Talk:House of Commons of Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured articleHouse of Commons of Canada 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 trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 16, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 23, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
February 24, 2007Featured topic candidateNot promoted
October 31, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Older entries[edit]

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)-----

Colours[edit]

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)

Committees[edit]

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.

Province Links[edit]

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)

Chuck Cadman[edit]

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)

Procedure[edit]

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)

Sword lengths[edit]

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)

Dual Mandates[edit]

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

Bill C-1[edit]

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)

Committee Chairs[edit]

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)

Infobox[edit]

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)

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

Nuvola apps important.svg

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)

Wisdom from beyond the grave?[edit]

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)

Article Status?[edit]

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)

Assessment[edit]

  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).

References

  1. ^ Smith 2007, p. 1.

Quotient[edit]

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)
There is a major census every year 1 of each decade. The last one then occurred in 2001.--RXcanadensis (talk) 04:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that used to be the case until the 1950's. Now, it's every 5 years, on the YYY1 and the YYY6. The latest one was in 2006. Here's the official website: http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/index-eng.cfm --SmartlyStupid (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I've corrected the table to show the correct numbers for how the number of seats is calculated right now based off of the correct reference census (2001). We're good until October.--CFnavymars (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Etymology[edit]

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)

Our article on A. F. Pollard read: "One of his most influential books was The Evolution of Parliament published in 1920, still read today as a leading history of the English Parliament." I have a provided a source from that book for the communes > commons etymology. Srnec (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

House of Commons Elections[edit]

Sorry for moving this up but my previous comment got erased.

Have moved in links regarding fixed election dates. There is a non existent page link regarding an election needing to occur every five years. I couldn't find a way to link it that would work...this part wasn't material that I had added in I just saw the problem (or created it by accident, I think it linked before but took the whole sentence to do it.Marcie (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Procedure - Project of law[edit]

How does a project of law get passed? How many lectures are there? When does the project of law get voted on?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by a "Project of Law", but if you mean "How is new legislation passed?" the article covering that is Act of Parliament#Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.101.143 (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

'Project of law' sounds like a direct translation of the French term 'projet de loi', which means 'bill.' And 'lectures' is French for 'reading', another parliamentary term. Grandma Roses (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed Election Dates[edit]

The article current states in the opening that "MPs hold office until Parliament is dissolved and serve for limited terms of up to five years after an election.." and later in the article mentions "A law regarding fixed election dates has been passed but has not yet proven effective". While the second statement is technically true, it is also very misleading. The first statement is simply wrong.

The Fixed Elections Act quantitatively restricts any session of the House to not more than four years. The confusion about this act stems from Mr. Harper having called an election before the four year mandate. However, if one actually reads the Act, one would find that it specifically states that anything with in the Act has no effect or power on the Governor General's authority. Thus, many people THINK that Mr. Harper broke his own Election law, when he really only beat the hell out of the spirit of it.

I plan on changing the article to reflect the reality of the law, unless anyone wants to discuss it? Dphilp75 (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you think is incorrect. You are quite correct that Harper did not break his fixed election law, as it was nothing but a fiction in the first place. As for the first statement, it makes reference to the 5-year constitutional limit of a parliament. Would you mind clarifying? Forgive me if I'm just being slow.PoliSciMaster (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
No worries at all. My exception to the first statement is that thanks to the amendment to the Canada Elections Act, no duration of HoC can last 5 years. The amendment is not "fiction" in so much as it absolutely limits any duration to a maximum of 4 years, period. In fact, limiting the session to 4 years is about the only thing that the amendment actually accomplished.
My issue with the second statement, is that the "..law regarding fixed election dates..has not yet proven effective.." *IS* misleading. First of all, there was no "law" passed, but an amendment to a current act. (Not withstanding what I wrote above! I was/am just getting over a head cold! LOL) The "law" hasn't had a chance to run its course since it was changed, but when the 4 year limit is reached, an the PM will be forced to go to the GG and request the dropping of a writ. There is no longer ANY method by which a PM can legally attempt a 5th year, such as they could before this amendment.
I hope that is a little clearer..? But again, I'm just getting over a head cold, so maybe my ability to command the English language is a little compromised at the moment! :) Dphilp75 (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Edit; Sorry, I am incorrect in saying that there is NO mechanism, the duration of Parliament *COULD* last longer than 4 years "In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection". Dphilp75 (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I understand what you are saying now, although I'm not sure I agree with you. The power to dissolve parliament is a prerogative of the Governor general. If the powers of the GG aren't affected, then that discretion remains, despite what the Canada Election Act says. It could be argued that this not allows the GG to call an earlier election, but a later one.PoliSciMaster (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm.. Actually, you have a point there. Then I guess I would move my position from "flat out wrong", but I would keep the "misleading" as the odds of the GG allowing a duration of Parliament to go beyond the Canada Elections Act. I still think this needs to be reworded to reflect both the political reality and the "legal" reality... Dphilp75 (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming when you said "...argued that this not allows the GG to call an earlier election, but a later one." you mean "...this allows not only an earlier one, but also a later..." ? Dphilp75 (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The law isn't just a fiction, it's a mess. It purports to reduce the maximum term from five to four years, but doesn't repeal s. 50 pf the Constitution Act, 1867. It calls for an election at a specified date, but it doesn't actually call for a dissolution before an election, meaning members could serve up to their successors' writs are returned. Or maybe later—what a fine constitutional mess that would be. Then, on top of all that, it adopts what some of the provinces, including British Columbia have: a mechanism for the prime minister of the day to simply circumvent the law when it is inconvenient as Harper did in 2008.
Notwithstanding the crappiness of the law, it should be handled better in the description here. Does anyone object to the passage being recast in a way that explains the conflicting sources for the four- and five-year terms? -Rrius (talk) 08:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Leader of Government..[edit]

The leader of government is Stephen Harper, not John Baird. John Baird is the government house leader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.168.63 (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The full title of the Government House Leader is "Leader of the Government in the House of Commons", which is presumably the text that spurred your objection. -Rrius (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Officers in infobox[edit]

It seems to me that the infobox shouldn't list the Government House Leader and the Leader of the Opposition as though they are opposite numbers; the more sensible thing would be to list the Government House Leader and Opposition House Leader. The British House of Commons article's infobox lists the Speaker, Leader of the House, and Shadow Leader of the House (the latter being the equivalents of the Government and Opposition House Leaders). Does anyone object to the change? -Rrius (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, isn't the "Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Commons" the Opposition House Leader? PARLINFO seems to think so.[2] -Rrius (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Members and electoral districts - TABLE[edit]

I think updating this chart to reflect updated population numbers is appropriate. Akiracee (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Seeing no disagreement, I'm going to update the chart based on 2011 Census population data. Akiracee (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes to lead[edit]

Sub-headings and topically-grouped paragraphs comprised of non-conceptually-redundant sentences constitute improvements to readability. The first section contains two general topics, one as to the composition of the House, and the other as to the method of election and term of office. Grammatical improvements, elimination of run-on sentences, contextual-specificity and comparative-specificity. --Paul63243 (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The lead section is meant to be a summary of the article. It is not subdivided into sections. Your phrases like "federatively subdivided" are not very good. (By the way, phrasal adjectives containing an -ly adverb are not hyphenated.) -Rrius (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
And leave the article alone until there is consensus for your changes (some of which you certainly will never get it for). -Rrius (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is clear now how the improvements to readability, topical organization and grammar constituted by my superior erudition would be viewed by you as outrageous and unacceptable. I apologize, as I did not mean to embarrass you. --Paul63243 (talk) 06:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Your so called improvements to the lead aren't improvements; offense doesn't come into the matter. There are no section headings within lead sections, and it is as simple as that. Leads are meant to repeat things from the article. Your phrasing is not terribly good. You take simple, readable prose and turn it into a stiff, wordy muddle. And Wikipedia works by consensus, which means if you attempt to make changes and someone objects, you discuss it on the talk page until a consensus emerges to support or reject your changes. -Rrius (talk) 06:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
By the way, that's "so-called improvements" not so "called improvements". Your conclusoriness is arbitrary and capricious, rather than reasoned. There's very little point in seeking to squelch superior erudition by simply stating it to be the lack thereof, simply to vent your own anger and frustration. I was only trying to help and make things better. The only reason my contribution is a "stiff, wordy muddle" is because you're declaring that it is, not because it actually is--although, in contrast to you, I might concede such, if it were proven by constructive, logical and objective reasoning, rather than through conclusory, non-reasoned declaration, as you seem to be given to on this occasion.
Hyphenating "so called" is a personal style choice because it is a set phrase. The argument against doing so is that there is zero chance of any rational human being reading it as so "called improvements". Mostly because that has no meaning. As for your supposed erudition, phrases like "federatively subdivided" are clunky. If you can't see that, you shouldn't write. -Rrius (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Are you really trying to assert that organized, non-redundant paragraphs, not comprised of run-on sentences, with correct grammar, and plain, descriptive headings, are not desirable and an aspirational goal? Why don't you just admit that you're pissed off at my superior erudition. No others reading this are going to be distracted from that by nothing more than your declaration of my contributions to be rejected by you as a "stiff, wordy muddle".
No reasonable editor is going to agree that two- to three-sentence paragraphs, topically organized with brief, descriptive sub-headings constitutes a "stiff, wordy muddle". Such a rationale belongs to and with the Simple English Wikipedia, not here. --Paul63243 (talk) 08:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
It is your ham-fisted phrasing that is the problem. The aim is readability, not to prove that Paul63243 has a vocabulary. And I have told you several times that a lead section is meant to summarize the article and is not subdivided into sections. You have not bothered to address that. Should I take that to mean that you now understand that? I suppose I should have provided a link to WP:LEAD, but you've been here long enough that you should have learned that already. If from nothing else than by seeing hundreds of Wikipedia articles and noticing that none of them has subsections in its lead. -Rrius (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Peter Goldring[edit]

Goldring has been welcomed back into the Conservative caucus, according to a statement released by the PMO. – Jwkozak91 (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Parlement's diagram[edit]

I noticed that Andreas11213 changed the diagram of the Canadian Parlement to a semi-circle instead of the (British style) rectangular style that it actually is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.81.199 (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

He has been doing this to parliaments all over the world. Without consensus, every time he doesn't get his was he edit wars. One look at his talk page shows this.115.42.1.112 (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on House of Commons of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Full protection[edit]

I have asked, and received, full protection for this article due to the slow moving edit war with at least one (auto)confirmed account. I have no opinion on the matter either way but please work it out here instead of continuing to revert over and over again. Thanks. --Majora (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

As per the House of Commons website the Opposition is referred to as "the Opposition" - not HM Loyal Opposition or any other term. Same goes for the government. This article should reflect such. Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The official term is "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" or in French "L'Opposition Loyale de Sa Majesté" and this is how it appears in official documentation. "Official Opposition", and "Opposition" are commonly used informal terms. [1] [2]

[3] [4] [5] Mediatech492 (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

If you need more sources I can provide them. There are literally thousands of them on the Parliament of Canada website alone. All official government documents, excerpts from parliamentary debate and so on. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@Mediatech492: Again, if you search those records "the opposition" is used much more often than Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Also, you aren't even using the term Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in the article, you're using "HM Loyal Opposition" which isn't even used in the parliament records. Please wait until consensus is achieved here before restoring the disputed version that was only added not too long ago. Jon Kolbert (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

As a non-Canadian, I would like to request that the article clearly distinguish between proper nouns and common nouns, and that "HM Opposition" or "Official Opposition" be used as "HM Government" or "Canadian Government" would be, in order to set these specific entities aside from common nouns such as government, opposition, etc.. Personally, I would prefer that the term "HM Loyal Opposition" be rarely if ever used, as it would imply that a "HM Disloyal Opposition", or other nonsensical entities, could exist. "HM" and "Loyal" are redundant. I believe that the historical term is "His Majesty's Opposition", circa 1826. Although I appreciate the brevity of "the Opposition", I feel that unless it is quoted, that it may be too easily confused with a common noun. I would like for it to be clear, that not every opposition, is the Opposition. T.Randall.Scales (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that I am in favour of using "Official Opposition" and "Government" in the infobox - I was just demonstrating that HM Loyal Opposition was not used in the texts Mediatext referenced. Jon Kolbert (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Still need more evidence? How about this [| official letter] of condolence from the Governor General on the death of Jack Layton. It says "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" not just once, but three times. A formal letter on an official occasion from the highest office of government in the country, and the word "official" does not even appear once. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request :
I have taken a third opinion request for this page and am currently reviewing the issues. I shall replace this text shortly with my reply. I have made no previous edits on House of Commons of Canada and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Response: I believe that the version that would be best is User:T.Randall.Scales's proposed wording, as a compromise. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Scheduled election[edit]

Please stop changing the next Elections the ion from "scheduled" to "on or before". Saying something is scheduled doesn't mean it can't be changed while on or before is much too vague. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on House of Commons of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on House of Commons of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

CCF today?[edit]

I noticed that the CCF is listed as having one elected member in the present House of Commons. Wasn't the CCF succeeded by NDP in 1961?--TM 18:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Erin Weir was elected as an NDP member, but has since parted ways with the party, and declared himself to be CCF. Since the Federal CCF was officially disbanded in 1961 this is a debatable stance. He certainly can claim to be CCF as there is no extant party to say otherwise. As far as Parliamentary rules go, since his "party" does not hold 12 seats he is not considered to be a party in the House and is officially considered an independent. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:House_of_Commons_of_Canada&oldid=908755489"