Talk:Canadian Confederation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents


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

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

[edit] 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:

  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]

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.

--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)

[edit] 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))


[edit] 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.


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

[edit] 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.

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)