Talk:Canadian federalism/Archive 1

Requested article
A simpler article is needed on which activities fall under federal or provincial jurisdiction, for example for employers who want to know which mimimum wage or anti-discrimination law applies to them. Wuzzy 15:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Territories
Why is there no mention of the territories in this article (while the article on the Australian counterpart do)? &mdash; Instantnood 22:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Rename
Can I rename this to Federalism in Canada as it refers to the country of Canada rather than Canadian people? AndrewRT 21:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Aye. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 14:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? "Canadian" doesn't mean exclusively Canadian people.  It also means anything "of Canada."  "Canadian federalism" is also a common term in print. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

One of three pillars
This article has come a long way since the request for fixing up, if I don't say so myself; but I'm still wondering about one thing. While I'm inclined to agree federalism, the Charter and responsible government would be the three pillars, is that a common saying or original research? Who else has said that? CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 23:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say it is original research. Personally, I believe the 3 pillars of constitution of Canada are actually the Monarchy, federalism, and, since 1982, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 200.177.33.89 (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Jurisdiction
This article should really explain what the areas of provincial and federal jurisdiction are. It's lacking without it. - Oreo Priest  talk 22:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Prime Minister / Premier
It's somewhat awkward that the opening paragraph specifies the principle institutions of each jurisdiction to be its legislature and first minister, which is not the case. The chief political institutions are the legislature and the executive council, with the first minister simply being the acknowledged political leader within both institutions (as in practice, the political structure of the executive council results from that of the legislature). SteveMcQwark (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested article
"Have and have not provinces" Provincial equalization grants and transfer payments. 24.77.80.153 (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're looking for this: Equalization payments in Canada.  Oreo Priest  talk 12:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

points for improvement
The introduction, together with the sections on the Charter and the history, need to be clarified. Too much political discussion over the years has tended to cloud the nature of this topic, as the various court cases have shown. It will take time, as this is a very complex subject.Raellerby (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Expansion of discussion on powers and doctrines
I've attempted to gather together - and hopefully summarize - the extensive jurisprudence that has developed on the nature of Canadian federalism, the nature and scope of the various powers, and how they can coexist and overlap. There is more that can be added, but it still needs to be made into something that is both concise and cohesive.

Some other commenters above have also made the same point. I hope this will help out.

Other contributions still need to be made, such as some commentary on the indivisibility of the Canadian Crown, the "colourability" doctrine, the nature of a matter's rising to a national dimension, and so on.

Raellerby (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the section on the Crown requires further expansion; the topic is already covered in detail at Monarchy of Canada and Monarchy in the Canadian provinces. That is unless there's some way to redistribute the existing information amongst articles. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * nothing wrong with a thorough summary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, nothing wrong with it at all. However, I see what's there now as being a fairly thorough summary, already.
 * What Raellerby added were quotes (one within the other) that simply elaborated on the opening sentence of the section in question. His cite (which is a good find) can be used to support the opening sentence here with all the detail at Monarchy in the Canadian provinces (indeed, I placed a part of Raellerby's quote there). -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Edit looks good to me, and the move over to the other article looks quite well-placed.Raellerby (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

World wars
There is a lot of information in the 1914 - 1915 section that doesn't seem like it fits under that title. I know it should be moved or taken out but I am not sure about the typical procedure. CurlyPop88 (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The examples are actually on point, as they show the extent to which the "Peace, Order and Good Government" power could reach during wartime, as well as examples where it still could not override provincial authority.Raellerby (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Dominant themes in the article
Sections relating to constitutional interpretation have been moved to Canadian constitutional law. In reviewing what remains, the following are apparent:


 * Canadian constitutional development has been formed by exceptions, as opposed to any bold strokes,
 * it has been very incremental,
 * political developments have tended to distract attention from actual events, and
 * it would be a disservice to the reader to ignore any of the underlying detail.

The sections relating to history, distribution of powers, and nature of the power should remain, in order to give context to a very complex subject. The history section probably needs a rewrite (by reorganizing, not cutting, any detail), but the other two appear to hold up rather well.Raellerby (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The tag came back
I see that the "cleanup-rewrite" tag was removed earlier after another user did a copy edit sweep (which was quite good), and it was reinserted by another user. Any particular reason for it to return? Reviewing the MoS doesn't help, if there is no specific concern being raised.Raellerby (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The tags there now should give good indication of what the main issues are and guide you to the way to rectify them. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the suggestions, although I notice hardly anyone else has contributed to this article in the last seven months, other than to correct syntax, punctuation and layout. In fact, my greatest concern has been whether I have been oversimplifying the topic, given its great complexity arising from the fact that such a federal structure has been set up nowhere else in the world! In any case, the following thoughts do arise:
 * copy-editing is always appreciated.
 * as to the matter being treated so technically, I haven't even dared to explore the various and interminable political negotiations that have occurred along the way now that would be the subject of a separate article if one can find sufficient objective sources, as opposed to the many polemics that have been written over the years!
 * I have been reserving more detailed quotations to the various articles that have been wikilinked, keeping the more pertinent (and important) quotations here. Any abridgement would have to be carefully done in order to maintain clarity of meaning. It's hard, but I've really been working at it.
 * As to the use of specific examples, it has been necessary in order to expose the complexity of the topic, especially in the interplay of jurisdictions. There has been little work in mentioning the various federal-provincial agreements that have been negotiated over and above the constitutional jurisprudence (which merits a rather long article on its own).
 * Is the article ready for splitting? According to WP:SIZERULE, at 90K it is about 10% shy of mandatory splitting, although 60K is a suggested threshold for considering it. Maybe it's time to reorganize the content of all the various articles in this field, such as:
 * moving content over to Canadian constitutional law, Constitutional history of Canada and Constitution Act, 1867
 * consolidating the various articles about the doctrines of Canadian constitutional jurisprudence (ie, paramountcy, double aspect, pith and substance, interjurisdictional immunity and the living tree).
 * Again, readability is the determining factor for any work to be done, and what I've just suggested will entail a rather huge project. Comments, anyone?Raellerby (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I used to edit this article since back in 2009, but I stopped when your additions just became relentless and overwhelming; not to say that new information isn't welcome. There is just too much detailed information in this article now; it should give an overview of Canadian federalism and the details should go into sister articles, as per WP:SS. So, yes, I would say the aricle needs to be not necessarily "split", but pared down by moving material out between existing articles and new ones.
 * The other main issue is the need to translate bulleted lists into prose and cut down extensive quotes to just the necessary minimum, again, working the rest into prose. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take your mention of my "relentless and overwhelming" additions as a compliment it is surprising, though, that there has been so little competition in that regard, given the quantity of self-described "constitutional experts" that have appeared over the years in the Canadian media. Perhaps they don't want to do that for free (I'm only doing it as a hobby, but it comes out of a lifelong interest in the subject).
 * The MoS does not have a preference for prose over lists, as far as I can see, other than to say, "Do not use lists if a passage is read easily as plain paragraphs." I've been restricting them to cases where I've felt readability is improved as a result. Again, it's because of the complexity of the topic, but all contributions are cheerfully accepted.Raellerby (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Another observation: I have noticed that the daily views of this article have increased steadily over the time it was being expanded, which suggests that there was a demand for a comprehensive article on the subject. This should be kept in mind when considering any significant changes.Raellerby (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the style points I raised earlier have been addressed. Readership is a straw man; the problem is the quality of what's being read. I won't have time to fix it all at once; the tags at the top of the page are to alert other editors to the problems here and perhaps motivate them to make an improvement here and there. Though, I don't think this article actually gets heavy traffic from editors. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I removed the tags because more than six months had passed since the last significant edits, which is the guideline for removing them. Interesting that this article would not get heavy traffic from editors, given its present B class and High importance.Raellerby (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Failed verification of content
Most of the sources being used to support information in the notes do not support the information. One cite pages that don't exist, others don't contain any mention of the doctrines they're purported to have established.

Wikipedia articles are not valid sources. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The sources being mentioned justify the existence of the cases cited. I have supplied pinpoints to the pages where pertinent comments on the subject were being made, but the rapidity of the reverts suggests that these were not even being read. I do concede that the political ramifications of McLaren v Caldwell need to be supported - I believe either Creighton or Gwyn mentioned it in one of their books, so I'll have to dig that out.Raellerby (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, they do. But, the content doesn't say "case [x] happened." It says, generally, "case [x] established [y]." Yet, looking through the cases, in quite a few, I can't see where they establish what they're said to have established.
 * I'm concerned now about all the heaps and heaps of other stuff in this article you have cited directly to court cases. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That is why I segregated the cases and Acts from the other notes into their respective groups of references at the end of the article, in order to provide appropriate legal citations for the cases and Acts concerned. That is proper procedure for referencing such items, for those readers who would like to read the actual jurisprudence (as opposed to reading what others are asserting about it). The other notes provide references supporting other points being made. The concerns that are being raised seem to be arising from conflating the purposes of the two types of citations. I've been trying my best to segregate these properly, while still maintaining brevity in explaining the points concerned. If, on the other hand, complete tie-ins between text and citations are required, be prepared to see this article double or more in size.Raellerby (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You've missed the point entirely. The content verifiable and reliably sourced.
 * It was, but I'm not a constitutional scholar, and no-one else visiting this site appears to have been either. However, support for every comment that appears here is readily available using standard Google searches. If anyone else can do better in such a complex area, they are free to try. In the meantime, I'll concentrate on connected and more-focused articles in the field.Raellerby (talk) 10:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's Wikipedia policy. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:V is policy. WP:RS is a guideline. Carry-on. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

On the same topic, The note 40 is unrelated to the the claim in text. Note 40 refer to antenna cell tower and the the text provide cover cable broadcasting. The link should be remove or the text corrected. Albator2214 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albator2214 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)