Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 October 17

= October 17 =

Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks
On the page for Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks it says George Kerr took office as the first MOE (for Ontario) on July 23, 1971. The Ministry of the Environment wasn't formed until 1972, though. How can someone be Minister of the Environment if there's no Ministry of the Environment yet? It won't be the end of the world if I can't figure this out, but I'm using Sudbury as a historical case study for my master's degree, and this is pertinent (though by no means crucial) to my research.

Dfishershin (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * One possibility is that he was appointed in a provisional role while the enabling legislation to create the department was in the works. There can also be a Minister without portfolio, who has the position, despite not yet being assigned any duties. So, he could have been that until officially assigned to the new ministry, and your source didn't bother to make the distinction. SinisterLefty (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * A quick Google search reveals that "In 1971, the Department of Energy and Resources Management was reorganized and renamed the Department of the Environment in order to better reflect the Department's increased responsibilities with respect to environmental protection, conservation and preservation as outlined in the Environmental Protection Act of 1971. The Department consisted of the Office of the Minister, the Office of the Deputy Minister, an Administrative Services Branch, the Air Management Branch, the Waste Management Branch, and the Conservation Authorities Branch. In 1972, the Department of the Environment was amalgamated with the Ontario Water Resources Commission to form the Ministry of the Environment" (Source: Archives of Ontario).
 * Our Ministry (government department) article says: "In Canada, five of the ten provincial governments use the term "ministry" to describe their departments (Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and Alberta) but the other five, as well as the federal government, use the term "department". Despite the difference in nomenclature, both the provincial and federal governments use the term "minister" to describe the head of a ministry or department". So, as clear as mud then.  Alansplodge (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems clear to me. The Department of the Environment, founded in 1971, was headed by a Minister of the Environment.  The Department changed its name later, but the name of the person at the head of it has always been the Minister of the Environment, down to 1971.  -- Jayron 32 16:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I suspect Alansplodge point is that it's unclear why Ontario had a Department of the Environment if they call their ministries ministries. It seems most likely that in ~1972, Ontario decided to rename and reorganise any of their ministries called "Department" into "Ministry" but out article lacks historical information. See e.g. Ministry of Education (Ontario), Ministry of Health (Ontario) (which mentions a government wide restructure), Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (Ontario) (ditto), Ministry of Labour (Ontario) (ditto), and Ministry of Infrastructure (Ontario) which specifically mentions renaming them. That said, it seems like Ministry of Finance (Ontario) was always a ministry unless our article is very poor, so I'm not sure what, if anything, was the difference between a department and ministry in pre-1972 Ontario. Nil Einne (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Found this act [//digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ontario_statutes/vol1972/iss1/3/] (it's actually used as a source in the MOL article at a minimum) which confirms the reorganisation including mass rename in 1972. But I don't think it provides any clue on whether there was any difference between a department and ministry pre-1972. Nil Einne (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Following Wiktionary in state matters a ministry is a national or regional government department for public service. No mention of a differenciation arising in recent times. Perhaps the 1972 merging with the Ontario Water Resources Commission made the "public service" orientation more inherent. --Askedonty (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

British colonies that became independent through war victory
Other than the United States, what other former British colonies became independent through military victory over the British Empire? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * There may well be an intermediate category, where the British weren't defeated militarily, but still the cost was so high they decided to leave as a result of attacks, or leave under different terms or timetable. This may have been the case in the Palestine Mandate. See Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine. SinisterLefty (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The Mandate was not a colony, sensu stricto. It was a League of Nations mandate.  But that's probably nit-picky.  The OP can answer their own question, without involvement from anyone here, by research starting at List of countries that have gained independence from the United Kingdom.  -- Jayron 32 15:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The Aden Emergency prompted an early British withdrawal from Aden in 1967, although it had technically been independent since 1963 but with a British military presence (they're still fighting there without us). The Cyprus Emergency probably hastened independence of the strategically important Colony of Cyprus, but equally vital Malta peacefully achieved independence only four years later. Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Some case for Kenya and the Mau Mau. Although they did not, I suppose, defeat the British.--18:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And possibly delayed the British departure, peaceful Gold Coast on the other side of the continent became independent Ghana in 1957, Kenya not until 1962. Alansplodge (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Opioid crisis and the aftermath
There is a lot of talk in the paper press and in the digital web publications about the settlements related to the opioid crisis. I am wondering about the policies of distribution of funds. One source states that the settlement money will be institutionalized. How about families of individuals who died in overdoses? Thanks, - AboutFace 22 (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just today, this article seems to explain what is known so far. They breakdown how the settlement money is supposed to be distributed.  -- Jayron 32 18:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * According to the link provided: "...the combined value of the deal breaks down as follows: $20 billion to $25 billion in cash to be divided among the states and localities to help pay for health care, law enforcement and other costs associated with the epidemic; and another $25 billion to $30 billion in addiction-treatment drugs, supplies and delivery services..." So it would appear that the vast majority of the funds will be paid to corporate organisations which already have major budgets which are mismanaged, this will simply add to their budget and will be filtered through in a big cycle in true American spirit, with the common man being forgotten about at the bottom of the pile to pick up the pieces of their lives and push on as best they can. But hey, survival of the fittest, right?  Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I can't comment on any of that in this venue, because we don't engage in political debate here, instead we just provide information. You're entire free to have any emotional reaction you wish to have to this information, but you'll receive neither affirmation nor contradiction from me.  If we were having this conversation elsewhere, that could be different.  Just not here.  -- Jayron 32 12:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)