Talk:Constitutional history of Canada

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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is part of the Canadian law WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

This was formerly the Constitutional debate of Canada article (which was originally under the National Unity section of Politics of Canada). It needs to be cleaned up so as to deal with the historical events that are relevant to the history of the Canadian constitution.

-- Mathieugp 20:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This article overlaps somewhat with the article Constitution of canada. I appreciate that the focus of the two articles is somewhat different. For clarity I will say, however, that I think the two articles both contain lists of historical constitutional documents which can (and should) easily be merged. Either the Consitutional history of Canada article (in its entirety) should be moved to the Consitution page and made a separate section, or the list of historical documents in the Constitution page should be moved to the Constitutional history page and only a link left behind. I will leave it up to others to figure that one out. --Wikiuser0 04:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it would be useful to put all the documents in the Constitutional history of Canada in one place. How about we create an article just for it? After all, the list is quite long, even when only considering the 1867/1982 constitution.

Maybe List of documents in the constitutional history of Canada?

-- Mathieugp 17:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Years in headings?

Hello! As this is a summary article about the history of the Canadian constitution, would it not be prudent to include years with each heading, so as to provide a general frame of reference, e.g., "Statute of Westminster (1931)"? Feedback is appreciated. If there is none (or little objection), I shall do so. E Pluribus Anthony 03:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I see no good reason not to do it. And about the List of documents in the constitutional history of Canada, do you think we should go ahead with it? Nobody has provided me with feedback. -- Mathieugp 18:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Great! And why not proceed? It expands on something for which there may be common ambiguity. Also note that the Canadian constitution is comprised of unwritten conventions, so this distinction should be made upfront.

Perhaps as a larger project, this project can enshrine constitutions for other countries? :) With this foresight, perhaps the Canuck example should be classified as

List of written constitutional documents of Canada

OR

History of written constitutional documents of Canada

OR

History of written constitutionalism in Canada

OR

History of constitutionalism in Canada

OR

List of Canadian constitutional documents (I see that this already exists; perhaps these two projects should somehow be married?)

OR similar? :)

Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 19:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we need at least two lists: one should contain the current written documents of the constitution (that already exists as you wrote) and, as I suggested originally, another one could contain a list of documents in the constitutional history of Canada, i.e., any document that might be useful in understanding the hows and whys of the constitutional evolution from the Conquest up until now.

Regarding the unwritten conventions, these are inherited from British practice and could be summarized easily. I presume that there are already articles covering the topics, but I could be wrong. -- Mathieugp 22:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! Good work on the headings. I think the overall introduction can be beefed up a bit to provide a brief overview from the Treaty of Paris to present day, and briefly mention there that the Canadian constitution (with appropriate wikilinks) is an amalgam of written acts and unwritten conventions (a hybrid given its British heritage and American influence). Perhaps I'll take a crack at this soon (I'm a wee-bit swamped at the moment).

I think the two articles/lists can be married somehow; in the other list, wikilink to the appropriate act articles or to here, and v.v.; this will enable users to easily consult pertinent information. Make sense? In absence of (or with) that, I think

History of written constitutionalism in Canada

OR

History of constitutionalism in Canada (preferred)

would be appropriate categories; they are descriptive, yet allow for the addition of other countries later, e.g., UK, whose constitution is wholly unwritten.

Moreover, pictures are always helpful. Perhaps we can include one of the Canada Act 1982 or the patriation ceremony?

Further to that, we should probably refer to it as such, not just "Patriation", or "Patriation of Canada Act (1982)"). As well, note that the 1982 act was modelled after (I think) the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and has been used as a constitutional model for other countries, e.g., South Africa. I think these are germane historical points.

Thoughts? Thanks so much! E Pluribus Anthony 08:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with beefing up the intro. The French translation of the same article actually does talk about the Treaty of Paris a little more. Renaming the "Patriation" headings to "Patriation of Canada Act (1982)" for clarity's sake is not a problem. I'll do it right away.

Regarding the merging, I think we can probably do it with proper headings. We only need to make a distinction between the documents which make up the current constitution and the other documents (constitutional or not) which are helpful in understanding the history of Canada. -- Mathieugp 15:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi ... great! Agreed. Given all of this, I think one of the alternate categories above. Anyhow, thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 16:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)