'm not enough of an expert to get it right. 72.95.148.202 (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)