Talk:Name of Canada/Archive 1

message: Anyone here remember the 1960s? I don't, but I think that "Dominion of Canada" was in use until the 1960s, not just the 1930s as a recent edit indicated. Kevintoronto 19:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dominion was not as widely used in the late 19th century as we might think. Its heyday was in the first half of the 20th century. I think it was probably the government of Louis St. Laurent (1948-57) who began to phase Dominion out. Although Mackenzie King valued Canadian independence, he was a very cautious and wily politician who never stirred up trouble over minor matters. I can recall the late 1950s clearly and Dominion was in use in phrases such as "Dominion Building", "Dominion Elections Act" and "Dominion-Provincial relations". But it was really being used as a synonym for "federal" or "national". The process accelerated under Pearson (1963-68) and Trudeau (1968-) especially after the Official Languages Act when names like Dominion were unworkable in French e.g. the Dominion Bureau of Statistics became Statistics Canada about 1971 (it was Bureau fédéral de la statistique in French). I checked Library and Archives Canada catalogue and cannot see any Dominion-Provincial conference later than 1960. It was in the 1950s too that Royal Mail began to disappear (I vaguely recollect some people being upset). So, I would focus on the tenure of Louis St. Laurent as the beginning of the end for Dominion.--BrentS 22:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: As to the statement that the Canada Act 1982 did not contain the word "Dominion", this is hardly surprising as it was an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Constitution Act 1982 (all eleven of them) contains the word Dominion; the act of 1867 contains the word "Dominion" four times only, right at the beginning of the act. See the article on dominion. I suspect there is more history to this word than we know. Has anyone consulted the standard constitutional textbooks by Peter Hogg, Bora Laskin and Eugene Forsey to see what they have to say about the word "dominion" if anything?--BrentS 22:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage of Dominion

message: This is very odd.  The phrase,
"One Dominion under the Name of Canada," or "une seule et même Puissance sous le nom de Canada" 
something is very very odd.  The French text "une seule et même Puissance sous le nom de Canada"  translates as  "a single, and same Power under the name of Canada."   This could be a result of the divergence of "Quebec French" from "France French".
Something is really really wrong here.
http://www.canadiana.org/citm/_textpopups/constitution/doc102_e.html
The BNA Act 1867. Preamble (In Quebec French).
http://www.canadiana.org/ECO/PageView/92338/0005?id=9ed8f7ef26640db0
::Considerant que les provinces du Canada, de la Nouvelle-Ecosse, de la Nouveux-Brunswick, on exprime le desire de contracter une union federale pour ne former qu'une seule, et meme Puissance (Dominion) sous la Courounne de la royaume-uni de la Grande-Bretagne et d'Irelande avec une constitution reposant sur le meme principes que le royaume uni:
I am going to look into this.  THERE IS A STORY HERE!!! ArmchairVexillologistDon 06:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a case of divergeance between European and Quebec french standard, the word dominion is simply not use in french unless talking about Canada in an historical context. In any other cases (I have dominion over the land, This shall be my dominion, etc....), francophones would use different sentence contruction. --Marc pasquin 01:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "One Dominion under the Name of Canada," or "une seule et même Puissance sous le nom de Canada" 

message: British American Colonies 1763-1775
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/british_colonies_1763-76.jpg
From North to South, the 19 Colonies are listing below,
(Note:  The 6 Loyalist Colonies of the 19 Colonies of are denoted in red).
(1).  Newfoundland,
(2).  Nova Scotia (New Brunswick broke off in 1784, i.e., no included in map),
(3).  Prince Edward Island (it broke off from Nova Scotia in 1770, thus in map),
(4).  Quebec (in 1774 it was extended to include Northwest Territory (i.e., Ohio)),
(5).  Massachusetts (includes Maine),
(6). New Hampshire,
(7).  Connecticut,
(8).  Rhode Island,
(9).  New York,
(10).  Pennsylvania,
(11).  New Jersey,
(12).  Virginia (it was only in 1863 that West Virigina was broken off),
(13).  Maryland,
(14).  Delaware Counties (later Delaware),
(15).  North Carolina,
(16).  South Carolina,
(17).  Georgia,
(18).  East Florida,
(19).  West Florida.
Not including (20). the British Commerical Territory of Ruperts Land (Administered by the Hudsons Bay Company), and (21).  Indian Territory.
Note:  The 6 Loyalist Colonies of the 19 Colonies of are denoted in red.
: I stand corrected. I was unaware of Florida's status in that era.  And I forgot that P.E.I. was separated before the Amer. Rev., not after. Indefatigable 20:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The 19 British American Colonies from (1763-1775)

message: The local name  is "the Netherlands".  The English have another local name called "Holland" (there are two Provinces in the Netherlands called North Holland, and South Holland).  Anyways, over time this country has been called by the following names, 
(pre-1581) The Province of the Spanish Netherlands, (a Province of the Kingdom of Spain),
(1581-1814) The United Provinces of the Netherlands, (an Independent Republic),
(1814-1831) The Kingdom of the United Netherlands, (an Independent Kingdom),
(post-1831) The Kingdom of the Netherlands, (an Independent Kingdom, minus the Belgium Territory).
So today, in the CIA Factbook database, it should read the following,
longform offical name: the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
 
shortform name: the Netherlands.
and "low and behold",
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nl.html
it does say those very two things.  Indeed.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop posting irrelevent material to the talk pages. Homey 00:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Name Changes of the Netherlands

message: I am not familar with this word, or its connotations.  But I have found this.
http://www.newalbion.com/artists/zeitgeist/
It this interpretation correct? (i.e., "the Spirit of the Age").  If so, does that mean that the spirit of the age is remove all reference to our British Commonwealth Heritage?  If so does that mean that Canada wants to become a Republic? (i.e., the Republic of Canada).
Take care, and best wishes,
ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an online dictionary.  My usage of the word is meant to imply the current situation regarding 'dominion'.  No republican inferences are implied or intended. E Pluribus Anthony 20:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Glad to help.  As well, my position -- which is not immutable -- is cited above.  To address this directly to me or for further discussions, use my Talk page if you wish.  Merci!  E Pluribus Anthony 20:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Zeitgeist

message: J.S. Ewarts narration of the London Conference Dec. 4, 1866, to March 29, 1867.
Kingdoms Papers Volume II (pp. 381-384).
Notes:
(1).  the text below is reproduced verbatum (i.e., exactly as written),
(2).  since J.S. Ewart is directly cited, this is not plagarism,
(3).  the [Square Bracketed Text] denotes my own note, and is not Ewarts,
(4).  the Bold Text denotes the large typeface used by Ewart,
(5).  the Italisized Text denotes the exact text italisized by Ewart,
(6).  the  Blue Text, denotes the draft constitution text, and the final text appearing in the British North America Act 1867 (the last two blue coloured texts).
Delegates in London.—The next scene opened in London, where the delegates from the three provinces assembled “for the purposes of arranging the terms of the Union”.   After discussions lasting from the 4th to the 26th December, 1866, the delegates agree to a series of sixty-nine resolutions.  Three of these are the same as the three above quoted from the resolutions of the Quebec Conference [Note: this last sentence refers to something up the page that is not quoted in the typed out text, here.  I included this last sentence for completeness]. 
Delegates First Draft.—The Conference then proceeded to draft a bill.  Its noticeable features (for present purposes) are those of the clauses quoted. [Note:  the numbers of the resolutions quoted in the next sentence refer to the 1864 Quebec Resolutions (there are72), and not the 1866 London Resolutions (there are 69)].  No. 3 (as to following “the model of the British constitution”) was omitted; No. 4 was repeated; the words “saving the sovereignty of England” were omitted in No. 29; and No. 71 (as to rank and name) was provided for by leaving blanks to be filled in afterwards.
Law Officers.—Meanwhile, the Imperial law officers were also engaged in drafting a bill.  Its language will give some idea of what Sir John and other delegates had to struggle with.  It recited:
"Whereas the Union of the British North America Colonies for the Purposes of Government and Legislation would attended with great Benefits to the Colonies and be conducive to the interests of the United Kingdom". 
and it proceeded to declare that
 "the said Three Colonies shall be composed of" 
 "The United Colony of shall be composed," etc, 
 "There shall be a Governor-General for the United Colony," etc, 
 "For each Province there shall be an Officer, styled the Superintendant," etc, 
Delegates Second Draft.—The delegates produced a second draft.  It is dated 2 February, 1867.  The law officer’s draft had provided that
 "the said Three Colonies shall be thenceforth form and be One Colony," 
Instead of that, the delegates draft provided that,
 "the said Provinces ... shall form and be one united dominion under the name of the Kingdom of Canada, and thenceforth the said Provinces shall constitute, and be One Kingdom under the name aforesaid..." 
That was the suggestion of the delegates as Canada’s "rank and name"; and we may assume that all the delegates agree to it.  Further, the draft of the law officers had provided  
 "Their shall be for the United Colony Two Houses of Parliament styled the Legislative Council and the House of Commons" 
whereas the delegates draft provided that
 "From and after the Union, there shall be within and for the Kingdom of Canada, one General Parliament, which shall be composed of the Queen, an Upper Chamber, to be called the Senate and the House of Commons" 
The law officers had provided for the constitution an Executive Council.  The draft of the delegates added the words:
 "which shall be called the Privy Council of Canada" 
Delegates Third Draft.—Between the 2nd and the 9th of February, the delegates prepared their third draft bill.  In it they made further use of the phrase "the Kingdom of Canada."
For example:
 "The word 'Parliament' shall mean the Legislature or Parliament of the Kingdom of Canada" 
The following clauses were new:
 "The word 'Kingdom' shall mean and comprehend the United Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. 
 The word 'Privy Council' shall such persons as may from time to time be appointed by the Governor-General, and sworn to aid and advise the Government of the Kingdom. 
 The word 'Canada' (when not applied to the Province of Canada) shall mean the Kingdom of Canada thereby constituted." 
Joint Draft.—The next draft (9th February) is the joint product of the delegates and the English law officers.  Prior to its preparation Sir John had made his last fight for the elevation of this country out of colonialism, and had fallen back beaten.  The words
 "shall form and be one united dominion under the name of the Kingdom of Canada, and thenceforth the said Provinces shall constitute, and be One Kingdom under the name aforesaid" 
were supplanted by the language which now appears in the constitution:
"shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of  Canada, and on and after the Day those three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly" 
Corresponding substitution was made throughout the draft.  The recital was made to declare which that was untrue—
 "WHEREAS the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom"   
[End of this section of the cited text from the J.S. Ewart work].
ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kingdom Papers Volume II, Pages 381-384

message: If ones looks up the Quebec Resolutions 1864 (there are 72), and the following London Resolutions 1866 (there are 69), one will note,
Rank and Name.--71.That Her Majesty the Queen be solicited to determine the rank and name of the Federated Provinces.
then,
Rank and Name.--68. That Her Majesty the Queen be solicited to determine the rank and name of the Confederation.
Federated Provinces of Canada (1864), then the Confederation of Canada (1866). 
The words
 "shall form and be [one united dominion] under the name of [the Kingdom of Canada], and thenceforth the said Provinces shall constitute, and be [One Kingdom] under the name aforesaid" 
were supplanted by the language which now appears in the constitution:
"shall form and be [One Dominion] under the Name of  [Canada], and on and after the Day those three Provinces shall form and be [One Dominion] under that Name accordingly" 
Corresponding substitution was made throughout the draft.
In the last draft of the delegates ,
Rank = [one united dominion], and Name = [the Kingdom of Canada],
whereas in the final draft entered in the constitution (i.e., the British North America Act 1867),
Rank = [One Dominion], and Name = [Canada].
So the question is
does Name = long form offical name = [the Kingdom of Canada], in the last delegate draft,
whereas, 
does Name = short form name = [Canada],  which entered the British North America Act 1867.
If so, then "Canada" has no long form offical name, but only a short form name. Such a conclusion seems to be what happenned.  The thing is, if this country was assigned in 1867, only the short form name of Canada, that would of been a complete break with the tradition of the time (the late 1800s).  Equally, if this country was in fact assigned in 1867, the long form offical name of Canada, that again would of been a complete break with tradition of the time (the late 1800s).
Finally, an explicit solution to the above ambiguity would of been this text, proposed below,
Rank = [One Dominion], and Name = [the Dominion of Canada].
in other words,
"shall form and be [One Dominion] under the Name of  [the Dominion of Canada], and on and after the Day those three Provinces shall form and be [One Dominion] under that Name accordingly" 
If only this proposed text had been put into the British North America Act, 1867, then this whole ambiguity would of been obliterated.  Alas.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Central Arguement of this Whole Issue

message: After "sleeping on it", I have come to the opinion that it would seem that the British North America Act 1867 defines "the short form" name of "Canada" only, for this country.
The words
 "shall form and be [one united dominion] under the name of [the Kingdom of Canada], and thenceforth the said Provinces shall constitute, and be [One Kingdom] under the name aforesaid" 
were supplanted by the language which now appears in the constitution:
"shall form and be [One Dominion] under the Name of  [Canada], and on and after the Day those three Provinces shall form and be [One Dominion] under that Name accordingly" 
Corresponding substitution was made throughout the draft.
Since the explicit text (shown below) was not used,
"shall form and be [One Dominion] under the Name of  [the Dominion of Canada], and on and after the Day those three Provinces shall form and be [One Dominion] under that Name accordingly" 
I am forced to conclude that
(1). Delegate Draft (Feb. 9, 1867): Name = long form name
Rank = [one united dominion], and Name = [the Kingdom of Canada],
(2).  Final Draft put in BNA Act (Feb. 9, 1867): Name = short form name
Rank = [One Dominion], and Name = [Canada].
(3).  Un-used Explicit Text (Proposed by me): Name = long form name
Rank = [One Dominion], and Name = [the Dominion of Canada].
the British North America Act 1867, only defined the short form name of "Canada", for this country.  Therefore the long form offical name of this country was left UNDEFINED (on July 1, 1867).
Dammit. (Sad-faced Don)
ArmchairVexillologistDon 13:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm impressed that you are able to admit you were wrong. Still, you've uncovered some interesting evidence about Canada's proposed title of Kingdom and how it was lost.Homey 16:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don, thank you for continuning your research and analysis even though it led you to a conclusion that you were not seeking. I understand that this was not easy for you. Go out and have a nice walk to cheer yourself up. The sun is shining. Please don't be sad. Ground Zero | t 18:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Very nicely done, Don. Good work.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 03:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: It would seem that the British North America Act 1867 defines ''"the short form"'' name of Canada only