Talk:Canadian order of precedence/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ambassadors

Quite frankly I would find it more useful if those long lists of Canadian Ambassadors, etc. are put on other pages as List of Canadian Ambassadors because the underlying rationale for this page is to give you an idea of the hierarchy, not all the information of who is at what level of hierarchy. Alex756

Are those ambassadors to or from Canada? -- Zoe

I've checked a few those are Ambassadors to Canada, i.e. they are NOT in the Order of Precedence. — Alex756

I thought so. -- Zoe

The Chief Justice of the Federal Court is now Allan Lufty, but I can't figure out for sure what happened to the Associate Chief Justice position. No Judge is currently listed as holding the position on the court's website, but the position is still listed on the order of precedence here: [1]. The positions seem to have been combined under the Courts Administration Service Act, here [2]. Joe

To clarify what has happened with the position of Associate Chief Justice of the Federal Court, the Federal Court of Canada used to consist of two divisions, the appeal division and the trial division. The Chief Justice of the Federal Court presided over the appeal divison, and the Associate Chief Justice presided over the trial division. The Courts Administration Services Act, which came into force in 2003 split the two divisons into two distinct courts. Thus, the former Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Canada (John Richard) became Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Appeal, and the Associate Chief Justice (Allan Lufty) became Chief Justice of the Federal Court. I believe Canadian Heritage has simply not gotten around to updating the Order of Precedence to reflect the change.

Religious leaders

After "Government Leaders of the Territories" and before "Puisne Justices," there is "Religious leaders." Who are these? The Anglican hierarchy in Canada? All ordained Christian ministers of any denomination? All religious leaders of any religion? Srnec 04:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Lt. Govs.

Are they in any particular order? I thought at first by admission to Confederation, but if so the list is incorrect. But it clearly isn't by date of appoitnment either, because that's wrong. So I will go by order of confederation precedence. Fishhead64 00:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the list of provincial lieutenant-governors currently appears to be in the correct order, by their entry date into Confederation; the first four are by their size as of 1867. This is also corroborated by the official Canadian table of precedence. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Municipal leaders

Where do municipal politicians, i.e. mayors, rank on this list? CrazyC83 21:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Royal Family

Where does the Royal Family fall on this list? For example, where would the Prince of Wales be? PrinceAndrew 03:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

They would fall directly after the Governor General. If it's a provincial event, after the Lieutenant Governor. The vice-regal parties take precedence as the direct representatives of the Sovereign.--Ibagli (Talk) 03:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Spouses

The spouses of deceased Governors General get their own position. Do the spouses of living governors general get a position? I presume they get to march alongside their significant other, but it doesn't say this anywhere, leaving the peculiar impression that if your wife/husband is governor general and then dies, you get rocketed from nobody at all to right behind the Prime Minister. I won't change it until someone who knows fills in the data.

I just came here to question the very same thing, there is something not right about this...Cebr1979 (talk) 07:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessment

I have assessed this as a list class (as is it a list) and of mid importance. I danced around mid and high, but in the end I felt both that most readers would not be familiar with the topic and that it seemed to be at the same level of importance as those articles listed under "mid" in the criteria section. Cheers, CP 04:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Prince Philip

Prince Philip was individually listed here as a member of the Privy Council, but I'm assuming his membership in the Royal Family takes precedence, so I removed it by putting it in a comment. If there is an actual specific reason why he should be listed, then just remove the comment tags. Plus it'd be nice to know why that would be. Kelvinc 10:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Persons with higher precedence elsewhere in the table are listed again, but in italics. This allows certain parts to stay intact (i.e. the Premiers).--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 05:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Royal Family x2

The Department of National Defence states that members of the Royal Family, other than the Queen, take direct precedence after the Governor General. But, they're unclear on the order of the royals themselves. I assume, in this case, that Canada follows the UK precedence for royals, as New Zealand does, but can't find definitive confirmation of this. --G2bambino 16:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I would assume that they do use UK precedence. However, the UK precedence should not just be copied and pasted in the order on the page before merging them into one unisex list. Canada doesn't have separate precedence for males and females.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 18:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I was unsure just how exactly Canada follows the UK order; I know Canada wouldn't typically segregate genders in that manner, but thought it might be safer to be completely synchronised with the UK order. I wish there was a definitive source for this. --G2bambino 21:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Mixing them does completely synchronize it. Putting men then women operates under the misapprehension that all women take precedence under all men, which is untrue in both Canada and the United Kingdom.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 01:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The separate lists for each gender did confuse me. --G2bambino 15:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This is more recent than your source and does not list members of the royal family. I have removed the royals accordingly. Reggie Perrin (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That list doesn't mention the Queen either, except in a footnote. Yet even you don't therefore contend that she's not in the Order; you have thus been shown to agree that the list is incomplete. You have no basis for deciding how incomplete it is, by guessing that all royals except the Queen have completely disappeared from it. Use some common sense - do you really think that the Prince of Wales — or even Princess Michael of Kent — wouldn't rank higher than the PM? The more sensible explanation is that this list is of people who actually live in Canada and are expected to show up at many functions where they need to be ranked. -- Zsero (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't contend anything. We can only go by published credible sources, not supposition, original research or "common sense". It's not for us to say that the Department of Canadian Heritage which is the federal government department responsible for such matters, is wrong. If you want to contact the Department of Canadian Heritage and convince them to revise their list then we can revise our list but we until then we have to take the lead from what they've published. Your explanation may be correct but without a reliable source it's original research and therefore unusable. See WP:OR. Reggie Perrin (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

We already have the source cited by G2bambino. The source you cited is not actually more recent, because I've found identical lists on the web going back to the early 1990s, so it doesn't represent any recent change. And you must admit that the source you cite is incomplete, because it doesn't list the Queen. Therefore we should fall back on G2bambino's source, which doesn't contradict yours but is simply more complete. -- Zsero (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Department of Canadian Heritage source is superior because it's more recent and also because it is that department and not the DND that has the last say on precedence. Your claim that the Department of Canadian Heritage list is "incomplete" is speculation and original research. Also, the DND version just says "members of the royal family" and doesn't define what a royal family member is or in what order they take precedence. The old version of this article that claimed to state an order was pure original research. Reggie Perrin (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

My claim that the DCH list is incomplete is not speculation, you admit it yourself; in your wide-ranging edits to the order you have left the Queen in, despite the list. The DCH site also gives an abbreviated list of the Royal Family (it omits the Duchess of Cornwall and the Queen's grandchildren), so we do have some notion of internal rank. (Now this is speculation, but my guess is that "the Royal Family" is treates as a black box on the chart, coming just after the GG, with its internal order up to whatever members happen to be in Canada on any one occasion. It's unlikely that the whole family will ever descend on Canada at the same time.) -- Zsero (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the edit made to the page removing the royal family as it removed the Queen. It is explicitly stated in the DCH list that the Queen is in the order of precedence. The Governor General, under all circumstances, should be accorded precedence immediately after the Sovereign. Please do not remove sourced information.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 02:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have also clarified that though Canadian Heritage does not grant members of the Royal Family precedence, they are granted precedence within the Canadian Forces. As this article does not mandate a particular department's list, I think that note, combined with the source document for that claim, makes it original research to claim anything else.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 02:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I very much doubt that it's actually true that DCH doesn't put royals before the PM. The list on its web site clearly deals only with the order among Canadians, because it omits the Queen whom even Reggie Perrin agrees is actually at the top of the list. So there's no reason to suppose it doesn't omit others, such as anyone not living in Canada. I note that on the same page the DCH gives tables of precedence for each of the provinces, all of which omit all federal officials. -- Zsero (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Save for occasions where we see the order of precedence in use. I wonder if there's any way to find out how it's arranged when the Prince of Wales is present; surely he wouldn't fall behind the PM at any official ceremony. --G2bambino (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that the DND has the authority to have different rules for precedence than Canadian Heritage. Also please provide some source for the precise order of precedence as the DND document only states "members of the Royal Family". Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In any case, even if the DND does have its own table of precedence this would be the Canadian Department of National Defence Order of Precedence and not the Canadian Order of Precedence since it is the Department of Canadian Heritage that incorporates the former department of the Secretary of State for Canada and thus has the final say on these matters. Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Zsero, please note that the table on the DCH site is not a "departmental order of precedence" but is explicitly the "Table of Precedence for Canada (As revised on July 15, 2002)". If you pardon the pun, it has precedence. I assume that if Prince Charles visits he represents the Queen and thus is accorded precedence in her stead but if he were visiting with, say, the Duke of Gloucester there's no reason to assume the Duke would take precedence over the PM. As for the succession boxes on the pages of various royals there is absolutely no source that says these individuals are either in the "Canadian Order of Precedence" as claimed (DND perhaps but that's arguable as I said) and furthermore, even if you want to insist they are in a separate DND Order of Precedence there's no official list of what order they are in so to put a succession box on their pages stating that the Duke of X follows the Duchess of Y is purely speculative and therefore original research. G2bambino, you yourself have said in the first post in this section "I assume, in this case, that Canada follows the UK precedence for royals, as New Zealand does, but can't find definitive confirmation of this" so since you can find no confirmation and we cannot proceed based on assumptions please don't restore the succession boxes again since if you do I'll have to open an RFC on it and as your own words reveal there is no reliable source to back your position, the RFC would go against your position. Let's not waste time tilting at windmills, please. Reggie Perrin (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have restored that members of the royal family have precedence over the PM, as this is clearly cited in an official government-sanctioned document, but I have left out details of who takes precedence within the royal family until clearer sources can be found.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 06:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, the source is clear on this. If you want to create a new article on the DND's order of precedence then go ahead but the DCH's page is quite clear that it is the Table of Precedence for Canada. If you wish to claim that the DND's table takes precedence then provide evidence. Reggie Perrin (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the document you are relying upon is THE HONOURS, FLAGS AND HERITAGE STRUCTURE OF THE CANADIAN FORCES not "OF CANADA". There's nothing in the document that suggests that its table of precedence applies outside of the Canadian Forces. It may be a "government sanctioned document" but it does not claim supremacy while, conversely, the DCH document states explicitly that it is the Canadian Table. Unless you are suggesting we live under military rule then the evidence is quite clear. Please do not substitute wishful thinking for facts. Reggie Perrin (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

First off, it would be nice if Mr. Perrin had the dignity and courtesy to not remove the order of precedence from every article on a member of the Royal Family.

Secondly, all this balking about "official documents" is bunk; the Department of Canadian Heritage itself states that "There is no official manual of protocol or ceremonial published by the government of Canada. Protocol, by definition, has to be flexible and adapt to the various players on the political or social stage," and "Members of the Royal Family wish any elements of protocol to be in tune with what is generally acceptable in Canadian society. The following guidelines are designed to help people feel comfortable and prepared; they are not rules to be applied inflexibly or prescriptively." So, there's a table of precedence, but it is only a guideline, not a rigid law. Further, this list is obviously not a verbatim copy of the Table of Precedence given by the DCH, so there's no reason to remove the names of Royal Family members because they aren't explicitly mentioned in that guideline; if we were to follow that thinking, this list here would become very short. This list is meant to spell out exactly who should stand where in precedence at any official event staged by Canada. We have two sources to work with in order to create that list: one from the DCH and one from the DND. The DND document, however, is a government issued document, not a website, and it states that the order of precedence is for "occasions of state and ceremony in Canada, where state, ecclesiastical, judicial, or other high ranking Canadian authorities are present"; note: there is no distinction between military ceremonies and other official ceremonies. It also states "members of the Royal Family, other than Her Majesty the Queen, when in Canada, take precedence after the Governor General."

There are not two systems of protocol and precedence in the country, there is one. Perrin should desist in dismissing verifiable - indeed, more verifiable - sources. --G2bambino (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

G2bambino, you are interpreting documents which is fine for your own personal usage but isn't good enough for wikipedia. Secondly, you yourself have admitted that your decision to put succession boxes in various articles is based on your own assumptions about what order royals would fall in and isn't based on any reliable source. In the absence of reliable sources you really can't say that the Duke of Gloucester is in position x and the Duchess of Kent is in position y. It has nothing to do with dignity and courtesy but of the need to use reliable and verifiable sources. Anyway, we can open up an RFC on this question and ask other people to take a look at this but in the absence of that and in the absence of reliable, verifiable and conclusive information that supports your position I ask you not to engage in speculation-based editing. Reggie Perrin (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

While you, of course, are permitted to do so? I think not.

I'll go along with Ibagli in that there isn't, as of yet, an explicit outlining of what order the royals themselves sit in, but it's clear they all follow the Governor General and preceed the Prime Minister. --G2bambino (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-read your own initial statement where you used the words "assume" and "no definitive confirmation". You can't admit there are no reliable sources for your material and then turn around and post it anyway. Reggie Perrin (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

G2bambino, I did not say there were two sets of precedence - someone else, Ibgali, speculated that the DND and DCH had different orders of precedences and wrote a footnote in the article to that effect and I was just responding to his arguments. Assuming that there is one rule of precedence the fact remains that there is a direct contradiction between the DND list and the DCH list. As the DCH list is more recent and comes from a more authoritative source - ie the federal department that actually is responsible for protocol - there is no reason not to accept it as more accurate and reliable than the almost 10 year old DND list. I'm also surprised that you'd post a footnote on the page, the one arguing there are two sets of precedence, that you manifestly say is wrong. Why did you do that? Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe you did, specifically where you stated that the DCH gives the order of precedence for Canada whereas the DND gives one for the DND, along with some commentary about living under military rule.

There is no contradiction between the two lists; one is merely less complete than the other. What you have from the DCH is a website, and one that explicitly states it offers guidelines, not rules. What comes from the DND is a detailed official document. Please don't try to convince us that the former is more authoritative than the latter.

What on earth are you talking about in regards to my saying there are two orders of precedence? --G2bambino (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to Ibagli's statement (above): "though Canadian Heritage does not grant members of the Royal Family precedence, they are granted precedence within the Canadian Forces."

If you disagree with this then why did you repost Ibagli's footnote which asserts that there are two tables of precedence?

Both "documents" come from websites so you can't create a false dichotomy between the DCH document and the DND's. The DCH page asserts that it is the table of precedence for Canada so there's no reason to assume that it's somehow departmental as Ibagli did. Nor is there a reason to assume it's not authoritative because it's on a website as you are doing. Also, you will agree that the DCH list is a) more recent and b) comes from a more authoritative source? Or are you asserting that the Department of Canadian Heritage is not responsible for protocol in Canada? Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If what you say is true then you must accept that there is one, somewhat flexible table of precedence for the country, and you must take the DND source as reliable and authoritative. That document is available on a website, but it is itself not a website, unlike the DCH source. One is a .pdf file meant for printing and distribution, the other is not. I won't say who is responsible for protocol in Canada, but I will say the DND's document is more reliable than the DCH's website. --G2bambino (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

G2bambino, FYI the DCH is responsible for protocol and the DND is not and if you take the time to investigate the Department's brief you'll realize that yourself. All things being equal I don't have a personal preference for one table over another but, quite simply, all things are not equal. The DCH is the authoritative department regarding protocol and their list is more recent. Objectively speaking, I don't see how you can argue otherwise. We certainly can say on the page that the royal family is included under a 1999 table of protocol published by the Department of National Defence - I'd even be fine including this in the article portion of the page preceding the table. But I don't see how we can assert baldly that they are number 3 on the protocol list between the GG and the PM when that contradicts the best available source we have. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That, of course, all relies on your personal belief that the DCH website is the "best available source we have." It is one of the sources we have, and certainly not one to be taken lightly. The common sense approach here would be to do what we do on all other Wikipedia articles, which is compose based on reliable sources. (Note the plural; we try our best to not use only one source for an article.) That would mean filling blanks left from one source with related information from another. It seems, however, for whatever reason, you won't let common sense prevail in this case. --G2bambino (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a personal belief, it's a fact that the DCH is the department charged with authority in protocol matters and the DND is not. I don't have a problem including a reference to the DND document and its mention of the royals but the current article states authoritatively that the Royals are #3 when we cannot say that definitively. Say it in a footnote or even in the text of the article but don't make a bald assertion in our rendering of the table. Reggie Perrin (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think the DCH table is flat out wrong then write them and tell them and if you're right I'm sure they'll fix it and then we can do the same. As I said, I don't have a personal preference one way or the other, I just want to ensure we don't pass off original research as fact (as happened with the succession boxes on various pages) and that we don't use an inferior, out of date, source because it's more consistent with someone's personal belief than a superior source that contradicts said belief. Reggie Perrin (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone questioned whether or not the DCH is charged with setting protocol. Your personal belief that the limited DCH website outweighs a detailed, official document from the DND is, however, under scrutiny.

You also dismiss how editing is normally done at Wikipedia. If that "bald assertion" is covered by a reliable source, then there's no reason not to include it. In this case, we have a reliable source that definitively puts the royal family between the Governor General and the Prime Minister in the order of precedence at state affairs. The table here can thus be constructed to reflect that, fully within WP guidelines. --G2bambino (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't assert anything about precedence being departmental. I'm only asserting that there are two lists that appear to be contradictory. One may be correct, one may not be, or both may be, but I know of no source that clarifies that. As Wikipedia is a conduit of verifiable statements, not truth, the contradiction should be mentioned on the page. The DND states that members of the Royal Family take precedence directly after the Governor General. DCH does not. Both of those statements can be certified by looking at their respective documents. In my opinion the best course of action is to leave the royal family in their present location with the footnote (I think the current note is quite satisfactory). Would using bullet points as opposed to numbers (I think that's better anyways, because the number depends on the people present, not in existence in the world) be a better choice? I also think that succession boxes are inappropriate for any precedence lists, whether or not individual royals can be placed in them, due to the nature of precedence.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 01:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Should the article include members of the Royal Family other than the Queen when no mention is made of these individuals in the Department of Canadian Heritage's Table of Canadian Precedence at http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/pe/precedence_e.cfm ? Reggie Perrin (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it should, for the following reasons:

• [3] The Department of Canadian Heritage (DCH) states r.e. the protocol guidelines: "There is no official manual of protocol or ceremonial published by the government of Canada. Protocol, by definition, has to be flexible and adapt to the various players on the political or social stage."
• [4] The DCH states r.e. the protocol guidelines: "Members of the Royal Family wish any elements of protocol to be in tune with what is generally acceptable in Canadian society. The following guidelines are designed to help people feel comfortable and prepared; they are not rules to be applied inflexibly or prescriptively."
• [5] The Department of National Defence (DND) states that the order of precedence outlined in its document Honours, Flags, and Heritage Structure of the Canadian Forces is for "occasions of state and ceremony in Canada, where state, ecclesiastical, judicial, or other high ranking Canadian authorities are present." Note: there is no distinction between military and other official events.
• [6] The DND states that: "members of the Royal Family, other than Her Majesty the Queen, when in Canada, take precedence after the Governor General."

The DCH source, while of some worth, is merely a website, and may not be complete. The DND source, however, is a very detailed, government issued document, and therefore is holds more authority. --G2bambino (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You are assuming that the DCH table excludes the royal family because it "may not be complete". The DCH table is more recent than the DND document and, most importantly, it is the DCH that is the government department that has been given authority in Canada in regards to protocol, not the DND so as there is a conflict between the table of protocol in the Departnent of National Defence Document and the table of protocol provided by the DCH which is explicitly titled "Table of Precedence for Canada (As revised on July 15, 2002)" we have no choice but to go with the DCH's table. We can have a footnote which states that an earlier table of protocol issued by the DND includes the royal family in position 3 but we should not state that this is a definitive which is what your edits are doing. Also, the footnote that you and Ibagli have included is pure original research and should be removed or rewritten. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course I am assuming, hence the word may instead of is.

Freshness is not a factor here.

Regardless of whether the DCH is charged with protocol or not, the DND document is more solid than the DCH website. --G2bambino (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't "freshness" a factor? Any researcher worth his or her salt will give more weight to a more recent document than to an older document when it comes to something like rules and regulations currently in force. There's also no reason to assert that the DND document is more "solid" than the DCH document. Why is it more solid? Because it's in PDF format rather than HTML? Come on! And lastly, you cannot blithely dismiss the fact that the DCH is charged with protocol, and is therefore the definitive governmental source on the matter, while the DND is not. Let's say that DND and DCH both published something on the rules of engagement of Canadian Forces in Afghanistan. The DND document is from 2006 and the DCH document is from 2004. The DND document is html and the DCH document is a pdf. Would you seriously argue that the Department of Canadian Heritage has the final say on military matters and that its older document should be seen as more authoritative than something coming from the Defence Department just because it's a PDF? No, I don't think you would; so the reverse cannot hold. Clearly the department charged with protocol is the superior source on a question of protocol. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the royal family was dropped from the order of precedence sometime between 1999 and 2002? Unless you are, freshness is not a factor.

Your argument does nothing to prove the DCH website is more authoritative than the DND protocol document. --G2bambino (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure it does, the DCH is the authoritative body and the table is found on their website. The DND is not the authoritative body and their document is almost ten years old and is not currently on their website (the url given is not the DND url) so for all we know it may have been withdrawn or superseded by now. Reggie Perrin (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no explanation as to why a 1999 document mentions the royals and a document from this century does not; I simply note that there is a contradiction and that we need to abide by the more reliable and authoritative source. However, we have seen a gradual removal of monarchial symbols from our official life so it's certainly not outside the realm of possibility that the royals were quietly dropped from the Table of Precedence at some point but I'm not going to speculate on that one way or the other. Reggie Perrin (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, this all rests on your personal take on which source is more sound than another.

Also, really, the difference in age between the two sources is three years, at most. You make it sound as though the DCH site was put up an hour ago. --G2bambino (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As to timing, what matter are that the the Dept. of Heritage information is "As revised on July 15, 2002", while the DND information pre-dates that revision. Further, the Dept. of Heritage information is current: It shows what is now the case, according to the body (Heritage Canada) which sets what is the case. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur with R.P. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a surprise. --G2bambino (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've found another source. Please see page 33 (or 1A-1) of the "solid" document your provided from the DND:

ANNEXE A

TABLE OF PRECEDENCE FOR CANADA

(Reprint of regulations published by the Department of Canadian Heritage as revised 4 November 1993)

1. The Governor-General of Canada or the Administrator of the Government of Canada (notes 1, 2, and 2.1).

2. The Prime Minister of Canada (Note 3).

3. The Chief Justice of Canada (Note 4).

4. The Speaker of the Senate.

5. The Speaker of the House of Commons.

6. Ambassadors, High Commissioners, Ministers Plenipotentiary (Note 5).

I won't reproduce the rest of it here but you get the idea. It seems, by the way, that these are formal regulations and not just something slapped up onto a website as has been suggested. The section that g2bambino is relying upon refers specifically to the military ie "This chapter amplifies Queen's Regulations and Orders (QR&O) article 3.43, which gives responsibility for determining precedence on a parade or at ceremonial functions to the parade commander or other officer in charge of military participation." There is nothing here that states that this applies outside of military ceremonies or functions. Specific reference is made to miliary units and also specific reference is made to the Canadian Forces, military parades etc. I'm afraid you've been taking this out of context and applying this to Canada as as whole is original research. Reggie Perrin (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the discovery here? The document says the chapter in question amplifies the Queen's Regulations; i.e. it builds on those that outline precedence within the military officers and regiments (per section 1.6). As I pointed out earlier, it also goes on to say (in 1.4) that the Order of Precedence for Individuals is "for individuals on occasions of state and ceremony in Canada"; no mention of being only for military circumstances. Appendix A does indeed show the same order of precedence that's on the DCH site, but the DCH site omits the detail of the royal family that's shown in 1.5 of the DND document.

This still does not confirm that what the DND document says is inadmissable here, or that it is somehow lesser than the DCH website. --G2bambino (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The language of the DND document explicitly limits this to military functions (read all of chapter 1, not just the section your quoted before - no cherry picking!). I've edited the page with a compromise I hope you'll find acceptable as it makes mention of the royal family and actually includes them in the main table, which is more than I wanted to do earlier, but does not exceed the information given in your source which is what was happening before. Not sure what to do about the succession box on the GG and PM's pages though. Perhaps that can be discussed on the relevant talk pages? Reggie Perrin (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it amplifies the Queen's Regulations which are military regulations applying only to the Canadian Forces and not outside of it. It takes the general order of precedence and then applies it to military circumstances by adding in other elements such as other members of the royal family (presumably as many of them are colonels-in-chief of Canadaian regiments) along with members of the forces. There is no reason to assume, as you do, that the application of the rules of precedence within the military are applicable to civil society particularly as the regulation you are relying on is an explicitly military one with no civilian application. I don't think I need to repeat my martial law comment. Anyway, I think my compromise should give everyone some satisfaction without completely satisfying anyone:) It gives the royals acknowledgment without straying from the sources into original research. Reggie Perrin (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I most certainly did read section 1; nowhere does it say the regulations are limited to military functions. The QR&O are only for military functions, but the DND guidline "amplifies" those. I don't believe anyone, including the DND, ever claimed the QR&O apply to civilian events. --G2bambino (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Read all of chapter one. Where does it say this "amplification" applies outside of the military? If you don't believe the QR&O applies to civilian events why are you reading in an interpretation that a DND handbook's chapter on precedence for military events? In the absence of anything stating that the royals are given precedence outside of military ceremonies you have no reliable source on which to base your edits. Reggie Perrin (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say the "amplification" applies outside the military. However, nor does it say it only applies within the military. The QR&O guidelines - which, if you read them, you'll see apply only to ranks of officers and regiments - are for only within the military. Within Flags, and Heritage Structure of the Canadian Forces, however, the QR&O are "amplified" by the DCH's table of precedence, which is "amplified" itself by section 1.5. --G2bambino (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

How is the footnote that I put on original research at all? It states only things which are cited (at least the part I put in). The other one, yes, it did, and I do think that there should be no precedence placed that can't be sourced (though I think it's correct, I understand the rules of Wikipedia). Is there any explicit proof that DCH has sole jurisdiction over precedence anyways, or is that original research? I assume that since you mandate this as fact that you know the order in council granting DCH the sole and primary authority to create precedence in Canada. Unless you can show where there is actual OR, I think the tag should be removed.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 01:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

G2bambino was asserting that your interpretation (which he misattributed to me) that the military used its own variation of the order of precedence was incorrect. Upon reading chapter one of the manual I think you are right and he is wrong and that he is conducting original research by trying to apply the order or precedence used for military ceremonies to civil society. I've clarified the footnote - G2bambino's version erroneously suggested that the royals were included in the order of precedence issued by the DCH. However, I still think the current version of the page is misleading since, unless you read the footnote and read it carefully, the table suggests that royals other than The Queen are part of the Table of Precedence for Canada when, in fact, they are not. Reggie Perrin (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't claim that the order reproduced is the the Table of Precedence as issued by PCH, though. Perhaps a note about the differing orders at the beginning of the article is in order. How about this for a start?

The Department of Canadian Heritage issues a Table of Precedence for Canada (ref here). The Department of National Defence issues almost identical guidelines, with the primary difference being the inclusion of members of the Canadian Royal Family (ref here). The table issued by the Department of Canadian Heritage does not include any members of the Royal Family other than the Sovereign. Defence guidelines, however, specify that members of the Royal Family take precedence after the Governor General.

--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 01:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That's sensible except I think it should be specified that the DND's guidelines are for the Canadian Forces (hence the title of the book Honours, Flags, and Heritage Structure of the Canadian Forces) although if you work the DND reference into the existing sentence on the military I think that would work as well. Reggie Perrin (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Department of Canadian Heritage issues a Table of Precedence for Canada (ref here). The Department of National Defence issues almost identical guidelines for use in the Canadian Forces, with the primary difference being the inclusion of members of the Canadian Royal Family (ref here). The table issued by the Department of Canadian Heritage does not include any members of the Royal Family other than the Sovereign. Defence guidelines, however, specify that members of the Royal Family take precedence after the Governor General.

How about that?--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 02:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It fits the sources - go for it. Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I had been thinking earlier about the opening of this article, so I'm glad to see others have had the same thoughts. However, it's still a personal interpretation of the sources to state that the DND table of precedence is for use in the CF only. If that was the case, how would there be reconciliation between two different orders of precedence for two different organizations involved in the same event? There can't be; so, the DND reproduces the DCH order of precedence for individuals (fitting their QR&O internal precedence into the right spot for all military members present) and filling in the DCH's blank where the royals should be placed. There is one order of precedence at the national level; there can't be two. --G2bambino (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Earlier, Reggie Perrin wrote a comment beginning with "I've found another source." I won't reproduce the whole comment here, but I actually alluded to this source earlier. RP seems not to realise what it means, though. The fact that this Annex is identical to the table on the DCH site means that nothing changed between 1998 and 2002. It's not that the Royal Family was in the precedence table when the DND booklet was published, and was subsequently removed; it's that the DCH table is incomplete. The fact that it's unchanged from earlier actually disproves RP's contention that it's more recent and should prevail.

And I repeat my contention that the DCH document is obviously incomplete, and even RP must admit so, because it omits not just the rest of the royal family but the Queen herself! Nobody denies that the Queen, when in Canada, comes before the G-G, despite her not appearing on the DCH table. Therefore the DCH table is incomplete and its omission of the royal family means nothing and cannot be relied on. QED. -- Zsero (talk) 07:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You are assuming it is incomplete. The footnotes on the DCH document, which is actually a regulation as made clear in the DND appendix, do make it clear that the Queen holds precedence over the GG but make no mention of the other royals. Conversely, while this DND document has a lot to say about military parades, units and various matters regarding military protocol it makes no claims of being applicable outside of the Canadian Forces. It is clearly an internal document addressed only to military protocol and function. If you have another document from the DCH or from the office of the Governor General or Buckingham Palace regarding the place of HRHs within Canada's order of precedence then please produce it. Reggie Perrin (talk) 07:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, as RP aludes to, even if it is incomplete, we have no way of knowing. Wikipedia is meant to be a repository of verifiable facts, not a repository of the obvious or of the true. I think if it were up to what is "obvious" (at least to me), the Royal Family would be placed in there in some manner (probably in the way it was before the other day), because it's highly unlikely that they would be sent to the back of the table. And the DCH table does have the Queen, added as a footnote but with a clear position.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 08:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The DCH table does not list the Queen. It says the GG is #1 and the PM is #2. Where's the Queen? #0? The footnote doesn't say the Queen comes first either; it assumes it as a matter of course (as indeed it is) and says that the GG comes right after her. The point of that footnote is not to say that the Queen comes first, but that the GG doesn't disappear altogether. Without the footnote one might think that since she's just a stand-in for the Queen, when the Queen's around and needs no stand-in the GG is nothing. The absence of the Queen proves that the DCH list is incomplete. The fact that it appears as an annex to the DND list proves that they're compatible. Together they prove that the DND list is correct about the placement of the royals. -- Zsero (talk) 09:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the content of the DND and DCH tables, one thing isn't being considered here. The DND document does not appear to be part of any legislation or the National Defense Act. It clearly says: "Issued on Authority of the Chief of the Defence Staff" [7] meaning it's an internal document compiled by DND staff. On the other hand, the DCH table is compiled directly by the federal ministry responsible for matters relating to the monarchy. Therefore, the DCH table trumps the DND table. - MC Rufus (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The DCH table is not part of any legislation either. It is a guideline, and the DCH admits as much. --G2bambino (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact the DND booklet specifically refers to the DCH table as "regulations published by the Department of Canadian Heritage". Reggie Perrin (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it does. --G2bambino (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

According to wikipedia "Regulation can be considered as legal restrictions promulgated by government authority. One can consider at least two levels in democracies -- legislative acts, and implementing specifications of conduct imposed fine. This administrative law or implementing regulatory law is in contrast to statutory or case law." Reggie Perrin (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so now you're going to take the DND's use of the term "regulation" to mean the DCH's order of precedence is a law, in complete contradiction to the DCH's admission that the protocol guidelines aren't rigid laws of any kind.

Regardless of this bit of OR, nothing dismisses the point that the DND fills in blanks in the DCH's order. In fact, we've filled in blanks in the DCH's order. Should we erase all those names and just cut and paste the DCH website in here? --G2bambino (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not OR, first of all because I'm discussing this on the talk page and not putting it in the article (although there is no reason not to refer to the DCH table as a "regulation" in the article as the DND rendering of it specifically uses that word), secondly because, as you know, "regulation" has a specific meaning in bureaucrat-speak/government-speak that the drafters of the DND's manual would be very much aware of. Or are you suggesting that the DND is unaware of the plain meaning of words they put in their manuals? My point is that the DCH table is not some loosey-goosey fact sheet thrown together by the DCH and put up on their website as you've been implying; it's a formal government regulation which gives it some status. Reggie Perrin (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is OR in that you are making a personal interpretation of a source; I didn't suggest you were trying to insert it into the article.

I suppose my point is, firstly: how are you going to square the apparent contradiction in claims from the DND and DCH? And, secondly, what difference does it make? The article now, as far as I can see, spells out exactly what the sources say, and do not say. I think that's fair, and completely within WP guidelines. --G2bambino (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it is an application for military purposes and adds the formal table of precedence used nationally for Canada to internal military precedence. At the beginning of this section you have a point 5 where you misapply a quote to imply the military booklet's order of precedence applies throughout Canada for non-military purposes. In fact, you left a crucial part out of the quote.

Paragraph 4 of Chapter 1 reads in full:

The order of precedence for individuals on occasions of state and ceremony in Canada, where state, ecclesiastical, judicial or other high ranking Canadian authorities are present, is shown at Annex A.

Those last four words, which you omitted, are crucial as Annex A is the DCH table so what the military booklet is saying is not that its version of the order of precedence applies to all state, ecclesiastical, judicial authorities but that the DCH table applies in those situations. After chapter 1 discusses the placement of individuals not included in the DCH (such as royal personages who are not Queen), the table outlines the placement of special forces, reserve forces etc. Clearly, the two documents are not claiming to have the same jurisdiction or application. The DND order is for military uses and integrates the national table into its own uses with its own personnel while the DCH regulation applies generally "where state, ecclesiastical, judicial or other high ranking Canadian authorities are present" Reggie Perrin (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is no stipulation in the DND guideline that the royal family is placed after the Governor General only for "military purposes" (whatever that means). Not that it really matters, but where, if your version of things was correct, would Prince Charles stand at a ceremony organised by the gov't but involving the military? If there were two versions of the order or precedence, that would lead to some real confusion! --G2bambino (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I was expecting you to admit that you inadvertently altered the meaning of paragraph 4 by taking out the last four words and apologize for your error:) (I suspect you didn't read Annex A, assumed it was unimportant or fit into your preconceptions, and didn't realise you were distorting the quote with your omission) Anyway, now you are asking me to speculate. My assumption is that since the PoW would be here representing the Queen he would precede the GG. You are suggesting that the military's internal guideline would apply and that he would follow the GG. Not a minor difference and not something we should get wrong. Reggie Perrin (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Did I alter the meaning of the fourth paragraph? I don't understand how; I was aware, and, in fact, pointed out at least once already, that the list in Appendix A was that issued by the DCH. That the DCH's list is there doesn't preclude the point that the DND fills in a blank in the DCH's order, nor that there is any mention of the insertion being applied only to military events. The DND includes the DCH's list to aid in the organisation of an event of any kind - no distinction is made between purely military events, purely governmental events, or, what happens most often, a mix of the two - and shows where the royals fit in, where the DCH does not. I'm not going to argue any longer that the list on the DCH website isn't "official" in any way; it's inclusion in the DND document affirms that it does hold authority. But, at the same time, it's inclusion in the DND document shows there was no change in the order of precedence between 1999 and 2002, and that the DCH list is indeed missing certain information. --G2bambino (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Addition (sorry): the Governor General always represents the Queen, and thus holds precedence over members of the Royal Family. For instance, at the funeral of Pierre Trudeau, Adrienne Clarkson was listed as representing the Queen, though the Duke of York attended as well. It would be interesting to see who he was representing there, if anyone at all. --G2bambino (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes you altered the meaning of paragraph 4 because you omitted all reference to the Appendix by removing the words "is shown at Annex A." By doing so you implied the paragraph said the exact opposite of what it actually said, ie your misquote implied the military's rendering of precedence had universal application when, in fact, the paragraph was acknowledging that the DCH table had that status. Reggie Perrin (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did mean to say that the precedence structure laid out in the Forces' document has universal application - federally, anyway. That the DND uses - and expands on - the DCH table only serves to affirm that. Thus, I didn't think the presence of the appendix needed mentioning. Sorry if I wasn't clear. --G2bambino (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I see the order of precedence articles on Australia and Jamaica make no mention of the royal family either. Reggie Perrin (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wanna hear something embarrassing? I didn't know that the Canadian royal family was listed in our order of precedence. Oh well, learn something new everyday. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha! That's nothing, GoodDay. Canadian taxpayers even pick up the tab when members of the Queen's family visit. Talk about fringe benefits. - MC Rufus (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If DCH is the authority that actually regulates this matter, then DCH's list is the most authoritative source. Period. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any question anymore about the DCH being an authoritative source. --G2bambino (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Bearcat said DCH is the authoritative source, not just an authoritative source.

So should we continue to list the royal family, other than the Queen, in our table? I see that New Zealand order of precedence doesn't make any assumptions about where the royals fall but simply has a mention of them in the introduction. I think the statement written by Ibagli is sufficient and we shouldn't actually list the royals in #3 since that's misleading, even with the footnote. Reggie Perrin (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The DND document is a reliable source for where the royals fit into the order of precedence. In fact, it makes our insertion of the royals more verified than the vast majority of names on this list. --G2bambino (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The DND document, chapter 1, paragraph 4, defers to the DCH's in terms of precedence for "occasions of state and ceremony in Canada, where state, ecclesiastical, judicial, or other high ranking Canadian authorities are present". The DND document applies only to DND functions and makes no claim at being the definitive list for Canada. You are infusing it with a wider application than it claims for itself. Reggie Perrin (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say the DND document's placement of the royals applies only to DND functions? This sets up the whole "two orders of precedence" paradox. --G2bambino (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the manual's title? I think that answers your question. Reggie Perrin (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it actually doesn't. The use of the DCH's table is not limited to only DND functions, though it appears in the DND document. How are we to know that the DND added the royals purely for DND events, and did not get that information from the DCH as well? How do you reconsile two different orders of precedence? --G2bambino (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I ask you what is the manual's title? The Honours, Flags and Heritage Structure of the Canadian Forces so from the get-go the manual's contents are directed at military, not civilian, applications. What specifically is being referred to at the beginning of chapter 1 from which you are taking your evidence? The chapter refers specifically to the Queen's Regulations and puts the precedence list that follows in that framework. As you know Queen's Regulations are military regulations and are not applicable in civilian circumstances. So contextually it's clear that this order of precedence is military and not civilian. As for your two orders of precedence paradox comment; I think there you might be begging the question. The DND does not assert a rival order of precedence that applies for Canada - you are contending that so that you can apply the manual here - rather it is applying precedence for its own officials within the broader framework of Canadian precedence. Don't forget that "other royals" are more likely to be present at a military ceremony because of the custom of using minor royals as regimental colonels (yes, this is OR but I'm not suggesting we put this in the article). So there is a need for the military to consider the precedence of "other royals" in its ceremonies. I don't see a contradiction here between the military and the DCE but I also don't see any evidence for your claim that the military's own rules are applicable nationally. Reggie Perrin (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The DND document does not, however, qualify as a more reliable source than the DCH one. If the DCH is the agency that sets the protocols about this in the first place, then their list gets precedence over any other when it comes to choosing sources. Bearcat (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph 1 of Chapter 1 in the military handbook says "This chapter amplifies Queen's Regulations and Orders (QR&O) article 3.43, which gives responsibility for determining precedence on a parade or at ceremonial functions to the parade commander or other officer in charge of military participation." That is the context from which your evidence, which is paragraph 4 of the same chapter, comes from. Note it amplifies the Queen's Regulations (which are military regulations), not the Table of Precedence for Canada as was incorrectly claimed elsewhere. Note as well that what is being explicitly delineated is "precedence on a parade or at ceremonial functions to the parade commander or other officer in charge of military participation" so again, clearly a military and not a civilian application. G2bambino, you can only make your argument by taking paragraph 4 out of context.

You ask "How are we to know that the DND added the royals purely for DND events, and did not get that information from the DCH as well?" Here you are asking us to speculate, without any evidence, that this information came from the DCH and is applicable outside of the military. There is no evidence to support that which is why the application of your position is purely original research. In the absence of evidence supporting your speculation we cannot make the assertion you want us to make in the article. We have to proceed from the evidence as it exists, not based on the assumptions you want us to make that the DND received its information from the DCH. Reggie Perrin (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear what the QR&O are. It's clear the QR&O gives the determining of precedence to the parade commander. It's clear the DND document "amplifies" the QR&O. It's clear the DND uses the DCH list to do this. It's clear the DND expands on the DCH list to do this. It's still not clear, though, whether or not the placement of the royals relates only to a military context. It is as much conjecture to say it does, as it is to say it doesn't. So, without either of us succumbing to OR, all we can say is what one document says and what another does not, which is exactly what the article now does. --G2bambino (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been giving this some thought and my feeling is that the rules of precedence are probably used more often in military ceremonies, or at least on occasions when there is some participation by the Canadian Forces, than in purely civilian settings. Even if precedence is employed on a roughly equal frequency for ceremonies of state then I can see a justification for retaining the page as it is right now with the "other royals" included in our tables. Of course, this is just a hunch so I'm wondering if there are any articles, books etc out there that support this thesis? We don't need a statistical breakdown but some reference in an article to the prominence of military precedence or of military ceremony in the life of the state would be helpful. Reggie Perrin (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Going to the horse's mouth

Instead of all our philosophising, I've taken the initiative and contacted Ms Isabel McLeod of the Canada Heritage protocol office. She's going to look into this and get a definitive answer for me, hopefully by next week. Then we'll know what the real story is. -- Zsero (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be original research unless they could direct you to a published document. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Are you interested in getting it right, or in scoring points?
2. We already have sources; this entire argument is over your contention, without any proof, that the CH table is intended to be complete, that it therefore contradicts the DND table, and that it's more authoritative. If the CH representative tells me — as I expect she will — that its list is not intended to be complete, that by design it omits anyone not resident in Canada, and that in fact the DND table is correct, that should be enough for you. -- Zsero (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"Scoring points" would, unfortunately, be the only acceptable action for the page if the other choice is mere truth. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 20:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Not if the goal is building a better encyclopaedia. Remember that not everything must be sourced; only contentious statements must be sourced, and if no reasonable person would challenge something then it isn't contentious. People who challenge things, not because they honestly doubt them but merely to score points, are not improving the encyclopaedia and don't count. -- Zsero (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The rules on Original Research apply regardless of whether or not the information is contested and, as Ibagl says, there's also the issue of verifiability. You saying you heard something from someone at the DCH would simply be hearsay. I'm not discouraging you from talking to her, I'm just saying we can't use your findings unless she points us to a published document we've overlooked. Reggie Perrin (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the verifiability status will not be changing, and it's clear that one or more users do challenge it.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 02:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Federal Court of Canada

There is no longer a Federal Court of Canada. It is now two courts: The Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court. So John Richards is now Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Appeal and Allan Lutfy is now Chief Justice of the Federal Court. However the Table of Precedence has not been updated and still refers to the Federal Court of Canada. 76.66.17.41 (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)