Talk:Politics of Canada/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Federal-Provincial spending, dynamics and changes

I put this in at an earlier spot and then realized the comment was a couple of years old...so i'm moving it here. Also i'm sure that the number of small changes i did on the page might be annoying in a look at what has changed way. But I have the impression (in fact it was suggested i do so) that small edits were easier for folks to work through (ie you don't have to look all over the page to see the changes...only in one section at a time). Doesn't look like many folks have been here in a month....or maybe just not a lot of talk...the end of this DOES have relevance to the page, but i'm not sure how the heck to put it in a NPOV way for a good part, and i'm not sure if it some areas should be hived off.

Actually it gets even more complicated than that. All of the provinces except Quebec allow the federal government to collect the taxes and then give them a portion of their taxes (hence if you live in Ontario you fill out one tax form but there are seperate sections where your provincial taxes and credits are fed in and another where the Federal taxes are done.) I don't think that Quebec actually collects the Federal taxes and then turns them over to the province. I don't remember for sure and i could be wrong. But if you live in Quebec you file at least part of your taxes directly with Quebec and pay them directly to Quebec. Also the QPP fund is run independently of the CPP fund and the government of Quebec has shown a lot of smarts in using it to build up the (mostly) francophone businesses in Quebec as well as getting a MUCH larger return than the CPP fund has ever managed to do. If you leave Quebec than the amount you put into the QPP is transfered into the CPP for when you retire. If you move to Quebec the amount you have put into the CPP gets transfered into the QPP fund---so it doesn't cause a mobility problem. From what i remember all of the provinces were given the option on the CPP thing, but none were interested but Quebec(although Quebec wish was why it was introduced that way).

There are several problems with the tax issue. First off the fact that the provinces have the residual power except when there is a war. That basically means that anything that wasn't assigned to the federal government and came up after 1867 became the right of the provinces to decide what to do with. Although i think it started earlier it was when a type of unemployment insurance was passed by the Mackenzie King government in the 40's that the issue became less clear. Basically the CCF was pushing for it and they could get leftish votes of the Liberals to have them loose the election and so he stole their ideas right left and centre (such as medicare). The federal government basically said that yes it was the provinces rights in these areas but that they wanted to have a system that was Canada wide. So they would put some of their tax money (federal tax) into the programs provided that the provinces followed certain rules. A look at the funding of Medicare in the last 20 years gives an idea of the problem. Trudeau passed the Canada Assistance plan which required many things of the provinces in return. The federal government would pay half of the cost of things covered in the CAP as long as the provinces followed the rules. Welfare was not to have residency requirements, there was not to be any "workfare". Medicare was to be portable across Canada (ie use it wherever and the province that is currently covering you will pay the other province---and the individual doesn't pay out in the meantime), it was to be universal (all citizens and landed immigrants and refugees), you couldn't "buy" your way to the front of the line of for extra special service (although you can get yourself a semi private room at a hospital so there was some inbetween). If the provinces did this than the federal government would cover 50% of their costs in these areas (and that's a lot of money and that is what got them some say). Mulrooney put a "CAP" on the CAP program when he was in office. For the 4 richest provinces he declared that he wouldn't give them any more money if their costs went up (and hence 50% was no longer covered). This was just before or at the beginning of the recession. This is one of the reasons that Ontario had such a big deficit after the NDP government got it (not the only one but a big part). Because of the recession many more people were using the services that were in the original CAP program. The provinces still needed to follow the original rules in order to get 50% of their costs (or the top limit they had if they were a "have" province) back. The programs however cost a hell of a lot more (lots of more folks on welfare during a recession especially when you make it a lot harder for them to get UI AND reduce UI benefits). There were other political reasons for the deficit which also included following Keynsian economic policy (which says if there is a recession you spend because it should stimulate the economy and then you save during a boom to slow it down some and reduce inflation....unfortunately governments rarely get around to the "save" part). For example they started a program to build more affordable housing. Not only did that mean that there were more affordable house it meant that people were building the houses. Presumably the people building the houses would not all have been employed or would have made a lot less if the program wasn't in place, and then they will hopefully use some of their income to buy things and the people they buy things will have more money as a result etc etc.)But greatly increased costs didn't help.

I believe it was 1995 when the Federal government changed the funding formula. before it had always been based on what each program cost. So cutting welfare did not get you more money for say health care. The federal government drastically cut the amount of money they were investing and then put it into something called "block grants". The block grants was a single amount that was to be used for welfare, healthcare, post secondary education and a few other thing (i think). Now this did two things. First they stopped giving provinces all that much money. So they no longer really had all that much of a say. And they didn't have a say where exactly the money went. Causes that are popular with the middle classes (health care and post secondary education) were hit and had problems, but it was on the backs of those on welfare that the system really hit.

that is because politicians tend to take the feelings of the middle classes more seriously. They want health care and they want universities. They don't really care about welfare and the people that are poor are less politicized and political. And a lot (not all) of the middle class really don't care how people on welfare or barely off it live or their quality of living. The # of people on welfare that voted for Harris, despite the fact that he had proclaimed he would reduce their benefits by 20% was fairly large. There are lots of reasons for that...they could be from the family that always votes tory or maybe they think it will save money and that is more important. But it does seem somewhat against their best interests. (to point out i'm not trying to condescend about the poor i AM among the poor...although not one that voted for Harris)

Thats how provinces were able to do things like reduce welfare by 20% (in Ontario) and require workfare. The feds still had some say. At one point Alberta was giving welfare recipients bus tickets to go to BC (which had a better welfare system). BC was getting flooded with folks and put a residency period in before you could get welfare (6 months i believe). Here the federal government DID step in and said that they would decrease their funding by every dollar that the BC government saved. They changed the policy. But CAP was changed a lot and the feds had less say (and were less interested from my personal POV). They actually do still penalize some provinces for not providing some medical services. I know either Nova Scotia or New Brunswick (i think its Nova Scotia) looses a lot of money in transfers each year because of how it funds abortions as well as some other programs(mostly abortions). Its talked about on the abortion in Canada page, and discussed more in length on the talk page. But it isn't consistent. PEI funds no abortions and isn't getting penalized...likely there is some technical reason but it gets complicated.

Of course then there is the whole issue of equalization payments that i don't have the time to write about today, which is also seperate and connected. The idea is that all provinces should have the same amount of money (well close) to provide their citizens with needed services from. So some of the taxes of the richer provinces are redistributed to the poorer provinces. This is another spot where the provinces really do end up getting a say in how the money will be used.

Why bother to put all this in? Well i spent a while learning it, and it seemed to be on topic and not really addressed. I'm sure my bias is obvious although i've provided the facts as i know them---wether you are left or right...of course the interpretations i put in are all my own. Also it seems to be one of those issues that people feel is technical and they don't follow much. People on the centre and the left watching knew there was big trouble when the block funding was introduced. But unless you had bothered to follow the pattern from the CAP to the "CAP" on the CAP fund etc it wasn't all that obvious. Just like the Conservatives did manage to deindex pensions eventually in a sneaky way after being told off so badly at the beginning. What they did was index it (ie increase it at the rate of inflation) only after a certain amount of inflation (i think its 3.5%). So any year that the inflation rate is less than 3.5% there is no indexation, even though two years of inflation at 4% will decrease your pension by 4% unless its indexed...and if it happens over two years it isn't indexed. Its slower but it got a lot less criticism.

Are people interested in equalization payements?...i think the section on the page could be fleshed out. I would prefer to see it that way than hived off...but what is the general opinion. Some further discussion of it here before it hives off (if it does) would be good. Also i would like to get some of the above stuff in, but i think a discussion would be a better move than me trying to write it on my own. Its long and how to work it all in a NPOV way is something i'm not exactly sure how to do...although some stuff is obvioulsy POV--Marcie 03:55, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Someone (an annon user) has asked that the parentheses in one section be correct (the edit said please help by correcting..i'm sure you saw it). I wrote that section and i do expect to be ruthlesslly edited so if its better another way fine...but can someone explain what the problem with how i used the parentheses () was...is it a Wiki style thing, grammar...can't fix things you are doing wrong unless you know how they are wrong...thanks--Marcie 03:33, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I need someone to clear something up for me, relating to the canadian government. It says in the politics of Canada article that Canada is a federalist nation, which makes sense to me. If this is true, then why does the online CIA factbook list canada as a "confederation with parliamentary democracy?" Anonymous User, 7 Feb 2005

Confederation and federalist mean the same thing. Earl Andrew 23:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3 Quebecers required on the Supreme Court?

---

"Quebecers ... must hold three of the nine positions on the Supreme Court of Canada."

I don't believe that this is true. That was a part of the Charlottetown Accord, which was defeated in a referendum. It is a convention that 3 of the 9 justices are from Quebec, but not law as far as I know. Can someone confirm this either way? I'm hesitant to make a change unless I'm sure. --Ryan Stone 22:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Supreme Court of Canada Act: "At least three of the judges shall be appointed from among the judges of the Court of Appeal or of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec or from among the advocates of that Province." (R.S., c. S-19, s. 6; 1974-75-76, c. 19, s. 2.) HistoryBA 00:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Structure of the article

I believe the structure of this article is quite a mess. The headings we currently have are as follows:

• 1 - System of government
• 2 - Executive
• 3 - Parliament
• 4 - Provincial governments
• 5 - Judicial branch
• 6 - Canada: political information
• 7 - Principal government officials
• 8 - Political conditions
• 9 - Changes to law regarding funding of Federal Parties and partial and possible impact
• 10 - Other impact of funding changes
• 11 - How funding for the 2004 election was decided
• 12 - Effect of language on federal politics
• 13 - Federal-provincial relations
• 14 - National unity
• 15 - Current issues
• 16 - See also
• 17 - External link

I have since reorganised the article, and believe it to have a more logical structure now. Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony 01:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we reorganize this along the lines of the pretty good Canadian politics floating box. I propose something like this:

Blablablab intro

Executive

Legislative

Judicial

Constitution

Provinces

Political life

Issues

National Unity

All comments welcomed.

-- Mathieugp

Your changes look good, I also wanted to suggest that we address the political organizations of the First Peoples, and discuss how they affect the Politics of Canada. The First Peoples consist of the First Nations, the Métis, and the Inuit. The First Nations are represented by the Assembly of First Nations, the Métis are represented by the Métis National Council, and the Inuit are represented by the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. A new header may be required into your proposed framework to accommodate these additions. Kurieeto 15:28, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I am not sure where to put it. The recognition of the First Peoples is a one liner in the constitution. Beyond that, everything else is under Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (so I guess under Prime Minister / Cabinet) (and the equivalent at the provincial levels). As you probably know, the First Peoples have no real political powers. I guess we need a heading to place the federal government bodies and under the Indian and Northern Affairs Department describe the Indian policies. -- Mathieugp 17:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I have a problem with the current set up of political parties under elections: no parties except those currently holding national seats are mentioned. Shouldn't the article be inclusive of parties which currently have or recently have run national campaigns? I mean, the BC Sex Party might not rate a mention, but the Green Party likely should. Here's a partial list of Canadian parties with articles on en.wp:

• Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada (founded in 2005)
• Canadian Action Party (founded in 1997)
• Christian Heritage Party of Canada (founded in 1987)
• Communist Party of Canada (founded in 1921)
• Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) (founded in 1970)
• First Peoples National Party of Canada (founded in 2005)
• Green Party of Canada (founded 1983)
• Libertarian Party of Canada (founded in 1975)
• Marijuana Party of Canada (founded in 2000)
• Neorhino.ca (founded in 2007)
• Newfoundland and Labrador First Party (founded in 2007)
• People's Political Power of Canada (founded in 2006)
• Progressive Canadian Party (founded in 2004)
• Western Block Party (founded 2005)
• Work Less Party (founded in 2007)

Maybe not all of these should be mentioned, but certainly some of them should be. - Amgine (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

April 20 deletion

The comment about PMs coming from Quebec for 40 of the last 50 years is correct: while Campbell, Clark, Pearson and Turner did not come from Quebec, they governed for relatively short periods. (In the case of Turner and Campbell, the blink of an eye.) Trudeau, Mulroney and Chretien governed for much longer periods. I have removed reference to Martin being an anglophone as I don't know if he sees himself that way. He grew up in a franco-Ontarian family, probably speaking English much of the time, but would he call himself an anglo? Mulroney preferred to call himself an allophone because he grew up completely bilingual with an anglo father and a franco mother. Ground Zero 23:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Despite the claim by User:Kevintoronto (aka Ground Zero), it should be made clear in this article that Canada remains part of the Commonwealth Realm with the Queen as Head of State, voluntarily at it owns pleasure. A. Lafontaine 8 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)

• Again, there is no need to make a big deal about me changing my user name. I did this on April 8, redirected User:Kevintoronto to my new user page, and posted a disclaimer there that I used to write under that name. I have not used the old name since then. There is no subterfuge here. Given that your userid was created on May 6, I am left to wonder if maybe you recall my old userid from your days using a different userid that you are not admitting to. Of course, I will take your word for it if you say that you only started editing here on May 6. I just find it curious that you are making such a big deal about my change of name here and at Talk:Canada.

• I encourage you - again - to read the Commonwealth Realm article so that you will understand that Canada is not a part of the Commonwealth realm. It is a Commonwealth realm. As far as Canada being "voluntarily" a CR, I think that is well understood from the point about Canada being a democracy. I really doubt that anyone would think that somehow HM the Queen is holding a gun to our heads and forcing us to be a Commonwealth Realm. I know that Prince Andrew was a naval officer, but I don't think that he alone would be enough fire-power to overwhelm the Canadian Armed Forces. I guess she could sick the corgis on us too, but she seems pretty nice, and I doubt she would do that. Ground Zero 20:19, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Albertan and Western Separatism

Saying that Alberta has a "vibrant and growing" separatist movement is beyond ludicrous. What little separatism exists there is the domain of a very small number of fringe groups (mostly irate right-wing journalists that scream separatism whenever the right doesn't get their way) that hardly constitute a "movement," let alone a vibrant one. No separatist politician has ever been elected to the provincial Legislature or Canadian House of Commons, and no group or party espousing Albertan separatism has ever attracted a significant number of votes. Western separatism is regarded with even more ridicule in the other three Western provinces. Western alienation is real, and deserves mention, but I don't see how this paragraph can serve any purpose other than to mislead, so I'm deleting it. Bizud 02:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with you and your deletion, I must correct you on one point. Gordon Kesler of the Western Canada Concept was elected to the Alberta Legislative Assembly in the early 1980s. Indefatigable 21:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

That's true, he was elected in a by-election. I stand corrected. Bizud 02:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Bizud, when you consider the whole of how things are going in Politics this year and believing that western separatism is only a right-wing idea you are missing some of they keys as to way separatism has any support at all. Representation by Population is really the only a good reason why most PMs do a pork barrel somewhere in the Eastern provinces to keep a hold on the votes -- since the Western can only keep the government at a minority. If you call that fair representation that you redefined Democracy. Too bad for the Federal Liberals their Sponsorship Scandal backfired in Quebec (surprise surprise!) and they might instead be helping Quebec separation. Western separatism is really just the only expression Westerners have against an obviously stacked election count -- there is no way on earth the Liberals should have been able to get back in after their Sponsorship stunt, all Eastern voters are really saying is that "You messed up, misspent our money, but we don't care, we'll vote you in so you can do it again." Westerners are tired of that line of reasoning and want a positive change and money spent on real priorities not just lining the pockets of your friends. Quadra23 0:26, 14 August 2005 (GMT)

Official name

The issue of whether the official name is "Canada" or the "Dominion of Canada" has been addressed ad nauseum at Talk:Canada. Ground Zero 21:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Lieutenant-Governor

"Lieutenant-Governor" is the name of the position. A province is not governed by a "lieutenant". Grammatically, "Lieutenant" is an adjective in this case that modifies "Governor", so it cannot stand alone. (The Lieutenant-Governor is lieutenant to the Governor-General of the country.) Ground Zero | t 21:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi! You are correct: I believe this situation and proper usage is partially crystallised here. :) E Pluribus Anthony 16:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Support for diagram

Is there support for the introduction of a translated version of the diagram I uploaded here:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politique_du_Canada ?

Already, I am thinking of removing the left-side text so that we could have it in editable wiki text instead. This would make it easier to modify later on.

I also made one for Quebec which could be reused as is for all Canadian provinces:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politique_du_Qu%C3%A9bec#Fonctionnement

-- Mathieugp 00:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Great diagrams, Mathieu! They make the relationships very clear and succinct. But I agree that as much text as practicable should be kept out of the image and in editable text. One comment: "represents the British monarchy in Canada" is sure to be controversial. Something like "executes the duties of the Queen" might be more neutral. Indefatigable 01:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The said diagram

Here is the said diagram. I place it here for open discussion.

-- Mathieugp 14:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes: great diagram! There exists a flow chart that roughly resembles this one (but not exactly) in the Canadian Global Almanac, 2004, p. 139 (and elsewhere in other forms); if there are no objections, I will reproduce this with appropriate modifications. E Pluribus Anthony 16:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead if you have the resources and the time to do it. However, I personnally believe it is better for Wikipedians to produce their own material when possible. -- Mathieugp 17:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I hear ya! Through creating an image, I merely mean taking germane elements from valid references (e.g., the Almanac, How Canadians Govern Themselves by Eugene Forsey) and incorporating them into something ... uniquely Wikipedian, as you are doing. Make sense? E Pluribus Anthony 17:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I get you. :-) I welcome all suggestions for modification. -- Mathieugp 19:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Great! Pending further contributions, I would suggest removing artcles from the diagrams (i.e., 'the'). Good work, though! :-) E Pluribus Anthony 19:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I actually tried at first. During translation from French, I realized it would make more English sense to remove the articles, however I could not find a way to achieve this all the while keeping the sentences meaningful. -- Mathieugp 00:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Understood; let me take a crack at it ... I'll have something for week's end. E Pluribus Anthony 01:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The diagram above fails to indicate two major features of the Canadian system of government that make it democratic, namely that the Cabinet is drawn from Parliament and responsible to the House of Commons. 200.177.192.88 00:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

...Well, actually, those two statements are not actually correct. Right now, There is one member of the Cabinet who is not in Parliament in any fashion whatsoever. In addition there is always at least one (the Leader of the Government in the Senate) who is not in the House of Commons (and thus not all that responsible to the House). Statements to the effect that what you describe is *normally* the case are entirely valid, but when you put them in a diagram and draw solid lines around them, they appear as if they are *always* the case.AshleyMorton 14:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Which Cabinet minister does not sit in Parliament? Surely you don't mean Michael Fortier, who holds a seat in the Senate. I can't think of any situation in Canadian history (post-Confederation) when the cabinet was not entirely derived from the legislature - so I think that, indeed, the lines would be correct in suggesting that these rules are always the case. -Joshuapaquin 15:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's nice, but I agree with 200.177.192.88. The fact that the executive is made out of members of parliament and has to maintain the confidence of the House is the fundamental principle of our system. Maybe you could add an arrow from the government box to the parliament box saying "must be member of" -- and from the government box to the House of Commons saying "must maintain confidence of". Also, you should somehow mention the reciprocal relationship between the GG and government; the queen appoints a GG on the advice of the PM, and the GG appoints PMs and cabinet ministers on the advice of the PM. --Arctic Gnome 19:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sorry - yes, I had a brain cramp there. Of course Fortier has been appointed to the Senate. However, he was not a member of the Senate when appointed (in fact, it took Harper 3 weeks to get around to doing it), and the same has been true of other cabinet ministers. While it is the tradition to run in some upcoming by-election or get appointed to the Senate, there's at least one case where a Minister ran in a by-election, was defeated, and stayed around in his Cabinet post for another few months (McNaughton, 1944/5 - total of nine months) while *still* not in Parliament in any fashion. Additionally Marler (1954), Scott (1873/4) and Ralston (1939) were all Cabinet ministers for extended periods (all about four months) before entering Parliament, making it clear that there was no absolute requirement. I believe that the diagram should at least be constructed to avoid an apparent hard-and-fast restriction. I definitely see the value in expressing the general case and not bothering to explain the details - exceptions are for picky people and lawyers - but if there's an elegant way to soften the requirement, we should take it. AshleyMorton 17:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Something similar for the provinces:

replaced with requested SVG version by Stannered 13:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick note on this one - typo in "Provincial Parliament". In addition, that level is not called the same thing in every province. Many places call it the Legislative Assembly, but it is the House of Assembly in Newfoundland and Labrador, the Provincial Parliament in Ontario, the National Assembly in Quebec... I would suggest "Legislature" or "Provincial Legislature" as a generic term, but I'm not sure that's accurate because, in some provinces such as BC, "Legislature" is really just the building they meet in. AshleyMorton 17:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Even though the Members in Ontario are officially called "Members of the Provincial Parliament" (MPP), the parliament is still officially called the "Legislative Assembly". However, I think calling them all a "provincial parliament" in the diagram is OK, because it is a perfectly accurate term/description for them. Whatever they are officially called, there is no doubt that Canada has one federal parliament and ten provincial parliaments. Calling them all a "legislative assembly" would also be perfectly OK, for the same reason.

Legislature is fine as a generic term for all provinces I believe. I have a much improved version of my diagram of the Canadian political system which includes the judicial branch as well this time. As suggested by E Pluribus Anthony, I took out the articles to make it more English. I was busy working on another diagram that you can see here fr:Image:Constitution-d'athènes-aristote.png. The English translation of this diagram of the Athenian democracy is done already. I just need to upload it. I'll post the link to the new Canadian diagrams (federal + provincial) here in the talk page for comments before we move on to insert it somewhere in the article. -- Mathieugp 22:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

A a complete diagram

Here it is :

Organization of powers in Canada

I was unable to find an online source for the number of civil servants currently employed by the federal government. Can someone try to find this so we can update the diagram with that information?

-- Mathieugp 16:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's much more thorough. It might be a bit big for people with smaller screens, but it can easily be shrunk, giving people the option of looking at the bigger version. The only parts that are not quite accurate are: 1. it says the Senate just looks at bills approved by the House, but many bills (usually less important ones) originate in the Senate and are thereafter sent to the House; 2. The GG does not represent the British Monarchy, the crowns of each country are now filly divided, so the GG represents the Canadian Monarchy, who happens to be the same person as the British Monarch. Other than those points, well done. --Arctic Gnome 17:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course the article should only show a thumbnail of the diagram. You are correct on the Senate being sometimes the origin of bills. I realize now that I actually used the word "law" in the diagram which is is incorrect also. I personally find the expression "Canadian Monarchy" completely silly, but that is indeed entirely true from a strictly legal point of view. I will make the changes right away. -- Mathieugp 21:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a great diagram - thanks, Mathieugp. A few points:

• I think the standard spelling in Canadian English is "Organization", not "Organisation", which is the British English spelling.
• Typo/translation: You have "Candidats"; This should be "Candidates".
• More substantially, even though in practice the Governor General does what the PM tells her to, even in practice the Governor General does not delegate her powers to the Prime Minister. Thus, it is not the Prime Minister who appoints Senators, Judges, and Lieutenant Governors. The GG exercises these powers on the "advice" of the Prime Minister. So I think it would be good to change the arrow that goes from the GG to the PM to an arrow that goes from the PM to the GG and says something like "Gives binding advice on the exercise of his/her appointment powers." Similarly, all the arrows coming from the PM that say things like "Appoints..." could be moved to come from the GG and say "Appoints, on the advice of the PM...", or you could leave them coming from the PM and change them to say "Chooses...".
• Similar the the above point, the PM does not appoint the GG - the Queen does. Again, I would suggest that either the "Appoints..." line is moved to come from the Queen, or the line from the PM is relabelled to say "Chooses a GG who is appointed by the Queen".
• Also, the phrase "Tribunals of Canada" is correct, I think, but I don't think this is how it is usually expressed. I would suggest "Judicial System" or "Courts of Law".

Again, thanks a lot for you effort in creating this detailed diagram.

--thirty-seven 03:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC) [created]; thirty-seven 19:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC) [spelling fixes and minor rephrasings]

Also, while I don't have a problem with the term "Canadian Nation", some people will consider it to be POV. You might want to change it to "People of Canada". --Arctic Gnome 05:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing the "Candidat[e]s" typo. Naturally, I am aware that the appointments are symbolically made by the GG. Maybe we can replace the instances of the verb "to appoint" by another verb? "to designate" maybe? We could go for "to chose" as suggested by thirty-seven if you all prefer this. It's fine by me. In my opinion, the arrows should really come out of the PM box as he really is the one taking those appointment decisions. Regarding the "delegation" of the GG's former executive functions to the PM, I cannot think of a better way to express this relation. Any suggestions? Somehow, we need to find a way to describe how the system works in practice without making complete abstraction of the symbolic nature of the GG in the whole. That's what I was trying to accomplish with my choice of words. At least in French, I thought it was OK. Maybe other verbs should be used for the English diagram. -- Mathieugp 20:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this diagram should show how things really work, and not just show the theoretical abstract. I think reversing the arrow between GG and PM, and labelling it "gives binding advice to the exercise of power by the". Maybe a better idea: leave the arrow pointing from GG to PM, but label it "exercises his/her executive functions on the advice (or instructions) of the". --thirty-seven 00:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Voilà. I updated the diagram to fix the problems and follow your suggestion regarding the arrow between the GG and the PM. It looks quite nice now I think. -- Mathieugp 13:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess we need to find how many civil servants are employed by the federal government to complete the diagram. -- Mathieugp 13:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If you ever feel like making another change to the diagram, I think you should put "deputy ministers" in between the cabinet and the public administration. we hear about deputy ministers in the news enough that I think they warrant mention in the diagram. --Arctic Gnome 19:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

National unity ==> "Separatism"

While it may seems trivial, I replaced "separatist/ism" by "sovereignist/ism". First, because it's more accurate, the Bloc Québécois calls itself "sovereignist" , not "separatist". Also, on Quebec sovereignty movement; There is a large semantic confusion, sometimes fostered by the Parti Québécois itself, between the terms sovereignty, separatism, independentism. These terms are sometimes used interchangeably, but PQ supporters usually prefer the term "sovereignty", considered less radical and emotional than "independentism" (preferred by hard-liners), while "separatism" is usually considered pejorative. PhDP 19:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Generally, do "sovereigntists" want to separate? --thirty-seven 07:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Role of the Whip and Canadian Parliamentary Voting

The role of the government whip and the strong tradition of party MPs voting in line with the decisions of the PM and cabinet doesn't seem to be represented. I made a stub page Chief Government Whip, Canada. Rakerman 16:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Quebec trial courts not bound by precedent?

From this article: A trial-level court from a common law province is required to follow previous decisions from both the Supreme Court of Canada and the appellate court of its respective province or territory. In contrast, a Quebec trial-level court may treat judgements from higher courts to be persuasive but not binding. See Courts of Canada.

This doesn't seem to be mentioned or explained on the Courts of Canada article.

From Law of Canada: Section 92 of the Constitution has allowed for the province of Quebec to preserve its civilian system in matters within the provincial jurisdiction through the Civil Code of Quebec. The court system, being a federal matter, however, is still founded on the common law.

It would seem to me that trial courts, being largely concerned with criminal matters, would operate completely under common law. It was my understanding that Quebec only used the civil law for its civil law (sigh: why do these two different concepts have to have the same name; it is so confusing), since generally civil law is a provincial responsibility in Canada and criminal law is a federal responsibility.

Either the statement about Quebec trial-level courts not being bound by precedent, or the apparently contradictory statement in the Law of Canada article, needs to be changed. (Or, if they are not actually contradictory, they both should be clarified.) In any case, both articles should have a good citation for these statements.--thirty-seven 07:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Politics of Canada → Government of Canada – I can't find any discussion of this in the history or talk archive, but the title of this article is misleading. Government of Canada (which redirects to this article) seems to be the more accurate title. This article is more about the governmental structure and organization of the country. "Politics of Canada" implies, to me at least, that the article is about the various political parties and movements in Canada, which in many ways is an entirely different thing. Such a title seems more to be in the spirit of something like the article on Politics of British Columbia. In fact, the only reason I ended up here is because I was searching for articles on governmental structure and organization, not party politics. Fluit 04:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The majority of articles about the internal workings of countries is named "Politics of", not "Government of". —Nightstallion (?) 11:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Fluit makes a very good point here. It seems misleading to lump the government itself and the politics of a country into one article. There is clearly a distinction between the two, and there is good evidence that the practice has been to recognize this difference. See, for example, the government articles for the US, Australia and South Africa. --PullUpYourSocks 21:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that "Govermnet of Canada" should be about the structure of the the federal government, ie., the Government of Canada, while "Politics of Canada" should be a discussion of the political side of things. Ground Zero | t 15:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, "Government of Canada" has a very specific meaning, i.e.: "Strong. Proud. Today's Canadian Forces. A message from the Government of Canada." The phrase is used specifically for the federal executive, such that Opposition MPs are not considered to be part of the "government" even if their votes may affect legislation. -Joshuapaquin 15:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Joshuapaquin. --Ardenn 15:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the non-political government-related material sections to Government of Canada. Any changes are welcome. -PullUpYourSocks 01:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent job, good solution. Query: did you go to any of the articles that link here to see if they need to be changed to Government of Canada? I checked to see what links there, and assume most of those articles already pointing there previously pointed to the "redirect" version of that article. If so, it may not be necessary to undertake such a review, but I'll poke at it if and when I get a chance. Agent 86 23:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

TLD and Country Code

Any reason to keep these in the article? Seems more relevant to Canada (perhaps in an infobox?) than Politics of Canada. -Joshuapaquin 02:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole "Political information summary" section is worth removing altogether. There is no wikipedia convention to make such summaries, much of the information is not even political, and the rest is simple enough that it does not need summarizing in an already short article. -PullUpYourSocks 14:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The section can be pruned, but it should not be removed: there's no reason to remove summative information about the Canadian political milieu. 67.68.47.178 02:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a very good reason to remove it, it is not about politics, it's about government. The "milieu" of politics can be learned in articles such as Government of Canada and Canada which this section just repeats for no good reason. As the article is now, half of it is non-political information that is already found elsewhere. An article on politics should be about what are the current and past national political issues, who are the political parties, what is their relationship between each other and their relationship with the people they serve. Other information about governing structure of the country should be kept to an absolute minimum. Readers do not need to have a complete understanding of the branches of government in order to understand the politics. --PullUpYourSocks 16:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Small Grammatical Fix

Under the heading "Determination of party funding for 2004 election" from the "Political Conditions" section, I just moved around the parentheses to fix a grammatical error.

Originally it read:

"Impact on the Bloc Québécois funding (if they will need to return funds) is not yet clear but since it increased its share of the vote in Quebec (the only province it runs in - it is expected to be in a surplus position as well). In the future these numbers will be known ahead of time as they will be based on the previous electoral results."

Now it reads:

"Impact on the Bloc Québécois funding (if they will need to return funds) is not yet but since since it increased its share of the vote in Quebec (the only province it runs in), it is expected to be in a surplus position as well."

External Links - Humour

I added a Humour section to the external links. I hope to build on this but it keeps being removed. Some of the Prime Ministers of Canada pages have links to the Hamilton Spectator's Graeme MacKay's political cartoon history of them. While I keep adding a blog spot I find of relevance to Canadian Humour and some political figures, Wiki does not recommend linking to blogs in normal circumstances. However the following exempts this rule: 'what should normally be avoided' #9, this blog has mandated content. 'what should be linked to #9' states meaningful. site comments link to historical government news.)

I am seeking support on this and to add other humour sites, a few which are well-done humour blogs (though they may not tickle the funny bone of all the humour does stand under Wiki's interpretations of cynasism, satire etc.). Political humour has been a long standing, valid social response to government and comes in many different versions of written and graphic forms of this art genre. Humour is a style of relevant historical commentary.

Referring again to the exemption of 'normally avoided' and validation of 'what should be linked', blogs are grassroot commentaries compared to mainstream media sources. Political history and grassroot movements are oft cited in encyclopedias and history books. This is an important aspect of societal reaction to the politics of any nation.

I refer to Wiki's 'Politics of the United Kingdom' which lists Rupert Myers' political blog as an external link (a humour blog), and Wiki's Stephen Harper, Paul Martin, Jean Chretien which are linked to Graeme MacKay.

I disagree with the above intepretation of WP:EL. For context, here is the point concerning blogs:

9. Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself.

I do not think that "Politics of Canada" mandates the Harper Valley link. Certainly Harper Valley is not one of the more prominent examples of Canadian political humour. It does not, in my view, contribute meaningfully to the article in any of the criteria listed in WP:EL for links that should or could be included. -Joshuapaquin 18:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Joshua, we shall have to agree to disagree. There's nothing that says a site has to be prominent and again I mention grassroots to support this. Dancingwaters 07:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JP. FellowWikipedian 02:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of Wordmark

I don't believe that the use of the Canada wordmark is appropriate in this, or any of the category articles. This is an official symbol of the Government of Canada, and it's use implies government support and/or endorsement of the content. A more neutral, and public domain, logo should be used. PoliSciMaster 20:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Use of the wordmark should probably be limited to articles discussing federal government sponsorship of events and so on. Joeldl 23:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Party Funding

I added the word "income" to the sentence which says that only people paying taxes benefit from the tax benefits of donating to political parties. Everyone in Canada pays taxes (GST and PST [in all provinces but Alberta] and the rent people pay includes property taxes. However it you only benefit from the credit system if you are paying income taxes. Athena18 19:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)19:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC).

This evidently needs to be changed, since the first sentence is incomplete :

"first time the Green this strategy was probably used by all parties to try to increase their percentage of the vote. For supporters of the party holding the safe seat, one could argue that even if their vote was not needed to secure the seat for the party, it still made a difference to party funding. "

Since Wikipedia is saying it wants references on this page I went looking for one. The date that the current Governer General was sworn can be sourced at <ahref="http://www.gg.ca/media/doc.asp?lang=e&DocID=4574">Sept. 27 2005</a>. I tried to copy the style of the copy of the footnote I saw on another page but I was having problems with it (after a few tries I decided to write here). Can anyone tell me exactly how that particular quote would be done...I'm into Canadian Politics. If it needs to be better sourced I'm willing to put some effort into trying to improve it (while of course being edited to make sure I've gotten it right).Athena18 20:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Constitutional Democracy/Parliamentary Democracy

I find this line: "As well, because of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and rulings of courts on legislation, Canada is becoming more like a constitutional democracy, as opposed to the parliamentary democracy of its design." ridiculous, as in no way are the two mutually exclusive. I almost removed it of my own accord, but then thought I should seek opinions. Enigma00 06:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Canada is both a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy. PoliSciMaster 06:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Enigma00 is right. The sentence makes no sense, as written. I think the author was trying to say that Canada is trending toward increased constitutional supremacy, with a more divided system of government that emphasizes the judiciary and constitutional supremacy over the prerogatives of the Parliament. However, that's not what it actually says; the distinction between constitutional and parliamentary democracy it implies is a false dichotomy -- Germany is governed by a written constitution, but is emphatically parliamentary. Even if I'm correct in what the author is trying to say, an assertion like that would require authoritative citations. Sacxpert (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2008 (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)

YET, another edit war

What can I tell you guys (Lonewolf & G2bambino), that I haven't told you before. DISCUSS before REVERTING each other. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Lonewolf, you've breached 3RR. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you want? Loner's editing technique is to simply, and repeatedly, revert and leave a vague explanation in an edit summary. This leaves the opposing editor two choices: 1) they have to begin a discussion on the talk page, in which Loner generally doesn't participate (see Talk:Stephen Harper, Talk:Rideau Hall, Talk:Passport, Talk:Royal Burial Ground for examples); or 2) rebut Loner's assertions in a following edit summary and begin a "discussion" (really just a back-and-forth tennis match) via reverts. A crafty system that sets up quite the Catch 22. So, whenever Loner decides to start his game, others have to play along, or ignore him, depending on the situation. --G2bambino (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

After Loner's first revert, start a discussion on the matter & contact him. If it appears he's ignoring the discussion (which to me would be a very arrogant action, on his part), then report him to the Administrators (particularly now, as he's breached 3RR). PS- I'm starting to become annoyed by his actions aswell. See my recent posting at his talk page. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

One would wish it were that easy. --G2bambino (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Time will tell; here's hoping he reforms. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. But, just, perhaps, to quell your anxieties, I'm not going to push the "sovereign" thing here. It just isn't worth it this time. --G2bambino (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Given it some thought, I support that change you had made. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiki link needs fixing

Would someone more knowledgeable than myself please fix the link to Run-off election in Majority and minority governments section? Right now it points to a disambig article. --Nofxjunkee (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Separate federal/province parties?

Is there anywhere on Wikipedia that explains why there is such a disconnection between the provincial and federal parties? Timrollpickering (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

with strong democratic traditions ?

With strong democratic traditions ?

Would someone please explain this statment.

I do not see that Canada's system was ever truly democratic...for example

1. We do not elect the Prime Minister,

2. With first past the post, where someone often wins with less than a majority of the vote.

3. The system is a half-truth claiming it is democratic, but merely a constitutional Monarchy....ingeniously disguised as a democarcy...claiming it is a democracy...

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The system is both a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy. Your comments are POV.PoliSciMaster (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What makes a parliamentary democracy a democracy....?

Its like a synthetic diamond....its not a real diamond.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

So you don't understand parliamentary democracy, but seem content to pass judgment on it? Your comments remain POV, and not suitable for the article.PoliSciMaster (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Parliamentary democracy does not equal strong democratic traditions !

Take a look at the system....you don't vote for the Prime Minister, he or she gets all the power, the Cabinet are not 'free' to vote...and most all reps do not win with a majority, as in the leadership races for each party where run off elections are held....

Like I said before a synthetic diamond is not a diamond. It may look like one, it may call itself one, but it is not ....

I suggest that statement be removed as it is somewhat deceptive....call it a parliamentary democracy....but not strong democratic history....

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not at all deceptive. In your opinion it doesn't meet some fictional standard for democracies. Your comments are POV, and have no place in the article. The text is fine as is.PoliSciMaster (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The term constitutional democarcy does not equal democracy ! This deception was verified when the CBC the national TV network asked Canadians about what type of system they had, and the results were quite inncorrect.

The term strong democractic history...what source is that from ?

Canada's parliamentary system was in fact designed by England when Canada was a colony of the Monarchy of England...one Govenor General was in fact a son of the Queen....

It becomes more apparent that the system was an ingenious way of playing with half-truths to create a deceptive lie...

Canada's system is a weak democracy if anything...!!!!

Other opinions ?

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You apparently have something against the Canadian system of government. The deception exists only in your mind. I think many would appreciate it if you'd stop trying to promote your own misrepresentation of the Canadian system of government. It may not be something you agree with, but it is most certainly democratic. And elections and responsible government equal a strong tradition.PoliSciMaster (talk) 06:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with PoliSciMaster. -Joshuapaquin (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction of logic ?

At the party level the leader of every party must receive 50% plus one vote to become the party leader.

The last party leader elected, (Dion) was in fact 4th or so in the first election, then eventually won the election.

Now at the federal election level, the system does not use the 50% plus one to elect a local winner, merely first past the post whereby the winner can have only 25% of the vote.

So which is correct ? Which is more democratic ?

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well therein lies your problem. You appear to be under some misguided impression that democracy has only one form. Neither of the models you have presented is more or less democratic than the other, they are both different manifestations of democracy. In any event, the question is irrelevant to your initial assertion which remains false.PoliSciMaster (talk) 04:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose the following...there is a simple majority, that is 50% plus one and a more serious majority, that is 2/3 majority, noting that this difference suggests that there are relative differnces between different 'democracies'...they are not equal, as in the same....therefor they may be democratic, but a weak one....the current term being used 'strong' is stretching a truth a long, long way...

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

i have made my observation...the key now is to find another valid source...

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You have made your observation, repeatedly. It is a POV statement -- period. Give it up.PoliSciMaster (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a verified oberservation, not so much a point of view. I received an email today asking for a 'direct democracy' that is a high level democracy.

If you look at 'the logic' of the system, you can easily verify that it is in fact a low level democracy.

Just because you use the term democracy to describe a political system, does not make it a high level democracy, it is another one of those deceptive half-truths...

Anyway, where is the verification of the term used in question ?

( I never make mistakes, once I thought I did but i was wrong )

Any other input ? --Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Important notice

The government section of the "Outline of Canada" needs to be checked, corrected, and completed -- especially the subsections for the government branches.

When the country outlines were created, temporary data (that matched most of the countries but not all) was used to speed up the process. Those countries for which the temporary data does not match must be replaced with the correct information.

Please check that this country's outline is not in error.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact The Transhumanist .

Thank you.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3