I, being born and raised in Halifax, could not throw a rock without hitting a city/street/building/park founded by a British noble/officer so perhaps my view is skewed? But did Canada ever have a Royal upper class? I bow down to Northern Piper’s knowledge of history.
Hmm… apparently the Canadian government first asked the Crown not to knight Canadians in 1917.(Some interesting reading in that wiki article.)
And a slight side-track, I remember reading a short story in the Canadian reader’s digest where it was a minor plot point that Canadians were not supposed to be knighted or granted peerages. It involved a haunting by the ghosts of “3 kings”–2 actual royalty, and William Lyon Mackenzie King. 
heheh, I’m surprisingly aware of that legality due to the troubles it caused a local fool, Conrad Black (or should I say “Baron Black of Crossharbour”). 
The direct answer is no.
Obviously Canada has in its history a great many people who were British peers. And many Canadians have been knighted. But Canada itself does not, and never has had, its own peerage system in the same sense.
What Canada has is the “Order of Canada” thing, whereby if you’re famous enough or whatever, they pin a medal on you. There are three levels of Order of Canada; Companion, Officer and Member, from awesomest to least awesome. Lorne Michaels, the guy who produces Saturday Night Live, is a Member. Leonard Cohen is a Companion, so I guess they liked gravelly singing more than “Caveman Lawyer.” To be honest I am not precisely sure how they decide what level you get, but you better believe Wayne Gretzky got the Companion medal. Scotty Bowman, who was as great a coach as Gretzky was a player, only got Officer.
The Order isn’t a peerage, though you can stick CC or OC or whatever after your name if you’re obnoxious.
Well there’s certainly a few English/British nobles knocking around Canada. My 2nd cousin married the son/grandson (tbh I’m not sure) of a lord and they now live in Canada.
As mentioned, years ago many British nobles held appointed government positions, most notably Governor General which was the official liaison with the British monarchy – the list is full of titled nobility. But Canada never had such an aristocracy of its own and has opposed the granting of British peerages to Canadians ever since the Nickle Resolution of 1917. After the patriation of the Constitution in 1982 the last of the remaining formalities with British colonialism were dissolved, although Canada remains a member of the Commonwealth and the Queen is the symbolic head of state.
However, even in the very unusual case of the reserve powers of the head of state being invoked to resolve some political quandary like the dissolution of Parliament or the assent to a governing coalition, the actual decision would be made by the Governor General, in the name of the Queen but not by the Queen. The only role of the Queen in Canada has been to come over on occasion and smile a lot, and increasingly, lately, to send the grandkids over to smile a lot. The principle of constitutional monarchy is an important aspect of Canadian government, but the actual British monarchy has no practical role in it.
To my knowledge there has never been a situation in Canada where the aristocracy (which by definition would have been French hundreds of years ago or British more recently) has wielded any intrinsic authority separate from the specific positions to which they were appointed. Whereas in Britain, a peerage might under the right conditions entitle you to a seat in the House of Lords, and historically to literally be a “land lord” over hereditary landholdings, or to function as a magistrate and hand out fines and sentences to transgressors in your domain.
Answering your underlying question about Confederation notables being moneyed landowners and military, if you look at the Fathers of Confederation, most came from middle and upper middle class backgrounds…lots of sons of doctors and lawyers and such, and a few were self made (George Cole, the first premier of New Brunswick, for instance, was the son of a poor farmer who became a brewer.
A few were big landowners or from prominent families, but most weren’t.
The closest I can think of to that was the Seigneurial system in Quebec, where the Seigneur had certain hereditary, almost feudal rights.
That’s an interesting point, although the analogy to feudalism is somewhat controversial, since not only the French nobility but also many commoners and religious leaders and the like could become Seigneurs under law. The whole thing was in any case abolished around the mid-19th century.
As a side note, the tenants inhabiting and working the land under this system were called by the French term “habitants” (“inhabitants”) which later become a colloquial term for the French-speaking population of Quebec. And now we know why the Montreal Canadiens hockey team is referred to as “the habs”. 
Having never lived in Canada, but visiting Vancouver 20 years ago as a kid and getting stuck on Victoria island because no one told my cousin and I the ferry stops running late at night, I have special insight on the question of Canadian royalty.
Canadians worship the royal line to this day, they dress in green spadex and contort their thin Canadian frames and press against plexiglass enclosures to their god kings, hockey players. It is a common past time to mortgage their own canadian homes to fuel the ever increasing expense of hockey equipment and ice time so that one day their own offspring can be ascended into the pantheon of god kings.
'Tis but our local flavour of American worship of high-school and college football.
Actually, hockey is probably closer to the American worship of baseball. Just about every kid in either country plays the respective national sport and aspires to be a pro, and hockey greats are certainly idolized. As for mortgaging the house, yes, but you have to apportion only half the proceeds to hockey equipment and expenses. The other half, if one lives anywhere near Toronto, is for the cost of Leafs tickets, the total cost of which is similar to the GDP of a small nation. :rolleyes:
There’s still one extant French peerage title that’s recognized by the Queen of Canada. Here’s a list of Canadians holding British/French/English/Scottish titles.
Canada didn’t have peers. If you read The Canadian Establishment we seem to respect successful businessmen as much as the Americans, even if we are on a smaller scale.
Since orcenio dared me to respond, I guess I’d better. 
I’ve got some lengthy posts planned, so I’ll call this:
Part I: Responsible Governement and Background to Confederation
My take on it is that there was no aristocracy with British roots in any of the provinces which became Canada in 1867. There had been two groups in Upper and Lower Canada which thought of themselves as the aristocracy: the Family Compact in Upper Canada nd the Chateau Clique in Lower Canada. Those groups supported the personal rule of the British governors with themselves as the natural local advisers of the governors. Similar situations existed in the Maritimes.
However, the major political battles in the provinces in the 1830s and 1840s was precisely about those groups. There were strong movements in all of the provinces for political reform and the institution of responsible government, to reduce the power of the British governors and to make local government accountable to the elected legislatures, eliminating the power of the Family Compact and the Chateau Clique. Those movements were successful, starting with responsible government in Nova Scotia in 1848 and followed quickly in the other provinces.
As a result, the proto-aristocracy of the Family Compact and the Chateau Clique lost power and ceased to have a role in politics. It was then the second generation of politicians who had supported responsible governement who then led the political battle for. Onfederation.
If we look at the principal Fathers of Confederation, who were the political elites in each of the provinces, we don’t see an aristocracy and certainly none with close ties to the British aristocracy, which was the point in issue between orcenio and me in the thread on the Queen, which spawned this discussion.
In my view, if we look at those political leaders, the political elites of the provinces, we see solidly middle-class men, largely self-made. They became political leaders because of their abilities and their success in local electoral politics, not because they were aristocrats or their British connections.
Part II: Ontario
The two principal leaders for Confederation from Ontario were John A. Macdonald and George. Down. They were bitter political rivals, and both of humble origins.
John A. Macdonald: Macdonald was born over a pub in Glasgow. When he was young, his family emigrated to Canada to seek a better life. Settling in Upper Canada, his father ran a series of small businesses, without much success. His parents paid for as good an education for young John as they could afford, but at age 15, he left
school to help support the family. He always regretted that he never got to go to university. Instead, he was articled to a lawyer in Kingston, read law, and was called to the Bar. He developed a good law practice but got enticed into politics. He was a supporter of Draper, who was a moderate conservative who supported reform and responsible government. Macdonald rose rapidly in the Conservatives, supporting business and industrial development, and eventually became co-Premier of the Province of Canada, allied with the Bleus under Cartier. Leader of the Confederation movement and first Prime Minister.
See: John A. Macdonald - Wikipedia
George Brown: also born in Scotland, Brown was the son of a firey evangelical Presbyterian who was strongly opposed to Tory privilege in Scotland. Eventually the Browns emigrated to New York, where his father got involved in the newspaper business. George eventually left New York for Canada, preferring British parliamentarianism over American republicanism. Following his father’s political leanings, he became an ardent reformer, supporting the fight for responsible government and reduction of privilege. His political constituency was farmers and small businessmen. He founded the Globe newspaper, as a voice for reform principles. Briefly co-Premier of the Province of Canada.
Part III: Quebec
There were three major Fathers of Confederation from Quebec, with quite different backgrounds.
**George Étienne Cartier **: Cartier probably comes closest to being an aristocrat, as his father was a well-off country landholder under the seigneurial system. However, George Étienne was the seventh child of the family and had to make his own way. His parents gave him a good education and he became a lawyer in Quebec City. He was involved in politics from his student days, as a strong supporter of reform under Joseph Papineau. He joined the Patriote movement and shouldered a musket in the 1837 rebellion. He went into exile for a year in the US after the rebellion failed. Eventually returning to Canada, he joined the Bleus, the conservatives in Quebec which supported responsible government and business. Co-Premier of Canada and ally of MacDonald.
See: George-Étienne Cartier - Wikipedia
Alexander Tilloch Galt: born in England to a Scottish family. Galt’s father was a writer and land speculator. The family moved back and forth between England and Canada, depending on his father’s business ventures. Galt himself eventually settled in Quebec and became a successful businessman. Wizard with figures and finances, he was attracted to politics as a reformer. Galt put together the financial framework for Confederation. Became Canada’s first Finance Minister.
See: Biography – GALT, Sir ALEXANDER TILLOCH – Volume XII (1891-1900) – Dictionary of Canadian Biography
D’Arcy McGee: Irish nationalist who became a Canadian. Born in Ireland, he was a Fenian, agitating for Irish peasants and against the British government. Having made Ireland too hot for himself, he emigrated to New York. However, like George Brown, he became disenchanted with American republicanism and moved to Montreal, where he became a strong supporter of the British connection. Active in politics for Irish Catholics in Montreal, he and Galt were two of the earlier proponents for Confederation. Became an ally of Macdonald. Assasinated after Confederation, probably by Fenians who saw him as betraying their cause.
Part IV - Maritimes
Samuel Leonard Tilley: born in Gagetown, New Brunswick; eldest son of a storekeeper. Formal schooling completed at age 13, when he was apprenticed to a druggist, which became his own profession. Entered New. Runswick politics as a strong Reformer, pushing for responsible government and the reduction of the powers of the British governor. Rose steadily in the reform group in New Brunswick and became
premier. Strong supporter of Confederation.
See: Biography – TILLEY, Sir SAMUEL LEONARD – Volume XII (1891-1900) – Dictionary of Canadian Biography
Charles Tupper: son of a Baptist minister, Tupper became a doctor, with an MD from the University of Edinburgh. He became active in Nova Scotia politics in the Conservative prty, after responsibile government was achieved. Became Premier of Nova Scotia and strong supporter of Confederation.
See: Charles Tupper - Wikipedia
George Coles: born in Prince Edward Island. Son of a farming couple, he had little formal education. Became a farmer and small businessman, then became involved in the brewing industry. Strong advocate for reform, responsible government, and the abolition of British absentee landholding on the Island. First Premier of PEI after responsible government was achieved. Attended the Confederation conferences, but opposed Confederation because he did not think it would end British absentee land-holding.
Part V: Summary
So that’s a sketch of the political elite at Confederation. To my mind, the thing that stands out is the complete lack of gentry or aristocracy amongst them, and no family connections to the British aristocracy. The only one who comes close is Cartier, the younger son of a Quebec seigneur. However, he was the one who originally was the most opposed to the British connection, actually taking up arms against the government in 1837.
All of them were self-made men, some from very humble beginnings. Only two (Cartier and Tupper) went to university. The rest made their way by law, business or journalism.
Now, I’m not trying to suggest that there wasn’t money in Canada and the Maritimes at this period. There were rich people, but they got their money the old-fashioned way: they earned it, primarily in business. Looking at the leaders of the Fathers of Confederation, not one was a land-holder of any great means.
I’ll close with a reference to an extract from a recent book on the Quebec Conference, excerpted in the Walrus. It makes the point that one of the reasons the Fathers of Confederation settled on an appointed Senate was precisely because they wanted popular control of government. They wanted a second chamber of review and sober second thought. They didn’t want an elected upper house, because they wanted the centre of political power to be in the Commons, the popularly elected chamber. Government appointment of Senators achieved this goal. Macdonald in the Confederation Debates argued for this approach because Canada did not have an aristocracy like Britain. Appointment was the way to provide for a Senate of review that would not challenge the popularly elected Commons.
The take home message for me. Thanks everyone, I feel much more educated now. 