Talk:British Columbia Parliament Buildings/Archive 1

Archive 1

Official Name

The official name, used in provincial statute, is "Parliament Buildings". The original statutes authorizing construction were given the short title, "Parliament Buildings Construction Act" (emphasis added herein) (the long title being "An Act to provide for the erection of New Buildings for the accomodation of the Provincial Legislature and the Public Departments").

Present Statutes of British Columbia continue to use the name "Parliament Buildings". For example, the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 258, s. 1, defines "Legislative Precinct" to mean "the Parliament Buildings, the legislative grounds and Confederation Garden Park,other buildings in Victoria or parts of them that are from time to time occupied and used by members of the Legislative Assembly for the purpose of their parliamentary duties including any premises from time to time occupied by officers and staff of the Legislative Assembly, and other land or buildings or both, other than constituency offices, designated by minute of the committee" (emphasis added herein).

Various other statutes requiring written notice to a Minister state that the notice must be delivered to the "Parliament Buildings at Victoria, British Columbia" (i.e., see the Income Tax Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 215, s. 18(2); Corporation Capital Tax Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 73, s. 32(1); Insurance Premium Tax Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 232, s. 17(1)).

The contact information on the Legislative Assembly website is "Parliament Buildings", i.e.: Contact info for the Office of the Speaker.

A Legislative Assembly forms part of a Parliament, along with the Crown. In bicameral legislatures, such as Canada and the UK, parliament is the House of Commons, Senate/House of Lords (as the case may be), and the Crown. Fluit 23:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you for adding that. It has no doubt saved us from the many who are simply unfamiliar or who frequently choose to refer to it as the Legislative Buildings or some such thing in order to try and re-invent its name to differentiate from the Ottawa ones. It has and will always be the Parliament Buildings.--Keefer | Talk 08:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I also would like to thank you for that as well. I have found an official document on this matter on the Legislative web site speaking to the name of the Parliament Buildings. Perhaps we should include information about this in the main document? --Skippingrock (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

On a field trip in grade school c1963, we visited the "Legislative Building" and we were taught in our country school just outside Victoria, druing the 1950s and 1960s that the use of "parliament building" was, well, simply "incorrect" - that Parliament was in Ottawa. The curator of the B.C. Museum (various known as Royal, Provincial etc.), Willard Ireland, referred to his work place as the Legislative Buildings c1960s,1970s.. and Lloyd George McKenzie (B.C. Supreme court)+ his father William McKenzie (MLA under Tolmie) (died mid-1960s), and their cousins Trevor J. M. Thompson and W. Meredith Thompson (Medieval Studies, UBC) at various family functions would often discuss the use of the word Parliament to describe the Legislative Buildings by the general public as being "incorrect" inspite of the use of 'Parliamentary Rules of order' and 'Parliamentary procedures' and it being a 'Parliament' as judged by other jurisdictions, - the building was and is a Legislature. Another sore point for these wonderful gentlemen was the use of "border" instead of "boundary" between the U.S.A. and Canada... c1960s and c1970s. Their assertations to no avail..we in British Columbia have a "Parliament Building" and a "Border". By Fluit's definition (previously mentioned) it seems they were 'technically' correct: A Legislative Assembly (as in BC) forms part of a Parliament (as in Canada), along with the Crown. In bicameral legislatures, such as Canada and the UK, parliament is the House of Commons (as in Ottawa), Senate (as in Ottawa)/House of Lords (as the case may be), and the Crown.70.71.19.78 (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

New images of Parliament Buildings

I have added 3 new images of the parliament buildings, taken last weekend in the afternoon, the morning and at night. Since there are already images in the article, I thought I would leave it for someone else to decide whether to substitute any of these for the current photos. --KenWalker | Talk 04:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Baroque aspects

Aside from the symmetry and sculptural massing, and central dome (compare Castle Howard) the close-up illustration of the central block shows the following Baroque features, from top working downward:

Baroque massing: Castle Howard

• crowning figural sculpture
• domed octagonal lantern with Doric columns
• fielded panels in segments of dome
• opposed-scroll pediment, with vases on cornice
• boldly scaled triglyphs and metopes in frieze
• balustrade
• oculus windows in drum of dome, repeated in frieze
• etc.

--Wetman 06:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Murals section: unfair to Begbie

I added a fact template to this:

One interpretation of this latter mural suggests that the judge in question is the famous judge', Matthew Begbie, suggesting the subjugation of natives to colonial law

That interpretation is certainly "out there" but it requires a citation for its source/author/claimant. It's not a very fair assessment of Begbie at all and misrepresents his reputation as a "hanging judge". IIRC the reputation is not deserved, and more refers to his manner on the bench (stern) and one famous quip where he (jokingly) threatened to hang the jury instead of the accused. It's true that most of his hangings were of indigenous people, but these included the combatants of the Chilcotin War (five, I think), and the half-breed sons of Donald McLean (see Allan McLean); the actual total of those sent to the gallows isn't much larger, though I can't remember the exact figure. Begbie often acted with notable reserve with indictments of native people, rather than representing "the subjugation of natives to colonial law" it's more "the subjugation of Americans to British law" is more what his early career was about. Without Begbie, and Douglas (who similarly gets an undeserved bum rap from modern-day native propagandists and their "interpretations"), BC natives would have been subjugated to wars of extermination and random killings that typified the US West. Similarly the complaint about native women being represented bare-breasted, and working as labourers, is historically inaccurate as native women did go about topless, especially during hard labour; and they were the physical labour force including within native society wMrn ience and sensitiivites about sexual exploitation are what that complaint is about. These disputes are just as citable as the complaints, but I don't have on-file the news/op-ed coverage of the debate, just noting for now that this section needs more careful wording and a more balanced viewpoint, than simply repeating the unfounded complaints as it there were true/valid (which they're not). As all too often in modern BC, politics trumps truth sues like this. The Begbie article could itself use a listing of those he sent to the gallows; hangings were relatively rare in BC until the abolition of the death penalty partly due to Begbie's reserve (likewise Crease's and other period justices).Skookum1 (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio in mural section

Other than the parentheses mentioning that Ed John was a cabinet minister in "a former NDP government" (which one?) and a change of tense, this is straight ouf of the citation given for the paragraph:

(himself a former cabinet minister in a prior New Democrat government) has said that the murals remind him of how some traders treated First Nations women — not much better than prostitutes.

I"m not in the mood to rewrite it just now, but also to note that the same article commented that native women often did work bare-breasted 200 years ago (and less, in fact).Skookum1 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Night lighting

It just occurred to me on a visit to this page that what would be a nice addition is a night-shot, showing the electric-lightbulb trim on the building's outline; very much a kitsch shot but also one of the more standard postcard views of these buildings; at one time the lighting was meant to show off BC's abundance of hydroelectricity, now it's simply decoration (unless ended as a conservation measure?). Just a thought....Skookum1 (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

vintage pic from British Library collection

is just begging to be used, not much space on the main page; this is 1903, by Charles Edward Clarke, in the British Library Canadian Copyright collection in the Commons.Skookum1 (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Some more, from Feb 10 and 11, 1898, re its official opening...and so weird to see all the stonework still unweathered and white File:Opening of new Parliament buildings at Victoria, B C, February 10th 1898 2 (HS85-10-9752).jpg File:Opening of new Parliament buildings at Victoria, B C, February 10th 1898 1 (HS85-10-9751).jpg, File:Opening of new Parliament buildings at Victoria, B C, February 10th 1898 Arrival of the Lieutenant Governor and suite 4 (HS85-10-9754).jpg, File:Opening of new Parliament buildings at Victoria, B C, February 10th 1898 Guard of honor 5 (HS85-10-9755).jpg, File:Opening of new Parliament buildings at Victoria, B C, February 10th Photo 6 Guard of honor 6 (HS85-10-9756).jpg.Skookum1 (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on British Columbia Parliament Buildings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090415145304/http://www.victoria.ca:80/visitors/about_hist.shtml to http://www.victoria.ca/visitors/about_hist.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:British Columbia Parliament Buildings/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Photos of the buildings are always difficult because the front faces north and is nearly always in shadow, but it should be possible to get some well lit photos in the early morning or evening during summer. KenWalker | Talk 21:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 19:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Columbia Parliament Buildings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228124243/http://www.bcarchives.gov.bc.ca/exhibits/jubilee/chronvisit.htm to http://www.bcarchives.gov.bc.ca/exhibits/jubilee/chronvisit.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)