Talk:Canadian House of Commons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Canadian House of Commons article.
Article policies
Former featured article Canadian House of Commons is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 16, 2005.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Older entries

quick fix for someone, Duceppe was not the last non-incumbent to be elected as an independent, in the most recent election a former radio dj from quebec got elected

Updated party standing. -1 Liberal, +1 vacant. Mr. Richardson (Liberal, Perth-Middlesex, Ont.), resigned 11 Oct. 2002. On second look I see that a few more members have resigned and changed affiliation than I knew about - a full update is coming as soon as I get back from Thanksgiving. - Montrealais 19:12 Oct 13, 2002 (UTC)

Removed reference to being like the US House of Representatives. The US and Canadian systems are so very different that that comparison is very misleading.

Roadrunner

I removed the following:

Under the Westminster system, the House of Commons appoints the Prime Minister of Canada who is the leader of the largest party or coalition of parties. Utterly wrong. Under the Westminster system a prime minister is appointed by the head of state or representative of the head of state from the HofC. He/she is NEVER elected. Indeed very few parliamentary democracies allow parliament to elect a pm. Most give to the head of state the role of commissioning someone to form a government. This is a basic error in this article. FearÉIREANN 01:24 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Um... the PC party and Canadian Alliance haven't fused their caucuses yet. - Montréalais 06:49, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)-----

[edit] Colours

we need to come to agreement on colours. here are my thoughts. we need colours that both A- represent the parties and B- are different and distinct enough to see

the major problem is that both the Bloc and Conservatives claim blue as their colour. we cannot, therefore, have 2 parties with the same shade of blue. it would also not make sence, IMHO, to have a light blue tory party (AKA royal blue) light blue BQ, light orange NDP, and a dark red liberal party. this is why I changed the tories to be blue (regular ole blue) if you go with a variant of blue for the tories you need a variant of red for the grits IMHO.

here are some suggestions: Blue:

* * * * * * * * *

Red:

* * * *

Orange:

* * * *

Others:

* * * * *

thx for the new bloc colour, I couldent find a good one Pellaken 02:11, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have/will edit(ed) the seat distribution. in the table with colours. its a real ...annoyance... to have to fiddle with those seats, and change row after row just to get one seat moved from one party to another, etc. Therefore, like in the real parliament, the backbenches will have indepednents, etc. I will place them where parties meet. so you will end up with things like this

* * * *
* * * *

I would use the real seat distribution, but I cant find it. either way, this makes it easier to edit. I will still stack vacancies on the right as much as I can. Pellaken 05:15, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

- I'd like some feedback?? I dont wanna do this if its not going to be popular. who made the table, anyone know? Pellaken 06:52, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Committees

The article needs a list of House of Commons committees (which should, in turn, have their own articles).Homey 03:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone might want to repair the article, it seems it has been spammed.

[edit] Province Links

The article is locked right now, otherwise I would wiki-link-ify all of the entries in the first table under "Province or Territory".

  • Unprotected. Sorry, I didn't realize it was on the mainpage! *.* - Mailer Diablo 18:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chuck Cadman

In the article, in section "Members and Elections" it says that Chuck Cadman was re-elected in 2000 as a member of Conservative Party. This is factually inaccurate though, because Conservative party did not exist then yet, and he was actually a member of the Canadian Alliance party. Ikh 17:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Fixed.--Anchoress 22:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Procedure

I will made the following changes:

  • the seating in the House of Commons (HoC) is not benches, but assigned seats.
  • The sides of the HoC are not two sword-lengths apart. This is a myth of unknown origin.
  • Ministers are not referred to as 'front-benchers'.
  • I have also inserted a reference to the Official Opposition and the shadow cabinet.
  • I have also added a reference to the varying schedule of the HoC.

aathorp 20:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

They may be assigned seats but they are refered to as Benches ie: "Back Bench" "Front Bench" "Opposition Benches" and ministers are indeed refered to as front benchers, because they sit in the front bench, in the same way that Private members are refered to as "Back Benchers" – 68.144.211.103 00:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Can you cite a source saying the two sword-lengths is a myth? It is mentioned frequently on the House of Commons internet site. HistoryBA 00:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
As for the two sword-lenghts, it was part of an internal training document for Parliamentary guides.

I respectfully disagree on the point regarding Benches. I have never heard of ministers being referred to as front benchers. Is there a reference for that? aathorp 14:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is a reference to "front bench" from a major Canadian newspaper today [1] - Jord 17:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sword lengths

someone may wish to include that part of the duties of the party whips include rounding up enough members to make quorum (this is, in fact, their main duty). also, i realize an anonymous comment is hardly concrete proof; but having been in the House on several occasions, i can attest that the distance between the two sides is certainly more than any two normally-sized swords. 69.199.42.108 09:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The distance between benches (which the article used to claim was two sword lengths) has now inflated to 2.5. The story I've always heard was 2 lengths, but pictures of the chamber show them to be much farther than that. I wonder if the traditional story of "two sword lengths" was transferred from Westminster to Ottawa without the actual distance being transferred as well. Indefatigable 04:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I have visited various provincial legislatures where the 2 to 2 1/2 sword lengths measurement is referred to. I think it is fair to say that the distance is "traditionally said to be two sword-lengths apart". Even the literature provided by the British House of Commons Information Office refers this to this as a traditional belief rather than a fact. Fluit 03:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Just out of Curiosity, which Legislatures? Keeperoftheseal 22:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Just to point out, the requirement was that the distance between the front two rows of seats be at LEAST two sword lengths apart. This comes from the days in the British Parliament when members would actually sit with swords, and so having them at least two lengths apart ment that they couldn't actually fight each other from where they were sitting. It is not a requirement that they be exactly two lengths apart. Grizzwald 04:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dual Mandates

Gentlemen, are inter-Commonwealth dual mandates permitted, provided that candidates possess the qualifications of citizenship?--Anglius 00:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill C-1

I just landed on Bill C-1 when clicking on a random article. I thought it was interesting and would like to know more, also nothing links to it yet. I imagine this page could link to it fairly naturaly, but I couldn't think of where 141.151.90.148 20:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It should defiantly be linked somewhere in this article, but I don’t know where. I spent a while trying to figure out what the heck Bill C-1 was, since all list of legislation on the net start at C-2. I finally found some stuff and added it to the stub article, while moving it to Bills C-1 and S-1. That article now needs some stuff to link to it. --Arctic Gnome 07:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Committee Chairs

I was under the impression that committee chairs were elected by the House of Commons as a whole, and not by the committees themselves; is this incorrect? My basis for this is a recollection of Liberals loyal to Paul Martin passing a change to standing orders (opposed by Chretien) to have the votes for committee chairs be by secret ballot, thereby preventing them from being whipped.Sarcasticidealist 09:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidently I was mistaken. Sarcasticidealist 22:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

It looks like we have a difference of opinion as to the inclusion of an infobox in this article. Personally, I think the info box is of some use, but that needs to be weighed against the decreased prominence it gives to the template. What do others think? Sarcasticidealist 22:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Can-pol w.jpg

Image:Can-pol w.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wisdom from beyond the grave?

One of the references cited is stated to be published in 2003 and credited to an author who died in 1991, and linked to a website using a version published more recently (2005 or later). It is an excellent resource by the way, I have copies of both the 5th edition which is cited, and a more recent 6th edition in print form at home, but perhaps it should be cited in a different way? The website that is linked to here actually links to the latest edition not the 5th edition as cited in the references list for the article - are there any major editorial changes or updates we should be aware of? P.S. I agree that the majority of the credit for this fine reference book (1st edition published 1980) should indeed go to the late Senator Forsey but editions printed subsequent to his death have additional contributors and perhaps do we need to be more clear on which edition we have drawn our references from? I don't know for sure yet how extensive each update has been since his death in 1991, however the preface in the 6th edition does indicate that the revisions are kept "to a minimum" and intended to "preserve the integrity of Senator Forsey's historical judgements and writing style". Garth of the Forest (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the change to cite the 6th edition (2005) as a general reference. If there is sufficient content difference between the 5th and 6th editions that is directly referenced to support specific details in the article, please be bold and identify it! Otherwise I'm assuming for most purposes we want to reference the most recent edition, while perhaps remaining vigilant in case partisan politics leads to anyone trying to sneak any revisionist history into subsequent versions that have been published since the original author's death. We need to keep the Library of Parliament and the Department of Canadian Heritage true to the author and his authorized successors, while recognizing that the views published in this reference guide may not (and probably given the current balance of power, do not) necessarily reflect those of Parliament.Garth of the Forest (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Status?

This article was demoted in October 2007 and now has "former feature article status". Looks like the main (most recent) issue was a perceived lack of in-line citations, but perhaps I'm missing something from a brief review of the archives. If putting in a few more in-line citations and references is all that is required, is anyone else interested in taking another run at it or is the FAR process too onerous for those of us in Canada who actually care about this topic enough to care about considering trying FAR again? I'm just thinking, as a relatively new editor, that if this article and/or topic has a reasonable shot at achieving FA and/or Featured Topic status in the near future, now is the time to get on it because I expect we will have another Canadian federal election soon after all the excitement dies down in the USA over the presidential race, and it may actually be a timely topic to be considered for FA or Featured Topic status for Wikipedia during that occasional brief moment that happens once in a while when some Americans look up from their navel gazing to notice what is going on in the world around them, just a few feet away from aforementioned allegorical navel. Or should we just acknowledge right here and now that articles about Canadian politics in any form are far less feature-topic-worthy than articles about heavy metal thrash bands and their songs (most of which I've never heard of), and just get on with our good ol', out-of-the-limelight, steady but apparently boring Canuck existence? Garth of the Forest (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is key for WikiProject Canada, and we should absolutely get it back to FA. I'll do a mock assessment to see where we need the most work. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

  1. It is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
    • (a) "Well-written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of professional standard.
    • (b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.
    • (c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate.
    • (d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias.
    • (e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day, except for edits made in response to the featured article process.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including:
    • (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections;
    • (b) a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming (see section help);
    • (c) consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes[1] or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1), where they are appropriate (see 1c). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)
  3. It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must meet the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

[edit] Quotient

The numbers in the table that show the distribution of seats do not add up. For example BC's population 4 113 487 divided by 107 220 is 38.36, not 36. Perhaps we are using up-to-date population figures while the reference site and Elections Canada uses old population statistics?

Tristanridley (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Seat counts are based on the last major cencus, which is now a few years ago. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

The intro to the article says: It is widely thought that "Commons" is a shortening of the word "commoners". However, the term derives from the Anglo-Norman word communes, referring to the geographic and collective "communities" of their parliamentary representatives and not the third estate, the commonality. Part of this was sourced to the official guide to the House of Commons. However, that guide does not mention this issue at all, so I removed the cite and added a fact tag. Does anyone have a source for this? On the talk page for the main House of Commons article, it was suggested that the comparison to the French name for the Canadian House of Commons is an example of folk etymology. PubliusFL (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)