Talk:British North America Acts

Untitled

The following text is from Constitution Act, an article which now redirects here. Please merge any relevant information into this article as appropriate. Rossami 22:40, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This act has essentially functioned as a Canadian constitution ever since being passed by the British Parliament in 1867, technically becoming a law when Queen Victoria gave her Royal Assent. The Act gave the new Canadian confederation a good deal of internal autonomy; however, final authority in many matters, especially judicial ones, remained vested in the Crown. The Statute of Westminster 1931 gave more authority, and essentially made Canada fully sovereign, with a notable and anomalous exception -- the document serving as its constitution was in fact the parliamentary act of another country.

Any change to this was delayed by interprovincial disputes and the ongoing language issue that was at the heart of some of those, so the true patriation of the Canadian Constitution was to wait for the Constitution Act, 1982.

• Actually, the idea that Constitution Act, 1867, currently the most important law in the nation, should be merged into an historical overview of some statutes, was ridiculous from the outset; now that that wrong has been righted, there's no need to merge the above material. CanadianCaesar 23:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Are the two 1949 acts cited with commas in Canada? Kurando | ^_^ 08:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Can-pol w.jpg

Image:Can-pol w.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

August 2008 revisions to the article

The following was copied from User talk:T. Mazzei at 09:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello; I’m curious why you saw the need to rewrite[1] the intro to British North America Acts. The article was okay as it was before [2], wasn’t it? Your new version is generally okay too; there are a few minor problems with it that can be easily fixed, but first I would like to know your rationale for re-writing that part of the article. Also I am wondering what your source was for your new version. --Mathew5000 (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It was OK before, obviously I think it's better now. My motivation was that most of the intro talked about Canada gaining the ability to alter its own constitution (and the misstatement or simplification that the BNA Acts were "excluded" by the Statute of Westminister), rather than general discussion/introduction of the acts themselves. I don't know how much I succeeded there, as I ended up moving most of the general discussion to further down the page and leaving a rather bare intro, but I did move the constitutional change discussion to its own section. My new version does not have a "source", other than what was there before, and the text of the Acts themselves, and my own knowledge of the subject, limited as it may be. Feel free to make any corrections that are necessary.--T. Mazzei (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Looking at the article again, maybe the stuff about the Statute of Westminster doesn't need to be there at all? The problem is, the discussion of the SoW in the BNA Acts article is confusing unless you already understand a fair bit about the subject; it might be better discussed in other articles like Constitutional history of Canada. I don't think it is a misstatement to say the BNA Acts were “excluded” from the Statute of Westminster, it looks to me that subsection 7(1) of the Statute of Westminster as originally enacted [3] does exclude the BNA Acts from the general effect of the Statute of Westminster. I will have a go at editing the introduction of that article; two points that I think should be covered in the intro are that in 1982 the BNA Acts were legally renamed the Constitution Acts and that most, but not all, of them are still in force and still form a major part of the constitution. --Mathew5000 (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: BNA acts excluded by Statute of Westminster: I stand corrected. --T. Mazzei (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I revised the article with a view to keeping it more focused on the BNA Acts. I commented-out the discussion of the Statute of Westminster 1931, so that it will be easy to reinsert. But I think we don't need to refer to it in this article. I was trying to make this easily understandable to a layperson without oversimplyifying, but perhaps I took out too much? Perhaps the item about the Acts retaining their original name in the UK should remain in the article, but it's a bit confusing: these Acts do not pertain to the UK at all, so how can they meaningfully “have a different name” there? --Mathew5000 (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The above was copied from User talk:T. Mazzei at 09:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Much better summary now, thanks.--T. Mazzei (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Added a little to the summary, and moved the commented text here

While the British North America Act, 1867, created the self-governing Dominion of Canada, certain legislative powers, such as the ability to make constitutional changes, remained with the British parliament. Canada and the other British dominions achieved full legislative sovereignty with the passage of the Statute of Westminster 1931. Despite passage of this Act, the British North America Acts at the time did not give the Dominion any powers or procedures for making its own constitutional changes, so the British parliament was still required (and obliged) to pass these changes, at the request of the Dominion.

In 1982, Canada patriated its constitution and entrenched within it the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, through the passage of Constitution Act, 1982. By the Canada Act 1982, the British Parliament, acting at the request and with the consent of Canada (excluding the province of Quebec), enacted the Constitution Act 1982, which established a procedure for the amendment of the Canadian constitution by the Canadian Parliament. At the same time, the existing British North America Acts were "modernized", being either repealed, or retitled as Constitution Acts in Canada, though they remain named as they originally were in the United Kingdom. These modernized Acts, together with the Constitution Act, 1982 are now collectively known as the Constitution Acts 1867–1982. These and other Acts form the Constitution of Canada.

--T. Mazzei (talk) 01:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Naming of Acts

Technically, the BNA Acts were only renamed in Canada -- see subsection 53(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. In the U.K. the ones enacted by the U.K. are still the British North America Acts and properly cited as such. Not just in the bound annual or sessional statute books which obviously never change. For example, the BNA Act 1867 should be cited (even in Canada) as either The British North America Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3 (U.K.) or either simply as the Constitution Act, 1867 or as the Constitution Act, 1867 with reference to its consolidated reprint at R.S.C. 1985, App. II, No. 11. In my opinion, it should not be cited as the Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3, even in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hebbgd (talk • contribs) 16:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Royal Coat of Arms of Canada.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)