Talk:Parliament of Canada/Archive 1

Splitting Parliament of Canada and Parliament Hill
It seems to me that in an encyclopaedia, the Parliament Buildings would have their own article, if they were of sufficient importance to be included, rather than lumped in with the Parliament of Canada.

Does anybody else think this article should be split? Cafemusique 21:19, 18 April 2003 (UTC)


 * I attempted to do so when I wrote the article but could find no graceful way to do it. I don't think it's necessary. - Montr&eacute;alais

I think it is fine. Why should it be split? But as it is about the Parliament Buildings not parliament, this article should be called Parliament Building of Canada. ÉÍREman 22:30, 18 April 2003 (UTC)


 * That's not true, the first three paragraphs are about the Parliament as an institution. (Furthermore, since there are at least three main buildings, I would suggest Parliament Hill if anything.) - Montr&eacute;alais

The first three parapraphs are a passage description of parliament but nowhere up to encyclopædic standards. The rest is about the building. Parliament Hill is unworkable because it is an unrecognised term outside Canada. An article on the Parliament of Canada should be about that; the nature of parliament, its membership, the constitution, the process of legislative enactment. the role of the crown, etc. That requires an article devoted to that topic. The opening paragraphs here are enough to include in an article on the buildings, but not enough for a serious encyclopædic article on parliament itself. That requires a separate article, with this becomiong Parliament Buildings of Canada. ÉÍREman 22:52, 18 April 2003 (UTC)


 * If the article is to focus on the buildings, then the focus should probably be made clear earlier...that said, I think the first few paragraphs do provide a stub from which a fuller article on the Canadian parliament could be written. As for your comment about naming the resulting article, I would think that, as long as Parliament Hill doesn't conflict with another article, I can't imagine why it would be a problem to name it as it is normally referred to.  That said, I'm quite aware that this is my first day here, so I'm not well-versed enough on the naming conventions here to engage in any meaningful discussion on that topic. Cafemusique 23:29, 18 April 2003 (UTC)

In choosing titles, we have to make at least some stab at creating an internationally recognised name. If the building has that name officially and unambiguously then it should be used. But as far as I know, it is simply a generalised name applied but not the actual name. The generalised name used for the Irish Government Buildings is Merrion Street. Wiki does not put the Irish Government Buildings in as Merrion Street but as Irish Government Buildings. The Irish parliament is in a building officially called Leinster House so it is in under that name. If it hadn't that name and was just generally known as Kildare Street we wouldn't use that name to refer to the location of Oireachtas Éireann. That doesn't mean you can't create stubs saying that Parliament Hill/Merrion Street is the location of whatever and a generalised word applied to whatever. But the article, in the absence of either a specific name or an international recognised name would be to call things what they are; the Parliament Buildings of Canada, The Irish Government Buildings, etc. ÉÍREman 23:53, 18 April 2003 (UTC)


 * "Names of articles should be the most commonly used name" according to Naming conventions (common names). Parliament Hill contains only the buildings that are the subject of this article, and a large lawn upon which demonstrations are often made.  It is an unambiguous reference to the place in question.  (In the two examples you cited, I think it was a case where the street name is often used.  In that case, it would be ambiguous, because, I assume, there are other locations on that street which are not the subject of that article.)  As long as it does not conflict with another place, I do not follow your arguement.  (Yes, I do know that there are other geographical naming conventions, but the only ones I saw are still under development and refer to cities, not to places generally.) I'm not trying to provoke you...I'm just trying to reconcile what I'm reading here with what I'm finding in the help pages. - Cafemusique 09:38, 19 April 2003 (UTC)

We use most common recognisable name, not merely most common used. Most common can mean most common in a country. Wiki doesn't use names that are most common if they aren't known to anyone outside its borders, without linked pages, disambigulation pages, etc. For example often the most common name is one in a different language in a large state. Wiki has got to use forms that are internationally not merely nationally recognisable. And no, Kildare Street and Merrion Street have no other means but the Irish parliament and Irish government buildings and known to millions are meaning that. In the case of Merrion Street, that is undoubtedly the most common name, with no alternative meanings, but because it is exclusively an internal national meaning that means absolutely nothing outside Ireland it is not an option. ÉÍREman 20:04, 19 April 2003 (UTC)

As a further complication, note that any article about the buildings will include information about the land, precinct, and scenic location, which are not covered by the term "Parliament buildings." I think if any title is used, it should be Parliament Hill. If that fails to please, we should leave it put. - Montr&eacute;alais


 * Besides which, AFAIK, "Parliament Hill" is an Official Geographical Name. - Montr&eacute;alais

I've just been visiting the Hill's web site, there's lots of great stuff in there on history and layout. also of interest is the expansion and renovation plans for the next 20 years. Lots of article fodder there, could easily support a separate entry. Radagast 03:30, 7 March 2004 (UTC)

There is no reference to the Queen as an element of the Parliament of Canada as is stated in Canada's constitution. See: http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/inside/institutions-e.htm. I am adding a reference to the Queen in the first paragraph. Alex756 04:58, 14 August 2003 (UTC)


 * Good call. - Montr&eacute;alais 06:19, 14 August 2003 (UTC)

Some minor quibbles
The discussion of a FAC nomination made me re-read the article in its entirety. This, in turn, gave rise to several minor questions. Before I made any changes, I thought I should raise these points here:

1. The opening sentence describes Parliament as "Canada's democratic legislative branch." I wonder if we should delete "democratic." Just one paragraph later, the article says that the House of Commons is "democratically elected." I'm sure there are many Canadians who would argue that the Senate is not democratic.

2. The second paragraph says that "The House of Commons is the only part of Parliament which holds control over the Prime Minister and Cabinet." Is this accurate. Doesn't the Governor General have some power in this regard? For example, didn't Governor General Byng refuse to call an election when requested by Mackenzie King? Similarly, doesn't the Senate have some control over Cabinet? Can't the Senate refuse to pass cabinet-sponsored legislation? Is this not, in fact, very real "control"?

3. In what sense was there "representative government" in 1791? Certainly there was an assembly of representatives, but was the government responsible to it?

4. Given the British connection, was there ever any chance that Canada would adopt an American congressional system? If not, why bother including the sentences on why Canada opted instead for a British system? As it stands, it implies that a congressional system is the norm, and an explanation is needed for why Canada did not adopt it.

5. Didn't Canada gain power over foreign affairs before 1931? Didn't the country begin appointing ambassadors and signing international treaties in the 1920s? Didn't it join international organizations in 1919-1920?

6. Does a constitutional amendment now require "two-thirds of the provinces" or is it two-thirds of the provinces representing at least half of the Canadian population?

7. The article says that three of the seats in the House of Commons "are reserved for the provinces." What does this mean?

8. The article says that "every Parliament has been dissolved before the end of the five-year term." Does this apply to the period during the First World War? HistoryBA 18:04, 26 October 2004 (UTC)


 * Reponding using your point numbers:
 * 1. I would agree that the word "democratic" should be deleted where you refer.
 * 6. You are right. It seems a bit cumbersome, though, and I wonder whether there is a real need to explain the complexities of passage of Constitutional amendments in an article on the Parliament of Canada.  I think it might be simplest to simply delete the following passage: Most amendments require the consent of the Canadian Senate, the Canadian House of Commons, and the Legislative Assemblies of two-thirds of the provinces. The unanimous consent of provincial Legislative Assemblies is required for certain amendments, including those affecting the Queen, the Governor General, provincial Lieutenant Governors, the official positions of the English and French languages, and the Supreme Court of Canada.
 * 7. I believe that this should read that three seats are reserved for the territories (NWT, Yukon, and Nunavut).
 * 8. No, it does not. (See 1917 Canadian election for details.) - Cafemusique 19:09, 26 October 2004 (UTC)

1 addressed; 2 clarified; 3 clarified; 4 clarified; 6 addressed; 7 clarified (should be "territories," not "provinces"); 8 clarified. For #5, Canada may have joined international organisations&mdash;it even had a High Commissioner in the U.K.&mdash;but it did not, I believe, control foreign affairs; that was a task for the Sovereign of the U.K. as such, not as King of Canada. -- Emsworth 19:13, 26 October 2004 (UTC)


 * 1. Has indeed been addressed. 2. Now seems even more confusing.  What does it mean to say "The House of Commons is the only part of Parliament which controls the term the Prime Minister and Cabinet"?  3.  I don't see how this addresses the point.  The government (as opposed to the legislature) was not representative.  Or was it?  Could someone clarify?  4. I don't see how this addresses my point either.  I am saying that there is no reason to specifically say that Canadians rejected the American model.  The British model would have been the default position, not the American model.  5. I don't get the distinction.  If Canada is appointing ambassadors, signing treaties, and joining international organizations, doesn't it control its foreign policy?  What is missing?  6.  Has been addressed.  7.  Has been addressed.  8.  Has been addressed.  HistoryBA 23:23, 26 October 2004 (UTC)


 * 2. Should read "the term of the Prime Minister." 3. The legislature, I think, was indeed representative; members of the lower House were elected. 4. The U.S. model was a model insofar as the province-federal relationship was concerned. 5. It is true that the Dominions tendered advice on foreign affairs to the monarch during the 1920s. But it is also true that Canada did not achieve full autonomy&mdash;over both domestic and external affairs&mdash;until the Statute of Westminster. So it is, I think, accurate to state that complete control was not achieved until 1931 (if the article does not state exactly this, then it may be changed). -- Emsworth 00:10, 27 October 2004 (UTC)


 * 2. I am not sure I agree. Most prime ministers voluntarily end their terms or have them terminated by the electorate.  Seldom does the House of Commons determine a prime minister's term.  3.  Once again, the issue is not whether the legislature was representative.  I have explicitly accepted this point.  The issue is whether the government was representative, which is what the article states.  4.  You are right, and the changes made earlier do address my point.    5.  The issue is not whether Canada had "full autonomy over both domestic and external affairs," but rather whether it had "power over foreign affairs," as the article states.  If a country can sign its own treaties, appoint its own ambassadors, and join international organizations, then I would argue that it has "power over foreign affairs."  This existed before the Statute of Westminster.  If I am not mistaken, the Canadian government stated in the 1920s that Canada did not have to go to war when the British went to war.  In other words, Canada could pursue its own foreign policy.  Would you object to my deleting the phrase "including power over foreign affairs" from the article?  HistoryBA 00:35, 27 October 2004 (UTC)


 * I will not object to changes you wish to make in regards to 2, 3, or 5. -- Emsworth 00:49, 27 October 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism?
What's this "Wikipedia rocks!" in the beginning of the article? I tried to remove it but it is not visible in "Edit Article." What's going on?
 * It was already deleted from the page. Perhaps you were looking at a cached version of the page? - Cafemusique 07:33, 9 November 2004 (UTC)

Too many capitalized phrases?
In my opinion, this article uses far too many capitalized phrases. I knocked the capitals down, but was promptly reverted. This is the first time I have ever been accused of being too American, and I must admit that it made me hot under the collar for a few minutes. Now that I have calmed down, I'd like to see if we can reach a consensus. I think if you consult even the most stylistically conservative Canadian newspaper or style guide, you will see that "prime minister", "speaker", "member of Parliament", "governor general", and so on, are not capitalized in contemporary Canadian style (unless immediately next to a person's name). What does everybody else think? Indefatigable 22:32, 10 November 2004 (UTC)

I did not intend to accuse you of being too American, but rather of using capitals reminiscent of the style prevalent in American English as opposed to International English. Nevertheless, I apologize unreservedly if you took offence. The Manual of Style states this:


 * Remember in the case of a prime minister, both letters are capitalized or lower-cased together, except, obviously, when it starts a sentence. Again, when being used generically (that is, when talking generally about prime ministers) the office is lower-cased. When reference is made to a specific office, upper case is generally used. So "there are many prime ministers around the world." but "The British Prime Minister Tony Blair, said today . . . " [...] A good rule of thumb is whether a definite article (the) or an indefinite article (a) is used. If the is used, capitalization often follows. If a is used, the lowercase is preferred.

I believe that capitals are supposed to be used whenever referring to a person by that person's formal or official title. Thus, "the President of the United States," "the Speaker of the House of Commons," "the Governor General of Canada," "the Queen of the United Kingdom," etc. On the other hand, "some presidents," "a speaker," "previous governors general," "queens." -- Emsworth 23:45, 10 November 2004 (UTC)

Parliament House
Could we have an article on the actual building in which the Parliament meets, to add to my new category Category:Legislative buildings? Adam 11:32, 14 January 2005 (UTC) Thanks for that. I have added a category link to Parliament Hill. Adam 06:17, 16 January 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that there's much reason for it. There is already a Parliament Hill article.  I don't know that there is enough distinctive about the Centre Block of the Parliament Buildings (for there is no building called Parliament House) to warrant an article about it. - Cafemusique 22:39, 15 January 2005 (UTC)

The Speaker's tie-breaking vote
I clarified the role of the Speaker's tie-breaking vote in the HoC; the previous edition implied that the Speaker would always vote in favour of the Government, which is actually seldom. The wording drew an exclusive link between "status quo" and the need to keep the Government in power; this is only one possible scenario. More precisely, the role of the Speaker's vote is to allow for further debate, which translates into voting with the Government only on confidence votes (in order to prevent an impending election). For most other bills the Speaker is expected, by tradition, to vote against the Government (or, more specifically, against the bill in question), to prevent the issue from being "settled" (hence allowing for further debate). Milliken himself mentionned that he had previously voted against his own party, during a brief address to the House before he cast a vote in favour of the NDP budget amendment on May 19, 2005, sparing the Government the need for a snap election. This is actually already outlined in the article Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons; I think it's in order to include that in the main article. Rod ESQ 04:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This isn't quite accurate, actually. In order for debate to continue, the Speaker votes in favour of a bill (not just a confidence bill) when it is at an interm stage (2nd reading or report stage). The Speaker has to vote against a bill, though, when it's at third reading, with the idea that the bill can be reintroduced at a later time to be considered again. There's only been one instance where a Speaker has had to vote on a confidence motion, so it is unclear what the position would be were it the final vote. --142.242.2.248 22:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Opening ceremonies
I'd be interested in learning more about some of the formalities surrounding the openning of parliament. I read Hansard transcripts from the first couple days, and it seems as though there's quite a bit of tradition and formality that would be great to pass on to readers .. --Q Canuck 06:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"Structure of Federal Government" picture
I have taken that picture down as the title of it is blatantly wrong. Canada's full and legal name is "Canada". Not the "Dominion of Canada", just "Canada" as per the 1982 Canada Act.

Canada is no longer a dominion. Samy23 22:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What party is in power section needed
What political parties are in power section needed showing years in power and what the coalition of major and minor parties making up the coalition. I now see some of the needed information in [List_of_Canadian_federal_parliaments], but it still is lacking the minor party that joins with the major party to form a majority voting block in control of parliament. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.131.1.131 (talk • contribs).
 * Um, there has never been a multi-party ruling coalition in the federal parliament in peace time (happened during WWI)...Padraic · talk 14:06, 25 May 2007 (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 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 05:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Party Discipline
The article suggests MPs are forced to follow the party line or be disciplined, yet many scholarly articles assert that the importance of this, and the role of the Party Whip in particular, are not as important than one would think. Furthermore the article suggests that MPs either face severe reprimand for not toeing the line, and that MPs only do so out of fear of expulsion, even though recent history proves otherwise. Take for example Chretien's rise to power - of all the MPs that opposed him, before his nomination and afterwards, only ONE faced a serious reprimand (and that was only because he neglected to follow the party line at all). This article reads like a political science major with only a basic level of understanding with regards to federal politics wrote it. 24.86.144.101 (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Federal/provincial responsibilities: conflicts
I removed the following sentence: When, however, a federal law conflicts with a provincial law, the federal law takes precedence.

I believe that one of the differences in the Canada/US system is that neither federal nor provincial laws supsersede each other. If there is a conflict, either the federal government or provincial government has acted outside their sphere of responsibility. The law belonging to the government with responsibility for that subject stays in force. What the federal government does have is outlined in section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly named the British North America Act): "It shall be lawful for [the Parliament of Canada], to make Laws...in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects...assigned exclusively to...the Provinces;"

In other words there is a so-called "residual power," giving the federal government power over anything not enumerated as being a provincial responsibility. - Cafemusique 11:22, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * In the case of immigration and agriculture areas, however, the federal law does indeed take precedence:
 * In each Province the Legislature may make Laws in relation to Agriculture in the Province, and to Immigration into the Province; and it is hereby declared that the Parliament of Canada may from Time to Time Make Laws in relation to Agriculture in all or any of the Provinces, and to Immigration into all or any of the Provinces; and any Law of the Legislature of a Province relative to Agriculture or to Immigration shall have effect in and for the Province as long and as far as it is not repugnant to any Act of the Parliament of Canada.  (VI, Sec. 95)

-- Emsworth 20:37, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Notwithstanding clause, section 33 of the charter, gives Provinces the right to essentially supersede any law made by Federal Parliament. Section 33(1) of the Charter of Rights permits Parliament or a provincial legislature to adopt legislation to override section 2 of the Charter (containing such fundamental rights as freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of association and freedom of assembly) and sections 7-15 of the Charter (containing the right to life, liberty and security of the person, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention, a number of other legal rights, and the right to equality). Such a use of the notwithstanding power must be contained in an Act, and not subordinate legislation (regulations), and must be express rather than implied. Essentially every piece of legislature in one way or another falls within the Charter, in some way or another. My understanding is that the Notwithstanding Clause is rarely used given it's political significance. 24.86.144.101 (talk) 09:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Successful FAC nomination
-- Emsworth 22:18, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Zerbey 23:07, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Taxman 16:40, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. I always like to see a reference/further reading book/article mentioned, though. Jeronimo 06:52, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Giano 17:03, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Well written, comprehensive. Can we get one external picture of the building? func(talk) 21:20, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

TV guide
CPAC (Canada's answer to C-Span) claims Canada was the first country to allow live TVcasts of parliamentary debate. True? Add it? TREKphiler  hit me ♠  16:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Untitled
''WHY is the FRENCH page smaller than the polski page??? someone needs to flush out the french page, come on people, this is a CANADA page!''

I didn't know where to put this question, but didn't the Governor General dissolve Parliament?(If you know where this question goes please put it there) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.166.200.116 (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Mace donated by City of London
Is this the City of London Ontario? Or London in the UK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.175.216 (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Answer---The city of London, England. Details follow.

The first Upper Canadian Parliament was assembled by Governor Simcoe at Niagara, then known as Newark, in 1792. Although the colony was rough and the surroundings largely rural and underdeveloped the Governor appears to have been interested in displaying the paraphernalia of Parliament for all to see. A very primitive wooden mace, painted red and gilt and surmounted by a crown of thin brass strips was probably used in this first assembly. It is certain that it was used in the first Parliament Building when the assembly was moved to York (Toronto).

During the war with the United States in 1812-1814, when the Americans captured York and burned the Parliament Building on 27 April 1813, the Mace of the House of Assembly of Upper Canada was carried away by the Commodore of the invading forces and kept as a treasured trophy in the Museum of the American Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland. Over a hundred years later, as a gesture of good will and at the invitation of President F. D. Roosevelt, the Congress of the United States returned the Mace to Canada on the occasion of Toronto's Centennial celebrations in 1934. It was carried by the Sergeant-at-Arms at the opening of the first session of the Nineteenth Legislative Assembly of Ontario and was then placed in the Royal Ontario Museum. A place of honour is presently being prepared for this Mace in the Parliament Buildings, Queen's Park.

Very little is known of the Mace used in Upper Canada from 1813 to the Union of the two Canadas in 1841. After the union, Sir Allan MacNab, as Speaker, recommended the purchase of a new Mace and this was obtained in 1845. Made of silver and gold it was a close facsimile of the Mace of the British House of Commons. This Mace has had a spectacular history. It was stolen by one of the leaders of the mob which set fire to the Parliament Building in Youville Square, Montreal, in April 1849. The Sergeant-at-Arms in an attempt to defend the Mace drew his sword but he was struck down by an axe handle wielded by the thief. The apparent intention was to destroy the Mace in a public demonstration but it was rescued and returned to Sir Allan McNab the next day. It was rescued again in 1854 when the Parliament Buildings were destroyed by fire in Quebec and saved for a third time, a few months later, when the building, then in preparation for meetings of the Legislature, was consumed. This Mace continued to be used by the Union Parliament until Confederation at which time it was transferred to the House of Commons.

On the evening of February 3, 1916, the Parliament Buildings were gutted by fire. The Senate Mace was saved but the House Mace was not. When the f ire alarm was raised everyone left as quickly as possible without thinking of the Mace. Colonel Smith the Sergeant at Arms and custodian of the Mace was outside the Chamber at the time. When the alarm reached him he tried to enter the House to rescue the Mace, but smoke and flame prevented him from doing so. Two or three days later, when the interior of the Commons had cooled, all that was left of the Mace was a little ball of conglomerate with a gold and silver content, about the size of a man's fist.

After the fire, Parliament met in the Victoria Museum and the House used the Senate Mace until a new symbol could be secured. A temporary wooden mace soon was provided and served for a brief period of time. In June 1916, the City of London donated the present Mace to the House of Commons. Its design is similar to the Mace which was lost in the fire and contains the conglomerate which had been retrieved from the ruins. It remains a most excellent and beautiful example of the silversmiths craft. It is made of silver with heavy gilt. The head is divided into four panels containing the Arms of Canada, the Rose of England, the Harp of Ireland and the Thistle of Scotland. Above is the royal crown with G.R." placed on either side, and a beaver in bold relief.

information found at http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoParl/english/issue.htm?param=89&art=336 Uchiha Miyazaki (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"Structure"
I'm seeing a problem with the sidebar at the beginning of this article, under the subsection "Structure;" there's a diagram there of the seating arrangements of the Senate. Unfortunately, since it isn't labelled, it could be easily misconstrued as a diagram of the seating plan of the House of Commons, as it immediately follows information on that. Anyone know how to fix this? The Last Melon (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox wording
The infobox says for members, "308 Commoners (MPs)..." Is that correct? Are MPs called "commoners" in Canada? -Rrius (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Layout
I realise there is a lot of graphics bunched up at the top of the article, what with three images and two templates (one with its own embedded image, no less), but moving pictures right in that region causes havoc with the templates, and the image of the Queen in the Senate belongs, rightly, in the Queen-in-Parliament section. I'm planning on doing a general copyedit/cleanup run-through for the page; so, hopefully, some resolution will present itself, not that things are particularly hideous at the moment. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  11:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"French and Indian War" vs "Seven Years War"
I notice that the article refers to the "French and Indian War," a description which is generally used by Americans but not by Canadians when describing the conflict where Britain defeated France in North America in 1759. Surely, in an article about Canada, we should lean towards Canadian usage here and describe the conflict as Canadians generally do, as the "Seven Years War." Canada Jack (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. James MacDonald Hudson alpha mail  16:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree aswell. Uchiha Miyazaki (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And I agree as well. Andrew6111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC).

Senate and Commons images
It seems only rational that the illustrations of the Senate and the House of Commons should be placed in the sections that talk about those chambers. Putting them there doesn't, on my screen, squish the text too much against the infobox; however, it might be different on other monitors. If others see it as problematic, is there a solution that doesn't involve moving them to random places in the page? Would centring them side by side be of any use? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When there is a template or image on one side of the screen, another should not be placed on the other side in such a way that text is sandwiched in between—that is unacceptable. I have no idea what white space issue you are having, because I've tried Firefox, Safari, Chrome, and IE and had no white space issues at all. There is nothing random about the placement. The State Opening of Parliament happens in the Senate Chamber. The procedure that happens in both houses happens in the Chambers, so the Commons Chamber image is relevant there. Nothing in the Composition section actually discusses the chambers as physical spaces, so the assertion that somehow that is the only logical place for the images is doubly wrong. As for the gallery notion, it solves the sandwiching problem problem, but it looks odd and off balance. The best solution would be to add a new section discussing the building, including treatment of the Chambers, but short of that, this edit is the best of those suggested unless Mies can somehow explain what his white space issue is. In any event, I'm going to revert to the status quo ante, in other words, to before I rearranged it. -Rrius (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * White space: You know, the total absence of text, images, and other material leaving nothing but a field of... white. Your placing of the Black Rod image to the right of the page causes it.
 * As for the Commons and the Senate images: You're well aware that images of the chambers can serve to illustrate two of the three parts of parliament; they've served just that very function at this article for a long time now (the Commons one since at least 2005). Your complaint about sandwiched text isn't irrational; however, I've shown how that issue can be solved without moving the pictures away from the related sections to other areas that are less relevant. It rather sounds like your only argument against that alternative is "WP:IDONTLIKEIT"I don't like it." "Odd" is purely subjective and "off balance" doesn't make sense, given that the images were centred.
 * Frankly, I quite liked the "gallery" option, since it permitted visual illustrations of all three parts of the institution, rather than just two. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  12:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * White space: The term is vague and can be used to describe different forms of blank space, great and small. Since I have been unable to recreate your problem on different browsers on different platforms, the clarification was needed (but the snark wasn't). For the record, it is still not clear how or where this white space issue arises. Something like placing the image right under the template and using fixbunching could well do the trick.
 * You keep saying that the images were irrelevant where I put them, but that is simply inaccurate, as I've now said multiple times here and in the edit summaries. I never said the images weren't relevant to composition; it is you who refuses to see multiple uses. What's more, I've suggested a solution where the images would be even more relevant, but you've simply ignored it.
 * The gallery option is suboptimal. It is more than a little hypocritical for you to complain about what appears to be an idiosyncratic issue that bothers you aesthetically, then dismiss an aesthetic complaint about the gallery as "IDONTLIKEIT". It would be somewhat better if it led off the section rather than coming between the text of the main "Composition" section and the heading for the first subsection. I'll make that fix, even though I prefer the status quo ante (your version) to the "compromise". -Rrius (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Party Standing Changes
Changes need to be made related to party standings, the Bloc members have resigned and now sit as independents, this they are no longer a party in the house as they have no members left and need to be removed from the list of current parties, images need to be updates to reflect them sitting as independents and the tables need to be edited as well to reflect these changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.138.221.236 (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing the PQ in the Quebec National Assembly with the BQ in Parliament; it is four members of the former who have recently left their party. -Rrius (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Example?
and, as such, the Crown is immune from acts of parliament unless expressed otherwise in the act itself.[4] What is the example of this? Komitsuki (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

October 22 shootings
Please direct all edits regarding the October 22 shootings to 2014 Canadian Parliament Hill attack. -- Natural  R X 15:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Misuse of the words "Parliament" and "House"
Many people, even many of those who should know better, use the word "Parliament" when they should use "House of Commons" instead. As pointed out correctly here, Parliament is defined in Canada's Constitution as consisting of 3 parts: The Monarch, the Senate, and the House of Commons.

A "House" is not only a building, but also a group of legislators, such as the House of Commons (NOT the building!). The Senate is also a House.

Should these items be included in the article? QUITTNER 142.150.49.171 17:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Better still, the articles of the 1st through 39th Canadian Parliaments mention only the House of Commons. There's no mention of the Senate, wich is an error as the Parliament is bi-cameral (Commons & Senate). GoodDay 20:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There has been talk on that elsewhere. I created stub pages for all of them a while back that didn't mention either house, just when each session started, who the Prime Minister was, etc.  Since then someone has added members of the House without adding members of the Senate.  I don't think it was ever a deliberate attempt to snub the Senate; it's just that no one had yet bothered to go and add the senators.  I've added a mention of senators in the 30th Parliament on, but it's a slow process.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The people who are elected to sit in the House of Commons are almost always called "Members of Parliament", which is why most Canadians consider "House of Commons" and "Parliament" to be synonyms. This article notes that the Senate is also part of "Parliament", but Senators are never called "Members of Parliament". The confusion among the Canadian public is understandable. Given that the Canada Act (1981 or 1982) gave the Supreme Court of Canada supremacy over Parliament, the article should mention this. There is a Notwithstanding Clause that enables Parliament to protect itself from abuse of judicial power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.119.6 (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Imperial Parliament of the British Empire
A very grand sounding name, but shouldn't that just be "Parliament of the United Kingdom"? --Inops (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent addition to lead about coalition
I have twice reverted an edit which states that the House of Commons is not functioning because the government does not have a majority and is not in a coalition. A coalition is not necessary in a minority situation. Canada has had several minority governments that were not coalitions. And, contrary to the edit, the Commons has recently passed several interim supply Acts, as well as the Act to ratify the new NAFTA. The opposition parties and the government voted in favour of the bills so they passer the House and went to the Senate. The edit does not contain correct information. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The Canadian government requires a majority vote for a bill/law to be passed from the House of Commons to the Senate. In cases where a minority government could not form a coalition, an election is always called by the Prime Minister. When the leader of the minority government fails to do so, it then falls upon the Speaker of the House to do so. There has not been a minority government that has held government in the history of Canada. A party votes together, and in scenarios where one chooses to disagree with their party, they would walk across the floor. A majority vote is required, otherwise government cannot commence legitimately. This is a crisis, and although in todays society it may seem like a boring rule, it is the way government functions. It is simple math, and it must be shown on the page until something is done. The original picture shows the current situation, refrain from undoing previous undo's and refrain from threatening to block this account. TheRuleOfChairs 16 March 2020


 * You are running the risk of being blocked for repeatedly reinstating that against consensus (WP:3RR). Minority governments in Canada are common enough. Such minority governments both left and right have functioned perfectly well in various Commonwealth countries under Westminster systems without the need for formal coalitions, and sometimes without even sufficient formal confidence and supply agreements.  ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 23:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please review Minority governments in Canada. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 02:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. A minority government is very possible, and has happened in the past. A minority government that doesn't form a coalition however, is something that cannot happen. A bill must have a majority vote. Please revert the edit. TheRuleOfChairs 16 March 2020


 * There is no requirement that a minority government form a coalition. The only coalition at the federal level was the Union government during WWI. None of the minority governments from 1921 onwards have been coalition governments. Opposition parties can choose to vote for a government bill without being in a coalition.  For example, the current opposition parties voted in support of the government's bill to implement the new NAFTA.  They also voted to pass interim supply bills, to keep the government operating during the COVID adjournment. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

A minority government must form a coalition. As soon as a confidence vote of the opposition hinders a bill, government cannot proceed. A party votes together, and the last coalition was when the Conservatives held a minority government in the early 2000's. TheRuleOfChairs 17 March 2020


 * TheRuleOfChairs, there's an easy way to test your thesis. As you say, Mr Harper and the Conservatives were twice elected to minority government status, in the 2006 Canadian federal election and again in the 2008 Canadian federal election.  Your position is that they formed a coalition government, presumably both times.  So, what party or parties entered into a coalition with the Conservatives after those two elections?  The Liberals?  the NDP?  the Bloc?  My position is that in neither case was there a coalition.  The Conservatives were in minority government status and did not have a formal coalition agreement with any other party.  If I'm wrong, and there was a formal coalition in either 2006 or 2008, that should be pretty easy for you to demonstrate.  Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Should the term "viceroy" be used as a synonym for "Governor General" or "Lieutenant Governor" in articles on Canadian government?
I have started an RfC on this question at Talk:Governor General of Canada. All comments welcome. --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)