Talk:List of prime ministers of Canada/Archive 1

A lovely timeline
I have made a EasyTimeline for this. It is based on the Template:Timeline US Presidents 2. It is here now here, and dont mind the unrelated stuff at the top. Any comments? is it useful? Any errors?- Lucky13pjn 04:55, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have added it to Prime Minister of Canada instead. - Lucky13pjn 20:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

is it too early to add harper?


 * I don't think so, now that he's won the election. the table will have to be completed later though, to get the dates right mylesmalley 05:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is Harper's row taller than the others? I think it is because of the image of him, but I don't know how to fix it. -Arctic.gnome

Corrected. I'd also reccomend that after the "hand off", Mackenzie-King be put in the little bottom one as the "longest served".Habsfannova 01:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I had actualy just added King before I read your comment about it. Weird.  -Arctic.gnome 05:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Harper image
I kind of liked the old image of Harper better (With the blue background after it was made to fit in the square). Anyone agree? -Arctic.gnome 08:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

born/died/burial columns
While it is clear that a lot of work was put into adding these new columns, I think that it makes the list look a bit messy. Furthermore, I don’t think that information is needed in a general list, if people are interested they can look at lists like List of Canadian Prime Ministers by place of birth. --Arctic Gnome 16:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I don't care much for those columns either.--Kalsermar 16:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Harper and Martin images
I've replaced the images for Harper and Martin with ones used previously. (Image:Paul Martin04small.jpg → Image:Paulmartin.jpg, Image:Harper2.JPG → Image:Stephen Harper head 2.jpg) My reasoning: the old ones looked terrible. Martin's was lo-res, and it made him look really bad, and Harpers looked out of focus. Check out the old version and see for yourself. You have to remember that when you render images to a different size, their appearance can change, as was the case in the old version. You should use the show preview button before you save your changes, and go over what you've done to make sure it turned out properly. I don't believe that these are the best images available, but they are certainly better from what they were. If I come across better ones, I will upload them, and I encourage other to do so as well. -- Reaper  X  19:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I already know how to use the show preview button and think the low-res image of Martin was better than the one you put up. In that one his mouth is half open and he looks like an idiot, and least the low res one was somewhat professional.  --Arctic Gnome 14:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about?! He looks like hes making a face. The low res by itself looks good I agree, but when its stretched to fit this list it looks terrible! -- Reaper  X  19:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't the offices of MPs have an official photo that they put into the public domain? --Arctic Gnome 04:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

They do have official photos at the Members of Parliament site, but are not public domain, rather they are under the Copyright Act of Canada. -- Reaper  X  18:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Those photos I just mentioned can be uploaded to Wikipedia using the licence, I will do so now, and put them on the list. -- Reaper   X  18:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That may not work. This is a featured article and thus has to obey the Wikipedia rule that you use a free image over a copyrighted whenever possible.  --Arctic Gnome 05:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Claims to Fame
Great page folks. The very first questions on our mind when reading it were "What were their claims to fame" and/or what was the geopolitical situation during their term. You've touched on that at the bottom for a few of them, I think it might be nice to have a few on-liners for each of the others (it can link into their own page, or to other details pages). I'm about to do a hack job of it as an example, because i'm actually here to learn about the history, but please feel free to fix it up if you find it a good idea. If it turns out that, like the 'dates' above it's not of general interest and/or makes it too cluttered, perhaps you'd do me a favour and copy the content to a page named something like "List Of Prime Ministers Of Canada With Their Key Contributions" Jethero 01:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * At first I supported that idea, but after thinking about it some more, I feel that this now column would make the list a bit too cluttered and it would be POV to pick which events are most important. You should take the work you've done so far and create a new article called List of Prime Ministers of Canada by main contributions and link it to the bottom of this page.  That list wouldn't be in a table and you could have a lot more room to work with.  --Arctic Gnome 17:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone definetly needs to review/modify/delete the 'claim to fame' section. It is highly POV and presents an unfairly negative picture of almost all of the Prime Ministers listed. Maybe its impossible to do this type of section in a fair and impartial manner, and if that is determined to be the case, it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.1.34 (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It really is POV and negative, but it's also so amusingly sarcastic that I've never had the heart to delete it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Designated vs Party Leader
I like having two different terms for PMs who were appointed by the GG and those who just won the leadership of their party; but can anyone think of a way of replacing the noun phrase "Party Leader" with a verb phrase that doesn't take up too many words? --Arctic Gnome 17:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Two Lost weeks
When Macdonald and Abbot died, there were vacancies lasting about two weeks. Who was running the country? Shouldn't they be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.2.161 (talk • contribs)
 * No one had the title of Prime Minister during that time; the Crown would have spent those two weeks trying to find someone who could gain the confidence of the legislature. I doubt that much got done in terms of ruling the country during those two weeks, but I guess the privy council would have been in charge as a group.  --Arctic Gnome 05:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Party Continuity
Out of curiosity, why are the Liberal-Conservatives, Unionists, PCs, etc. grouped together, while the current Conservative party is listed as a separate entity? No agenda, just wondering what the rationale here is. Obviously the CA/Reform influence on the new party is significant, but should that render it less a part of the old PC tradition than the Unionists? Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There have been many talks about this on other talk pages, and this is how we decided to standardize it across the encyclopedia. The consensus believes that the lib-con, conservatives, and PCs were legally only a name change, whereas the new Conservatives are a legally new party because of the merger with the (then larger) Alliance Party.  As for the Unionists party, its members were part of the PC tradition, whereas the governments formed by the Unionists were coalitions with the Liberals and were thus a unique party in Canadians history, which is why in some articles the Unionists are listed differently.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Resignation/Retirement
Pearson, Trudeau, Mulroney and Chretien resigned/retired on the same date as their successors took office. Thus I fixed those dates. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's how I think it works too, but our current source, the Library of Parliament, thinks differently. Unless you have a source explaining why the Library of Parliament as posted incorrect information, I think I'll have to revert.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

We've already had these disputes on the Canadian PM bios (remember), and we decided to go with the correct dates. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should just write to the Parliament and ask them what's their problem. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to come across as a 'grump', but my guess is - Parliament doesn't count 'transitional dates' for outgoing PMs - Example: June 25, 1993 was a transitional date (Mulorony resigns; Campbell sworn in). GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Image problem
NOTE! This article uses a commons image Image:Kim Campbell head.jpg which has two problems: this is a non-free image which cannot be hosted on commons; and this is a modified version of the original work of the copyright holder, which use is not permitted in any case. I'm going to change the image to the permitted usage, nevertheless the permitted-use version will still need to be uploaded to the en:wiki image space and given a non-free usage rationale (which will be pretty easy, as it's the official portait). See here for details. Regards! Franamax (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ammount of time in Power?
I'm not sure if this is valid but its interesting to me personally so I figured I'd throw the idea out there.

What about another column or an addition to the "Period" column which includes the number of days in office? I understand this information is already there in a "from this date - to this date" format so maybe my idea is overkill? --The Lone Bard (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I kind of like this idea, as it's the sort of information one might check an encyclopedia to find. Not sure whether it would mess up the table format, but worth a try imo. Who is second longest (Sir John A?), who is second shortest (toss up between Chuck, John & Kim, I think). Franamax (talk) 06:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems a bit redundant given that List of Prime Ministers of Canada by time in office has that information in a ranked list with accompanying explanations for term lengths. If we are going to start adding information from the ranked lists, how do we choose which information is most important?  Do we also add the information from what age they took office or how many degrees they have?  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh yeah, I guess it is there, down in the list of lists. No list by height or hair-colour, I see :) Just for fun, I'm going to change that bit to uncollapsed so that it's more evident to the casual viewer (or lazy viewer like me!). Feel free to revert. Franamax (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's good for now, those other lists really should be more obvious. In fact, all nav-templates are too unnoticeable for new/lazy readers.  I wonder if links should be added to them near the top of the page or in the TOC so that people know that they're there.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I like that idea and I gave it a shot. Using the TOC to indicate where there is a lot more information is not a bad idea. It will likely prove to be wildly controversial, what with MOS and all... Franamax (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Forgive my ignorance then. I had no idea there were all these other lists at the time. Continue as you were.--The Lone Bard (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We have to find a better way to advetise that these lists are there. If wikipedians don't notice them, than regular users will likely miss them. I've seen many people who don't use Wikipedia as often as us who don't know that the links at the bottom of the page are there.  Maybe we can put a line in the intro saying that one can find more lists at the bottom of the page.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I very much like the way it was done using a heading to add to the TOC. I worry about putting too many "adverts" at the top of the page. Double Blue  (Talk) 17:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

How we count
Out of curiosity, why is it that we count every Prime Minister only once, when they have non-consecutive terms (e.g. Macdonald is #1, but not #3), but in the U.S., they count somebody twice, if they have non-consecutive terms (e.g. Cleveland is #22 and #24). I'm not challenging anything, I'm just curious if anybody knows the reason, or if it's simply a matter if different traditions developed separately in the two countries. --Rob (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't find any specific reason, I think it just has to do with who was doing the record-keeping when the first person came back to office. There are a couple provinces that either count like the Americans or don't have an official counting system.  My guess for the logic of doing it this way is that under our system it is more likely that a PM will come back after being defeated than it is in the US system.  The Americans have only done it once, whereas in less time we have four leaders who have done it, one of whom served in three separate chunks.  It's also noteworthy that when we count ministries we give a new number for PMs that come back.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This one has puzzled me too, and I'd suggest a renumbering unless there's a rationale to explain the current method of counting. The key question is 'What constitutes a Prime Ministership?' There have been 22 different people who have served in 27 distinct periods in which they were Prime Minister. Since we're counting PMs and not individuals, it's logical to number them according to the periods in which they held the office. By this logic, there have been 27 Prime Ministers. This method recognizes that the return of the same person to the office after an interruption merits a new number.


 * But shouldn't the person who wins several consecutive elections also be given separate numbers? If returning after an interruptive defeat merits a new number, surely a string of victories should as well. We might better count them this way: each time a PM is elected, re-elected, or appointed. Based on that method, we have had 52 Prime Ministers. I prefer this method, because it recognizes that every election is new opportunity to select a PM.


 * The US method of counting is a half-measure right. It assigns a new number to a non-consecutive presidency, but not to consecutive ones. Why should FDR be counted as one president when we was elected four times? Each time a person takes the oath of office, it counts as a new administration, and our numbering system should reflect that. Yoho2001 (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your method might work for the American system because presidents serve for one or two four-year tearms. In Canada, however, there are not "terms" for prime ministers.  There aren't even elections for prime ministers.  They serve at the pleasure of the Queen, and she usually, but not always, chooses the leader of the party with a plurality of seats in the commons.  Your methods is counting a list of Canadian federal parliaments, not prime ministers.  —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 10:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Format change
I noticed that the page underwent a complete format change recently, and a lot of statements were added, specifically in the "known for" column, and no new statements were added. I suggest that the page be cleaned up and sourced quickly, or else it may end up at WP:FLRC. -- Scorpion 0422  01:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the change is a very elegant way to add some useful content to the article, kudos to User:24.141.192.173. It should be pretty easy to cite that these PM had these major events happen in their terms, we just have to cite any history book or encyclopedia for each PM.  Check out the way that the UK organized their table.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

A slight proposed alteration: I# Incumbent No.; M# Ministry BartBassist (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. I'm glad that you have the elections line up with the parliaments like it use to before the big change.  Putting the ministry number beside the incumbent number also makes sense.  —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Elections / Parliaments column
I'd like to return to the version that used the words "election" and "parliament" on each line. It only adds a few lines to the length of the table, and I think it makes it much more clear to newcomers to the list. A column with more than one kind of number (in this case a year and an ordinal number) is too much data crammed into too little space for people who are seeing the list for the first time. It's also not clear where the links are taking you. When a user scrolls down and sees "1935 (18th)", it appears that the ordinal number is referring to the election year, as in, 1935 was the 18th election. I really think that the column needs a way to specify to someone casually scrolling to the middle of the list that the number 18 is referring to the parliament. Alternatively, it would be a bit better if we put the elections and parliaments into separate columns, which also would only slightly add to the table length. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This has gone over three months without objection, so I'm being bold. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you have done in principle, but there is one problem that this raises. It is hard to say that King "won" or received a mandate in the 1925 election, as he won the second most seats but continued in office with the unofficial support of the remaining Progressives.  It may be as simple as adding an asterisk to he and Meighen's terms which I will give a try. - Pictureprovince (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The House passed his throne speech, so he did have a mandate in 1925, but you're right that we should mention that another party had a plurality. It might also be useful to decide in advance of a partisan fight what we will do if Harper is defeated on the first throne speech of his third term and Ignatieff becomes PM.  I think that what officially happens is that Harper is PM for the 1st session of the 41st Parliament, which only lasts for a day, and then Ignatieff is PM for the 2nd session.  —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is the change here, in that prime ministers are not directly elected so it isn't necessarily correct to use the term "elected" at all. They are all designated by the governor general based on the governor's assessment of whether they can command the confidence of the house.  Usually, this is obvious.  Other times it is not, for instance 1925 but also in 1957 when most media reports the morning after the election expected Louis St-Laurent to try to face the bouse rather than resign, though he later decided to just let Diefenbaker have a go.  It might actually be better to use "designated" and "continued in office" or something along those lines rather than the incorrect "elected." - Pictureprovince (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All prime ministers are designated, certainly. However, what we want to do is mention whether a prime minister was  designated as a direct result of an election, or whether they took power between elections because of either a retirement (Turner, Campbell) or a non-confidence vote (Mackenzie, Meighen).  Can you think of a term that is more accurate than "elected" that does not take up too many letters?  --—Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a hard one and will probably make for a long discussion, I am going to split it off into a new section :) - Pictureprovince (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose the new format, which is clumsy, and results in heavy repetition of the words "election" and "parliament". Each election and parliament is linked, so the word "election" or "parliament" will show up if the mouse is hovered over the link, whether the words themselves are present or not. Any reader is surely capable of understanding the column from the column header – no-one is proposing that the words "Born" and "Died" be added to the dates in the Name column, or "Ministry" to each row of the Ministry column, because their nature is clear from the column header. BartBassist (talk) 08:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, the word "designated" is useful. How about the following? BartBassist (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I like this design; it's more compact than mine. I changed it originally because I think it's far less intuitive to casually look at when a column has two different types of numbers in it without any words (in this case, a year and an ordinal number).  My first choice is BartBassitst's design, followed by two separate columns, and the wordless version is my last choice.  --—Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If everyone is agreed, at least, that my design is better than the current one, then I'll make the change. It's easy enough to change back. BartBassist (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think "Parlt." is awkward, maybe it should just be "Parl." or, failing that, "Parl't." - Pictureprovince (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The alternative, as discussed, is a separate column arrangement: BartBassist (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On a separate issue, I have followed wiki policy on ordinals (1st, without superscript, rather than 1st), although personally I am a fan of superscripted ordinals, partly because they look more interesting, and partly because of the connection to continental practice (e.g. the French 1er or 1ère, or the Italian or Spanish 1o or 1a). BartBassist (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Longest-serving minority PM
Under Harper's listing, would it be correct to reference him as the longest-serving minority PM? He's been in a constant minority position for close to 5 years now. I think that's a record. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Living former Prime Ministers
✅

Trudeau is the most recent Prime Minister or former Prime Minister to die. Thompson is the most recent Prime Minister to die. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Should Thompson get added to this section? "John Thompson (1845–1894) is the most recent Prime Minister to die in office, on 12 December 1894." Or is that too morbid? 117Avenue (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We could have that Macdonald & Thompson are the only PMs to die in office. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That works too. 117Avenue (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Requirement for a PM to sit in the Commons
There are sources that show that the constitutional convention is that members of the ministry must hold a seat in parliament, and that in recent times that custom has evolved to be a seat in the Commons. It is not a matter of choice. I corrected the article to show this with sources but it has been reverted. Rather than starting another edit war, can I see if there is consensus to state this in the article? - Pictureprovince (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your source looks fine to me.Moxy (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The Prime Minister can be a member of the Canadian Senate. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This was historically true, but is no longer considered acceptable under Canadian constitutional convention. - Pictureprovince (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But it's still constitionally possible. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to my knowledge. Please provide a source. - Pictureprovince (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any such source. But, nor could I find sources that said it was Constitionally required for the Prime Minister to be a member of the House of Commons. I know that Turner was a MP during his PM tenure. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I provided a source in my edit that you reverted. Here it is again: "Persons appointed to the Ministry from outside Parliament are expected to stand for election at the earliest possible opportunity. If they are unsuccessful at the polls, custom requires they resign from the Ministry." In Mr. Turner's case, he immediately called an election in part to get a seat in the Commons at the earliest opportunity. - Pictureprovince (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, I won't revert ya again. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I was confused, I thought Pictureprovince pointed out Turner wasn't in parliament while PM. 117Avenue (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That citation doesn't address the Prime Minister specifically as the PM isn't "appointed to the Ministry." It refers to Ministers who are expected to hold a seat. The footnote attached to your reference makes reference to a Minister during the 40s who didn't have a seat. Further, correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Mackenzie King lose his seat while Prime Minister? He wasn't forced to resign his office, he simply ran in a safe by-election afterwards. Canada Jack (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Mackenzie King lost his seat in the 1925 election, yet was not obligated to resign as Prime Minister. He lost it again in the 1945 election, yet was not obligated to resign as Prime Minister. The note you cite does not apply the way you suppose it does, and says nothing about the Prime Minister, it therefore should be removed. Canada Jack (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The prime minister is a member of the ministry. That reference applies to all members of the ministry.  Had King not sought re-election through a by-election, convention would have compelled him to resign. - Pictureprovince (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not what the citation says. It says "If they are unsuccessful at the polls, custom requires they resign from the Ministry." Mr King, if this applied in the way you suggest it applies, would have been obligated to resign as Prime Minister in 1925 and in 1945. He didn't. He lost, he didn't resign, he stood in bye-elections and gained a seat. Therefore your citation while close, does not establish the requirement you says it does. Further, the PM isn't "appointed to the Ministry," as the other Ministers are, so I'm not sure the citation applies to the PM despite being a member of the Ministry (though I suppose the counter to that is that the Crown "appoints" the PM, the others are appointed by the PM via the Crown). I suggest you find a citation that explicitly says the Prime Minister (not just a member of "the Ministry") must hold a seat. My reading of the citation is that it applies to Ministers, not the Prime Minister, and the evidence in favour of that reading is the fact that King was not compelled to resign when he lost his seat - twice. Canada Jack (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Custom" is not law, just like swearing an oath as PM, it is a custom, but not required. 117Avenue (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My response to the two previous comments. 1.) King lost his seat in the general election, and then was compelled to immediately seek a seat through a by-election, had he failed he would have had to try again or resign.  That is an example of the precedent at work, not against it as you suggest.  While I haven't the time to look for a Canadian source for the PM having to seek a seat specifically, as opposed to by virtue of being a member of the cabinet.  Here however is a link to a British document upon which our system is based. see paragraph 76, page 36  2.) Canada has a partially uncodified constitution, custom is, in fact, law in Canada. - Pictureprovince (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are we getting into to all this here? This is supposed to be just a historical list. It's not Prime Minister of Canada. This is basically a sub-topic fork, which runs the risk of saying something different here, than what's send in the appropriate article. --Rob (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

My point here is quite simple - while there may indeed by a requirement for the PM to be elected to the H of C, the source supplied here doesn't actually say that. It suggests that once King had lost his seat, he would have been obligated to resign. But he didn't. By my reading, once he lost, he was obligated to resign until he actually won a seat in a bye-election. And, since the note uses an example of a non-sitting minister - not the PM - having to stand for election, it's not clear that the citation here even applies.

Simply put, we need a better citation if we want to establish what the line in the article claimed. Canada Jack (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Rob is correct and, in fact, the actual article has this same information and a source. I'll update this page to use the same language and source as the name PM page which should resolve the issue. - Pictureprovince (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So, why duplicate content, when we can simply remove it? This is a list, not a regular article.  --Rob (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A list requires some introductory comment does it not? If not, we could simply blank the intro section and replace with "Here is a list of people who have served as Prime Minister of Canada."  However, that doesn't seem consistent with List of Presidents of the United States, List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, etc. - Pictureprovince (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

King's name
✅

While William Lyon Mackenzie King has come to be known as "Mackenzie King" in modern times, Mackenzie was one of his given names and not part of his surname and he was more commonly know as "W. L. M. King" in his time. The table currently has his "Mackenzie King" bolded to denote his surname, which is incorrect. I am going to change that if there is no objection? - Pictureprovince (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Change made. - Pictureprovince (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Kim Campbell
I Think Kim Campbell should be removed from the list of prime minsters since she technically an Acting Prime Minister, She was Acting PM For several months. may i removed her from the page or put her as Acting Prime Minister — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.102.28  (talk • contribs)  03:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as an "acting Prime Minister". Please search the Government of Canada, Parliament of Canada, and Privy Council Office websites for this term, I'd like to know what you find. I, and the other contributors of this page, will be able to find countless sources calling Harper the 22nd Prime Minister. Also, did you know that like Campbell, Abbott, Thompson, Bowell, Tupper, Meighen, and Turner, did not win an election? Or Campbell actually has the third shortest term? 117Avenue (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ...................Moxy (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Term dates
Could we please get a verifiable source that every PM resigned the morning the new guy was sworn in. I don't want to further tag this page. 117Avenue (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * the new numbers dont match the refs - i have reverted the changes  - cant change the numbers and not add a ref for the change. Has this been done all over??Moxy (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And I have reverted back. The refs 'unfortunately' aren't reliable in this case. Those websites (for some reason) are inconsistent concerning when an out-going Prime Minister leaves office. For examples: Trudeau didn't resign a day before Clark was sworn in or Turner was sworn in. GoodDay (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added 3 secondary sources to the article, supporting the correct dates. GoodDay (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello? Is this the same GoodDay that convinced me to use a government source for numbers a dates? You know better than to post these as "sources". I want to see a reliable source for your claims. You know that important facts like this can't be changed without an unquestionable source. 117Avenue (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reverted again - y cant you just talk about it pls read BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Again cant change the dates without a "reliable source" - What you have given as sources a grade 4 teacher would not even except - this is and FA article that has been like this for years that is  sources to the Parliament of Canada and Library of Parliament (that you keep hiding for some reason)  Pls stop using this less then ideal sources.  Moxy (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added 3 more sources that support the correct dates, showing that Meighen, King, St. Laurent, Diefenbaker, Pearson, Trudeau, Clark, Turner, Mulroney, Campbell, Chretien & Martin did not all resign the day before their successors were sworn in. GoodDay (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you pleased read our "Talking and editing "POLICY" as we have certain conduct expectations. 2 editors have voiced a concern and/or problem with the additions and the sources provided over the current one  (that for some odd reasons you are hiding and have deliberately made  a bad link out of - this  needs explaining on your part by the way).   I will be asking for more input from others here.Moxy (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've left a message at Canadian Wikipedians' notice board, requesting more imput. PS. I haven't hidden any sources. GoodDay (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * An example of why the Government source is un-reliable in this case: Martin resigns February 6, 2006. -- GoodDay (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * {ec)I have no clue whats going one here then - i see a reference being hidden this one and self published links add to the external links section like this? I will let the new editors look over all this changes as I am not sure whats going on here. PS Would be best to read WP:3RR would rather have you here talking then not on Wiki at all.Moxy (talk) 04:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I usually don't get this 'hot' under the callor. It's amazing as to how wrong those government sources can be. GoodDay (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What 3 sources? I haven't seen anything better than a WP:SELFPUB until two minutes ago. 117Avenue (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Government websites are incorrect on those dates. I don't know who the jackasses are behind them, by they're incorrect. GoodDay (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for a RS for the others. 117Avenue (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still looking. PS: You do know I'm correct, btw. GoodDay (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In actual practice, the outgoing PM normally gives his resignation to the Governor General on the same day that his successor is sworn in; however, in formal and official government records, the convention is to backdate it to the previous day. In other words, while the actual ceremony takes place around noon on the day of the new PM's swearing in, and the media report it as such, for official government recording purposes the handover of power is deemed to already have been in effect as of midnight. It really doesn't matter which date we provide here, as long as we make a decision and are consistent about it one way or the other, but neither the government sources nor the media are wrong, as such — they're just observing two slightly different conventions of how to denote the resignation date. Bearcat (talk) 05:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes GoodDay is so vigorous in this there had to be an explanation.  Ok lets see what dates they use at  The History Project and  Dictionary of Canadian Biography.Moxy (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * We should go with the same day, as that's when the resignations actually took effect. GoodDay (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We "HAVE" to go with what is most widely published as per WP:SOURCES - whats side is this ref for?.Moxy (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That reference supports the 'dates' I've been arguing for. GoodDay (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either way; there's a valid case for either choice. However, I'd point out that this discussion started because sources were in conflict with each other — so I doubt it will be particularly easy to decide that one usage predominates over the other in the sources: the question, of course, being which sources? Bearcat (talk) 05:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe I have a solution for you. While both the parliament website and the privy council website use the "day before" convention alluded to above, if you go to the privy council's Guide to Canadian Ministries since Confederation you can get the true dates.  At the top of each page it lists the date using the "day before" convention but if you go to the first footnote it shows the circumstances of how the each ministry took office, including the circumstances surrounding their predecessors departure.  For example, while the Paul Martin page says he left office on Feb. 5, 2006, the first footnote on the Harper page says "After the defeat of the Government in the general election of January 23, 2006, Martin formally tendered his resignation on February 6, 2006. On the same day, the Twenty-Eighth Ministry took office." I think using these footnotes will get you the right dates with context. - Pictureprovince (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's looking like the more official sources are saying a retroactive change at midnight. 117Avenue (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a detailed explanation here of why the day before is used, it is because of the Interpretation Act of 1967. - Pictureprovince (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that makes it definitive, what's going on here. Although Martin resigned with the Governor General on February 6, the resignation, in the text, conforms to the Interpretation Act, which is made effective after the end of the previous day. 117Avenue (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The dates for when the resignations wer accepted by the Governors General, are the correct ones. Therefore I've reverted. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In your opinion! The link provided by Pictureprovince explains it in detail. 117Avenue (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * These Prime Ministers resigned on the same day their successors were sworn in. That's a fact that can't be changed retroactively. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are you arguing this! It says it in black and white that you are wrong. 117Avenue (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not wrong, Meighen, King, Bennet, St. Laurent, Diefenbaker, Pearson, Trudeau, Clark, Turner, Mulroney, Campbell, Chretien & Martin did not resign as PM a day 'before' their successors were sworn in. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This has to stop now - Y is this talks not being finished before all the dates are changed. We need refs to change this dates -IS THIS NOT CLEAR??. Lets finish this talk then change the dates...what is this grade 6???? Moxy (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Claiming that Martin resigned 5 February 2006 or that Mulroney resigned 24 June 1993, isn't very accurate or encyclopedic. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I recommend that we use the correct dates (thus I'm arguing for), but add a footenote for the Government sources. This will help explain the 1-day differance. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Last time i bring this up Disruptive editing.Moxy (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you guys want to use the wrong dates by websites, which were apparently put together by stupidity? go for it. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct about Meighen, King, Bennet, St. Laurent, Diefenbaker, and Pearson. However, with Trudeau the Interpretation Act of 1967 came into effect, which states "where an appointment is made effective or terminates on a specified day, that appointment is considered to be effective or to terminate after the end of the previous day." Claiming Martin's term ended 5 February is very encyclopedic, because it is the letter of the law. You are unpatriotic for calling the Government of Canada Privy Council Office stupid to quote an act that you choose to ignore the existence of. 117Avenue (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Trudeau, Clark, Trudeau (again), Turner, Mulroney, Campbell, Chretien & Martin, all resigned on the same day their respective successors were sworn in. That fact, can't be retroactively changed. If Harper looses the 'next' federal election & resigns on the morning of the day his successor is sworn in? you're gonna get alot of argument from others, when you attempt to put the wrong 'resignation date' in his article. GoodDay (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

pls read new version of article with its refs -- ---we should copy and past this refs in to the main articles for there dates.Moxy (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They tendered their resignation on the same day, but it came into effect "after the end of the previous day." 117Avenue (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The resignations took effect on the same day as their successors were sworn in. I don't recall any interim prime ministers in between. GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they didn't. Why are you ignoring the act? There is no in between, because the new ministry also becomes effective after the end of the previous day. 117Avenue (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The prime ministerial transitions 'did not' occur at midnight. GoodDay (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are you ignoring the act? For the fifth time: the act says it does. 117Avenue (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are you ignoring reality? The act is obviously unreliable. GoodDay (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Government doesn't just ignore procedure, the act isn't bending the laws of reality. The act is followed, and backed up by the ministry dates on the privy council source. 117Avenue (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In agreement with Moxy's proposed solution. GoodDay (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Added a note Moxy (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And what was wrong with my note? Yours is a copyright infringement. 117Avenue (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * what notes?? -I am not going to go back over the 10 reverts you guys have done to find things. I am solving the problem you guys cant.  If your note is  better then lets add it. As for copyright infringement its all attributed. Moxy (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought I was solving the problem with this edit, with an entire paragraph explaining the situation. 117Avenue (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow thats nice -- ok lets add it back --does the ref (I) am using for it say the same thing --i think so -both are HARD worded .Moxy (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem then, was that you added in the 'wrong resignation dates' from Trudeau to Martin. GoodDay (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe aswell, conventional wisdom sides with the 'same dates' argument. GoodDay (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So are all ok with the dates - as there is the notes and nice new paragraph by 117Avenue???Moxy (talk) 04:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I made a few tweaks to it. GoodDay (talk) 04:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Will the Trudeau to Martin resignation dates be left as having occured on the same dates their successors were sworn in? GoodDay (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Lets go with what refs says -- did i get it wrong??Moxy (talk) 05:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've become paranoid at this article. Yes, ya did say that. GoodDay (talk) 05:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Are this not the dates you like from the beginning GoodDay??Moxy (talk) 05:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes they are. I just was got confused earlier. GoodDay (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * According to these refs, King's first term ended a day before Meighen's second term began. Am I reading the quote correctly? 117Avenue (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You reading it correctly. I won't revert at WLMK. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

What's important to stress here is that the purpose of this list is not necessarily to record for posterity the precise moment in time, right down to the minute, that a resignation was actually delivered in physical form to the Governor General; it's to document the start and end dates of a person's term in office. Which doesn't, in and of itself, dictate that we must follow one convention or the other, as both forms can be verifiably shown to have currency in reliable sources — but, GoodDay, the idea that we should dismiss a documented official convention just because it doesn't conform to your preferred choice is really a non-starter. If you can actually find yourself saying "the law is unreliable" with a straight face, then you've crossed over into being excessively tendentious for the sake of being excessively tendentious. The reality is that as long as we're consistent one way or the other, neither form is inherently "incorrect" or inconsistent with our purposes.

You're certainly welcome to discuss why you think we should choose the "same day" convention over the "last complete day" one, but kindly keep it to "I-statements" (i.e. "I believe we should choose this usage over that one because...") and don't make grand sweeping pronouncements that a perfectly valid and legal form is inherently "incorrect" just because it's not the one you agree with — and if the consensus in the end isn't in your favour, then you need to accept that as just the way Wikipedia works sometimes. "Consensus" doesn't require that everybody agree on what should be done — but it does require that everybody agree that once the "vote" is over, we have to abide by and accept the result whether we got our way or not. Bearcat (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been agreed to go with what we've currently got. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Because you wouldn't back down. 117Avenue (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again
We agreed to allow the hatnotes next to the departure dates of Trudeau to Martin. But, we also agreed to using the departure dates of June 4, 1979; March 3, 1980; June 30, 1984; September 17, 1984; June 25, 1993; November 4, 1993; December 12, 2003 & February 6, 2006. Please, let's stick to that compromise, shall we? GoodDay (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not what it says in below. 117Avenue (talk) 05:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't start this again 117 Avenue. We agreed to stick with one date (those I argued for) & use the hatnotes (those you argued for). It was a compromise & I expect you to honour it. GoodDay (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This article has been stable for over two months. I thought, because we had come to an agreement. If you wanted to restart conversation, why didn't you start with the talk page, instead of making edits against consensus? 117Avenue (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * When we agreed to go with one set of dates (the actual dates for when those outgoing PMs resigned), with hatnotes from the parlimentary site, I removed this article from my watchlist. I returned recently to find that agreement had been breached & so now I'm re-inforceing the agreement 'again'. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you read the below discussion? We came to a consensus, and BartBassist was applying it. There has been no breach. If you decided not to take apart of a conversation that took place over a month, you can't blame anyone else. 117Avenue (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well, I'll revert. Atleast the correct dates will be there (when Trudeau to Martin actually resigned), though it looks 'stupid' to have 2 dates - the parliamentary site dates & the correct dates. Honestly, ya must remember these PMs tendering their resignations on the morning their successors were being sworn in. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured list removal candidates/List of Prime Ministers of Canada/archive1
Because of the talk me and 117Avenue are having at here, I have gone ahead and made this all more clear for our readers, thus implementing both dates. Pls look this over make sure your all ok with what I have done. If Ok pls make sure  the layout and double check the dates and refs etc.Moxy (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's adding a awful lot of clutter to inform people about a one-day technicality. Can't we simply add a note saying that the end date shown is the last full day of their tenure rather than the day they resigned? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't think a few words equal clutter - its better we inform our readers properly - as you can see not all get it - so we have to spell it out. The one-day technicality is the different between a guesstimate   and Official date. As mentioned on the other talk page the royal process does matter in this country and is why the Privy Council Office adds notes for the specific day of formal resignation.Moxy (talk)
 * The edit added 194 words, that's more than a few, and when you repeat the same sentence seventeen times, it is clutter. I agree that we should inform people about the one-day discrepancies in our sources, but all of those notes could be replaced with one footnote saying "The end date listed for this prime minister is the last full date of their tenure. The formal transfer of power was on the following day." —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 194 word is not at all alot vs    File size: 248 kB

Prose size (including all HTML code): 5868 B   References (including all HTML code): 492 B    Wiki text: 57 kB    Prose size (text only): 3073 B (504 words) "readable prose size" References (text only): 24 B Perhaps we should make a large note...this would cause the loss of many refs but o well. My main hope is not to have this article  tagged like the rest  (List of premiers of Prince Edward Island) All of this are going to loss the FA sattus soon and was just starting with this one Moxy (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that it looks odd with that extra text in the table. But consider this, the act wasn't passed until 1967, so Trudeau's was the first term it applied to. Meaning it is repeated 8 times, not 17. 117Avenue (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No matter how many times it's used, if there is one cell with the extra text, it makes that column twice as wide as the column for start dates, and on small displays, that results in the mandates column becoming twice at tall as the parliament numbers are pushed to the next line. Adding a asterisk to those end dates with a footnote explaining the one-day discrepancy would keep the table looking neat. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 13:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like it should work. 117Avenue (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A month has now passed without opposition to a general note. Let's make the change. BartBassist (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good job looks fine to me - even goes into more details.Moxy (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Blasted, why did I take this article off my watchlist 'months ago'. Now we've got this showing of 2 dates setup baloney. Jeepers, can't anybody remember that Trudeau, Clark, Turner, Mulroney, Campbell, Chretien & Martin resigned as PM on the morning of their respective successor's swearing in? GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Teminology for when PMs take office
All prime ministers are designated by the governor-general to take office and then hold that office until they resign (or in theory are dismissed, but this has never happened in Canada). A conversation began above as to how we can convey this in the table on this page in a brief enough form for it to fit in the table while still making sense.

Here are the circumstances under which a prime minister can take office:
 * 1) designated by the governor general after the previous prime minister has resigned due to losing their majority/plurality in a general election (most common);
 * 2) designated by the governor general after the previous prime minister of the same party has resigned due to retirement or died (Abbott in 1891, Thomson in 1892, Bowell in 1894, Tupper in 1896, Meighen in 1920, St-Laurent in 1947, Trudeau in 1968, Turner in 1984, Campbell in 1993, and Martin in 2004);
 * 3) designated by the governor general after the previous prime minister of a different party has resigned due to their advice being rejected by the governor general, or because they anticipated losing the confidence of the House (Mackenzie succeeding Macdonald in 1873 and Meighen succeeding King in 1926);
 * 4) designated by the governor general after the previous prime minister has resigned due to losing the confidence of the Commons (this has never happened in Canada).

We don't need to summarize #4 as it has never happened. I would suggest perhaps "Elected" for #1, "Replaced" for #2 and "Succeeded" for #3 with a legend before the table explaining these three terms. These aren't perfect and invite the suggestions of others. - Pictureprovince (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Could mention the provincial instances for #4 - like in Ontario in 1985. Canada Jack (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, though we could lump them in with #3 as they are similar circumstances. - Pictureprovince (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

But if memory serves, Miller lost a non-confidence vote shortly after the election and the LG offered Peterson (who had a signed accord with the NDP) the government. Anyway, might be the closest example to 4 we have and a Canadian precedent. Canada Jack (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe you are right, as I said above. When I said "this has never happened in Canada" I should have been clearer, as I meant federally.

It's pretty clear you always meant federally, just might mention that a provincial prime minister has experienced the 4th situation, taht is if I have my facts straight on that. (of course if this was to actually be mentioned in the text, we'd note that "premier" and "prime minister" are interchangable terms.) Canada Jack (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Elected/Designated
All PMs are technically designated. I therefore propose the removal of the words "elected" and "designated". When a PM is designated following an election, give the linked year of the election, and when designated mid-Parliament, give a long dash (—). Confusion between the elections and the numbered Parliaments is now impossible, as the Parliaments are labelled "Parlt." (Sorry to re-open an old discussion.) BartBassist (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the word "designated" is technically incorrect, but I also think that a dash is ambiguous for readers who don't know anything about the Canadian electoral system. How about "Midterm app't" or maybe a synonym for "inherited". —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)