Talk:Canada

Some talking is on Talk:History of Canada.

Conformance to Wikiproject Countries

I changed this article to follow the guidelines set out at WikiProject Countries. However, I removed a large amount of (good) text that was just too detailed for this page; it should be moved to more appropriate locations (mostly History, and Québec, maybe a separate article on Québecois separatism?). I left the Canadian culture section open, ditto for the holidays table, hoping you Canadians (there's several of you would fix that for me). Please go ahead! Jeronimo

OH, and could somebody resize the coat of arms to a 125 pixel width? My imaging program's expired and I'm too lazy to get another one...sorry.

Quebecois independence

re: "In the second half of the 20th century, the French-speaking province of Quebec has sought independence, but two referenda have been defeated, albeit marginally in the last case (50.6% was against independence)"

...shouldn't it say "factions within the province" have sought independence or something like that? - stewacide 19:49 Dec 20, 2002 (UTC)

Absolutely it should....Elliot

...Given the obfuscation practiced by the separatists and the wording of the referendum (which did not mention independence), its hard to say what Quebeckers thought they were voting for in the referendum. The soft separatists probably thought that they were voting for a better deal for Quebec within Confedration. A vote for independence was more how the rest of Canada and the hard-core separatists saw the vote. I'm not sure how to rephrase the statement. Edmilne 20:23, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)

Better Map ?

Does anyone know of a place to get a better map of Canada than the one on this page? I've looked at gc.ca, and not found much. We need something that shows provincial boundaries and is up to date to include Nunavut. matt 01:02 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

I hate to be a downer, but I don't think we can use the map. Check the copyright notice on the site at http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/notice_e.html . One is allowed to use the map, for non-commercial purposes only, but I don't believe that is compatible with the GFDL. Someone could sell a copy of the Wikipedia on CD-ROM (of course, it would still be under the GFDL and free-as-in-freedom and all those good things). What's everyone's take on this? I think the Canadian rules differ (unfortunately) from the American ones, which seem to place most materials into the public domain. Dze27

I've just written into the the apropriate email alias to request permission to use the image given Wikipedia policy. If anyone can find a similar quality map in the public domain, I say replace it...but the previous map was sorely lacking. matt 04:31 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

OK. Hopefully they'll say yes. I work at a different Canadian government department but I'm not sure how much leeway there is (we have the same policy). Hopefully they'll let us use it since it's colorful and up-to-date. The .gif does identify NRC as the source department, and we're not representing it as official. We can't really guarantee that all "Users exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced" though... Dze27

Don't sweat, folks. According to Wikipedia:Copyright:

Wikipedia articles may include images, sounds, or other similar material from external sources with different copyright terms, and which is used with permission or under "fair use" doctrine. In this case, the material will be identified as from an external source (on the image description page, history page, or talk page as appropriate) and copyright holders of that material retain their rights and you must comply with the separate copyright terms for that material.

- Montréalais

The "Mountainous" East

"Eastern Canada is mountainous"? Did something get removed in editing here?Jfitzg

Official Name: Canada or Dominion of Canada?

Though the term is rarely used nowadays, Canada's legal name continues to be "The Dominion of Canada." It is established as such in the constitution, and the title has never been formally revoked. user:J.J.

This is true. However, the Canadian government, Canadian citizens and other reference works don't use that name. Thus, I'd say that the official-but-unused "Dominion of Canada" should be mentioned in the article, but not used as a heading for the table. -- Stephen Gilbert 18:26 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

I checked Peter Hogg's standard work Constitutional Law in Canada and he states in sec. 5.1(e) that the use of Dominion of Canada was chipped away by the Federal government in the 1930s. If you check any laws or official Canadian web sites it is called Canada, not Dominion of Canada -- that is officially an archaic use and inaccurate. As far as the Constitution is concerned it mentions the work Dominion but nowhere is the name Dominion of Canada used in the Constitution, the law that created the independent country of Canada is called "The Canada Act" (U.K.) (1982), not "The Dominion of Canada Act" thus the British Parliament put the final nail in the Dominion name when the Constitution was patriated. -- Alex756 08:35 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

I've had this argument before. As Alex correctly states, D.o.C. used to be the official name, but is not any more. The full, complete name of Canada is Canada. - Montréalais

According to William Thorsell in today's Globe we are still the Dominion of Canada. I looked it up in the 1982 constitution and he is right, there is no change of name. (And the name of the 'Canada Act' doesn't mean anything Canada's official name after 1867 wasn't British North America) SimonP 18:49 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

There is a lot of blather about this, some of it even on the Government of Canada website.

The actual text of the British North America Act actually says very clearly what is the case. The "Name" is "Canada." The term "Dominion" refers to the type of country it is (i.e. a euphemism for kingdom)

3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly.(4)

4. Unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the Name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.(5)

The reason why we have this problem is not just that the wording was confusing. Legally speaking, the name was never Dominion of Canada. Simply, the monarchists amongst us have pushed us to use that term for such a long time. Think of such background parts of the constitution as somehow not law, but really just a document reflecting political positions, not absolutes. In this case, we are simply tossing around the monarchist vs. republic debate in an edge case, the "name" of the country; just like the stupid question about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin was an edge case to prove or disprove the effective power of god. Eventually we dropped the usage because it was impolitic; the monarchists are losing slowly.

But if you want to be legal, the name of the country is "Canada." If you want to be accurate, explain how and why the history of the country changed what it called itself. It's a good reflection of who we are. The title "Dominion" was even chosen by the British over our objections so as to not offend the Americans with our loyalism. -- SunirShah (64.229.25.227 )

I just changed the name to The Dominion of Canada, as that IS the ONLY official, proper, name for my country. If you look up the United States, it does not just say "America", it says The United States of America. Likewise, a search for "Germany", reveals it's actual name as The Federal Republic of Germany, NOT just "Germany". The official name of a country usually tells you how it is run, id est, it's form of goverance. Canada is STILL a dominion, and the term "Dominion" the only proper name for our country and form of goverance as we are a constitutional monarchy, yet not "officially" a kingdom. This is why I changed it to: "The Dominion Of Canada, usually refered to as just "Canada", is the second.....". I ask you people NOT to change it back, as it would be quite a pain if I had to continue correcting this error! --Maxwell C. 05:19, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, good luck, Maxwell, but there are a lot of people who don't agree for some reason, so I think that you will have a lot of correcting to do -- talking of which, you have mis-spelled some of what you have added so I will need to fix it in any case. We managed to agree a compromise for a while which mentioned Canada and Dominion of Canada but that seems to have broken down lately as new editors have begun noticing the article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:31, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

Maxwell, you're going to have to come up with convincing legal arguments, not just bombast if you want to win this debate. SunirShah, above, quotes the actual text of the BNA Act 1867 to make the case: "One Dominion under the Name of Canada", not "One Dominion under the Name of the Dominion of Canada". Germany and America are officially FRG and US because that is what their governments use and what their constitutions say. There is no international law preventing Canada from calling itself "Canada". If Canada wanted to change its name to an unpronounceable symbol with no reference to dominion, kingdom or republic, it could do so, and people would end up calling it "the country formerly known as Canada". And as Derek Ross said, this debate is been around for a long time, and there will be a lot of people ready to revert to the existing wording every time you change it unless you convince us otherwise. And by the way, when a contentious issue like this arises, Wikipedia protocol is to resolve it through a discussion on the Talk page, instead of engaging in a "revert war" on the article page. Sorry, pal.Kevintoronto 14:02, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, you are wrong on at least one account (and many more, but I'm too lazy to list them all right now). We are not "historically" the Dominion Of Canada, we are STILL the Dominon of Canada, nothing has changed. Therefore, as a comprimise, I will change it to "formally called the Dominion Of Canada", not "historically". Also, people still DO use the term "Dominion" to refer to our country, CBC's Rex Murphy used it just two weeks ago on CBC! --Maxwell C. 02:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Um, something has indeed changed: the government has ceased to refer to the Dominion. That's a major policy shift. "Compromise" isn't what you decide it is. - Montréalais 04:47, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Well, you are wrong on at least one account (and many more, but I'm too lazy to list them all right now)." That's pathetic. Really pathetic. If you're not willing to engage in logical debate and present credible evidence (Rex Murphy is your best evidence?), then you've lost, and we will continue to revert. Kevintoronto 13:27, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fine, you can continue to revert all you like, but I would like to now offcicially declare my revert war upon you people. I will keep getting rid of that "historically" part, as it is simply untrue bullshit, our constitution has not changed, regardless of what some idiots in Parliament think. --Maxwell C. 23:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just reverted your edit. I am willing to listen to your argument and I might even agree with you if you present a case for your change. A number of people have presented information with sources that opposes your opinion. Until you point out a flaw in their logic or sources, I side with them. -- JamesTeterenko 00:25, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fine, here is my "case": We are not "historically the Dominion Of Canada", we ARE the Dominion of Canada, there is nothing historic about it. Nothing has changed, if you must have written proof, please read the British North America Act. And also, you stated that your edit was to make it agree with the "consensus" on the talk page. If I do not agree, then it ceases to be a consensus. I have re-re-corrected this error in the calling of our dominion "historic". --Maxwell C. 05:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The act should be cited as the Constitution Act, 1867. Section 3: "...One Dominion under the Name of Canada." In the first decades of the previous century, the appelation of "Dominion of Canada" was in use, especially in foreign affairs. That usage progressively disappeared after 1930. --Vasile 19:41, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is not necessary to rescind an earlier appellation, then pass a new appelation for an official change of appelation. All that need happen is that a new constituating law be passed that uses the new name. --JimWae 05:47, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

The BNA Act 1867 established the name "Canada", but the name "Dominion of Canada" was used. There was no statute passed to enact that "change". The Constitution didn't prohibit that "Dominion of Canada" usage. The Canadian Constitution is "similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom" (preamble of the Constitution Act 1867). UK was appealed as "British Empire" in the 19th century, but that name became desuete soon after the end of the WWI. Something similar happened with Canada name. --Vasile 00:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear: "the Name of Canada", not "the name of the Dominion of Canada". The "One Dominion" part of it makes it clear that Canada is a dominion (whatever that means), but it clearly does not say that the name is "the Dominion of Canada". As far as your comment, Maxwell, that your dissenting opion means that there is no consensus, your point is taken. It seems that your view is that the article should reflect only your opinion, though, and to heck with the rest of us. With that view, there is no doubt that you will lose the revert war. Kevintoronto 16:53, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just checked with my Canadian History Professor, a world renowned expert on the history of Canada who has written something like 60 books on the topic. He made it EXTREMELY clear to me that the official name of our country is "CANADA" and that the "DOMINION" part of our original name "dominion of Canada" was officially dropped from usage between 1951 and 1953 sometime. Hope that Helps.--132.216.35.73 23:21, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) cshefm|Montreal

The Prime Minister

"Prime Minister, who is the leader of the political party that holds the most seats in the House of Commons"

As I understand it, the PM is the person who has the confidence of the Commons to run the government. In practice, this is the leader of the largest party but doesn't have to be. A combination of smaller parties or a brakdown in party discipline could produce a PM who is not the leader of the largest party. User: edmilne 23:47 May 21, 2003

Water amount

Moved from article:

Canada has one-half of the world's fresh water.

A (Canadian) friend of mine pointed this sentence out to me. It's completely inaccurate. "Common knowledge" is that Canada has one-fifth of the world's fresh water supply, actual knowledge is that it's half THAT, and possibly even as low as ~6%. -- nknight 21:08 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Both guesstimations are close.

20% in all; 7% renewable.

(Source: Environment Canada's fact # 17.)

--Menchi 21:51 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Re: my last edit

The current formatting is the standard prescribed as Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. If we are to change it here, we must also change it on the country template and everywhere. The new formatting used, however, is problematic for countries with mixed presidential-parliamentary systems where there is no clear-cut head of state and head of government. There's nothing wrong with the current format. --Jiang 18:54, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Discussion continued at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Continued from Talk:Canada.

Oil reserves in Canada

There are 311 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Alberta oil sands compared to 240 billion barrels in Saudi Arabia. Canada as a whole has 366 billion barrels of recoverable oil. The total amount of oil reserves in Alberta alone,which is oil that is recoverable and that which is not currntly economically recoverable is in the range of 1.5 to 2.5 trillion barrels.

Canadas size 2nd or 3rd

The total area of Canada is 2nd in the world. The ranking of 3rd comes when the area of the inland water is not included,although that is usually included in the area of a nation.

I don't think so. According to the CIA World Factbook, the United States has a land size of 9,158,960 sq km, making Canada 4th after subtracting inland water.

The article claims that Canada has the second largest land area, after Russia. I thought China was ahead of Canada. The CIA world factbook lists China's land area as 9,326,410 km^2 and Canada's as 9,093,507 km^2. Is the wiki page incorrect? Based on the CIA's numbers Canada would be second in TOTAL area, but third in LAND area.

French in Manitoba..

The article would seem to infer that French in Manitoba is restricted to a section (not a town) of Winnipeg called St. Boniface. While it is true that St. Boniface is the "French Quarter" of Winnipeg, I can personally assure you that French language and culture is alive and well outside of Winnipeg. Southern Manitoba is full of French communities, as a cursory examination of town and R.M. names will reveal. Between French and German, English is considered a secondary language for a large percentage of rural Manitoba. Statistics taken over the years, by various social, commercial, and political concerns have placed the French-speaking (and bi-lingual?) population of Manitoba at anywhere from 15% to 25% of the population. These numbers (unfortunately) do not often reflect the Métis population, who also speak a dialect of French, which today has been homogenized into French in any case.

In summary, this article would gain accuracy simply replacing "the town of Saint Boniface, Manitoba" with "southern Manitoba."

--phrawzty 22:54, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Number of Canadians vs Population of Canada

Where did the 2003 population figure come from? Statistics Canada on its website shows an October 2004 population of 32,040,292. So, where does the inflated 2003 figure come from?--BrentS 22:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the statement in the third paragraph that Canada "has a low population density, there being just 32 million Canadians", is this figure the population of Canada, or is it the number of Canadians? I suspect that many more foreigners live in Canada (like me!) than Canadians live abroad, in which case there could be a substantial difference between the two figures. Even if there is not much numerical difference, it is not strictly accurate to conflate the two groups.... Cambyses 01:36, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I expect the number was taken from Statistics Canada census data. Do they ask not-Canadian residents to complete the census? Do they ask Canadian non-residents to complete the census? My impression has always been that it's the number of Canadians living in Canada. --Caliper 04:11, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Messages

Some time in the past few days, someone removed the following from the bottom of the article:

While I can't say the plethera of tables particularly improved the article, the purpose of having a message for something like NATO is to put it on the country pages of all the members of NATO. Basically, I'd rather have them there than not. Is there any particular reason these were removed? --Caliper 20:40, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I removed them because they are ugly, useless, take up a great deal of space, and are not in keeping with the consesus reached at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. - SimonP 21:29, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

fair enough, but I wonder about the change from Confederation to Federation in the article... considering there's a unique entry on this, Canadian_Confederation, I'll change it to point to that... Krupo 05:44, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Visible minorities, diversity

I removed this offensive, troll-smelling rant from the Demographics section:

It is worth noting in this connection that patriotism and nationalism exists all throughout the world. One particularly egregious example is the Canadian press [1], which often purports that Canada is more racially diverse than the United States. Many Canadians believe this, when in fact, 87% of Canada is white [2][3]. Many Canadians are also unaware that slavery existed in Canada's history and that discrimination still exists.

POV: a diversity fluff-piece on a City of Toronto web page in a section called "quality_of_life" is a "particularly egregious" example of nationalism in the Canadian press? Please be serious.
Factually incorrect: Canadians pride themselves on multiculturalism (often contrasted with the melting pot approach used most famously by the US), not raw numerical diversity. Although the error of conflating the two is understandable -- Canadian schoolchildren are taught about multiculturalism while the author of the above screed fairly obviously was not -- it is still wrong.
Misleading: to push his agenda, the author of the above is wilfuly misusing the statscan statistics. Some facts:
- The rural population is predominantly white, but the major metropolitan areas are highly mixed [4]
- In 2001, 94% of immigrants who arrived during the 1990s were living in Canada?s census metropolitan areas, compared with 64% of the total population who lived in these areas. (from same link)
- proportion of foreign-born Canadians was 18.4% in 2001, second only to Australia
- "If [the current] trend continues, one in five Canadians will be a visible minority in 2016, up from 13 per cent in 2001. In some places, minorities are already the majority: 59 per cent in Richmond, B.C. and 56 per cent in Markham, Ont."[5]
- Aboriginals are undercounted, although the impact on the overall visible minority count is unknown (and probably relatively minor)[6]
Asserts facts not in evidence: where is there proof that Canadians are unaware that small scale slavery once existed in Canada?
Asserts facts not in evidence: where is there proof for the astonishing claim that Canadians are unaware that discrimination exists?
Irrelevant: Slavery is utterly irrelevant to this overview article (and especially the demographics section). When this was happening in the 1700s there was global slave trading, particularly throughout the British empire, and the extent of slavery in Canada was neither significant nor particularly noteworthy (it still deserves mention in the detailed Canadian History article, of course).
Has nothing to do with Canada: the author of the above is pretty transparently trying to push some agenda in his or her home country. Take it to Usenet or Free Republic or wherever, and leave other countries encyclopedia articles alone. Canada doesn't exist to be your political football.
The link to Black Canadian is a highly non-obvious choice of example to use for discrimination in Canada. Would I be right in guessing that the author is from a country where anti-Black racism is endemic? In any case, I'd fully support an expanded article about Discrimination in Canada, with coverage of issues such as the ongoing outrageous treatment of aboriginal Canadians by some municipal police departments, the disproportionate rate of incarceration of aboriginal Canadians, the late 80s controversy about Sikh RCMP officers being permitted to wear turbans instead of standard headgear, the early 90s concerns about Asian gangs in the BC lower mainland, and similar matters.

Saucepan 07:14, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good edits, well done. Krupo 14:11, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

Heavy reliance on natural resources is incorrect

In the first section of the Canada page, the statement "Its economy relies heavily on its abundance of natural resources" is a (perhaps all too common) misconception. The exact proportion depends on how one adds up national accounts, but Statistics Canada's page on Gross domestic product at basic prices by industry at Statistics Canada GDP tablesuggests that the value of the output of primary industries (Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting + Mining and oil and gas extraction) comprises only about 5.75% of total GDP. The manufacturing sector alone is more than three times the size of the primary industries segment. A more accurate statement would be something like "Its economy is widely diversified. The largest sector is services (comprising segments such as finance & insurance and retail trade); the manufacturing, construction and resource sectors are also important." --papageno 22:50, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How about the change to: "Its economy traditionally relied heavily on its abundance of natural resources, although the modern Canadian economy has become widely diversified." ? Feel free to add more details, I felt this was nice and quick. :) Krupo 02:33, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

Canadian Demographics

Perhaps this is my ignorance as a non-Canadian, but under the demographics section it mentions that 39.2% of the population is "Canadian" ... but what does this mean exactly? Also, the total amount is well over 100% ... I assume that people could answer more than one category? I do not know if anyone besides me finds this confusing, but a breakdown similar to the one in the "Ethnic Groups" section of the Demographics of Canada article is much easier to understand. Can anyone shed some light on this for me? Aren't all Canadians "Canadian"? CES 04:39, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think StatsCan goes by self-identification, meaning that 39,2% of the population identified themselves as being Canadian rather than some other name. - Montréalais

The choice of "Canadian" for the origin of Canadian citizens first appeared in the 2001 population census. It is somewhat controversial. I do not know what is the official reason for this change according to Statistics Canada. It would need to be researched on their website. -- Mathieugp 14:44, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The census asked for origin of ancestors, not ethnic self-identification. Statistics Canada wanted to remove the "Canadian" choice (all Canadians with a Canadian parent would have Canadian ancestry after all), but there was a political backlash from people who didn't understand the question wasn't about self-identification. The confusion over the question continues, with the ideas of ethnic ancestry versus ethnic self-identification being confused. It's a shame from the point of view of people wanting coherent data. http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/Products/Reference/dict/pop040.htm

Even origin of ancestors is difficult these days as so many Canadians are of very mixed ancestry. If I had to check off all of my ancestoral homelands I would be checking five boxes. - Beckie

Canada's contributions to the world

i added this section and it was taken out by simonp. is it really an 'unneeded' section? where should this go? trying to stay out of trouble :-) eyal katz

I think that the reason that it was taken out was that it looks more like boasting than a sober list of Canadian achievements. Thus it breaks our NPOV policy. If I were you I would try to rewrite it in such a way that it doesn't sound quite so much like an advert. That way people are less likely to object to it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:23, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Eyal, your contributions are very much valued. I do, however, have a number of objections to this section:

All Wikipedia country articles follow a set format, and no other country has a contributions section.
It is almost impossiblefor such a list to be neutral. For instance the British liked our help in the Boer War, most of the rest of the world didn't.
Similarly statements such as us being a "peaceful multicultural nation, with less racial tension than many other places" needs some supporting evidence, otherwise it is just opinion.
This information is already gathered in more complete form elsewhere, e.g. List_of_Canadians#Inventors.

- SimonP 05:27, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

I've removed the addition of "Innovations" and "Being a Living Example for", aside from being heavily biased, most of the information is incorrect or missing (i.e. a very vague statement about "a founder of eBay"?). Also, what makes an 'innovation' Canadian? For example, Alexander Graham Bell was born in Scotland and most of his work was done in the US. Does a few years spent in Canada and a transatlantic phone call make him or his work 'Canadian'..?Tremblay 17:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Melting pot

For example, Canadians see their country as a mosaic of unique immigrant cultures, a large picture made up of many distinct pieces, rather than an American-style melting-pot.

I have heard comments before similar to the above sentence from several Canadians, but personally as an American the word "melting pot" stirs up images of 19th-century campaigns to "re-educate" Native Americans and other minorities and seems as outdated as phrases like the "white man's burden" and "Manifest Destiny". In school, the phrase I learned to describe our multiculturalism is a "salad bowl". The "American-style melting-pot" statement seems POV and an unnecessary jab at the US. We can both be salads, you know =) CES 05:49, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is a term I'd also like to see someone expand upon. I grew up in rural Canada hearing about the American melting pot, while we were multicultural or diverse. I now live in Toronto, the most multicultural city in the world by many standards and I see enclaves of ethnicity everywhere (I live in a neighourhood of Greeks and Asians). But how is this different from, say, New York City? TimothyPilgrim 13:12, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

I have a feeling there's no difference between what you see in Toronto and New York City. Although the New Yorkers would probably consider themselves to be the "most multicultural city in the world". =) I think in general this type of issue is raised by misunderstandings on both sides ... there seems to be the perception in Canada that America is a melting pot that forces minorities/immigrants to assimilate into some kind of mainstream culture, but on the other side I think many Americans would be surprised to know that there even are minorities in Canada, let alone that Canada claims to be the more "multicultural" of the two countries. I'm going to remove the word American-style from the article, although I think the whole sentence should be replaced by an example of a more recognized difference between the two countries, or a discussion on why Canada is a salad and America a pot (personally I think anyone would be hard pressed to find a large difference between the two countries). It seems like the goal of both governments is the same: to foster diversity and encourage multiculturalism, but at the same time have a collective identity as "Canadian" or "American". The word "multicultural" focuses on the former part of the plan and "melting pot" on the latter, but in practice it seems like the result is the same. CES 01:33, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that it was not only amercans who campaigned for the re-education of native americans but canada too. the drive behind the campaign actually came from the catholic church and not from any specific government entity. unfortuneately there is a dark history behind the campaign aswell and also is a completely other topic for discussion.-- Larsie 18:27, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Decentralized federation

Some clarification issues: the opening sentence describes Canada as "a decentralized federation". In terms of decentralized, is it refering to a decentralized federal government? Another note: The Liberal party is centre-left, not centrist. - anon

That's pretty POV. Except on certain social issues, I don't see the Liberals as left-wing at all. - Montréalais 17:18, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm wondering about this, how IS our government decentralized? We HAVE a capital, it's called "Ottawa", doesn't having a capital make a country centralized? --Maxwell C. 23:03, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Progressively, Canada became less centralized that it was in 1867. It's written in the endnotes. --Vasile 02:17, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

GDP Check

The article List of countries by GDP is wrong, completely wrong. I live in Mexico (and I'm Mexican) and according to the official stats, the GDP of Mexico is 1/1000th (it'ld be great to have that rank and GDP :-P) of the shown there, so the ranking is wrong. The same happens to Spain, and many others, so it would be great to re-make the ranks and the list itself, or remove the rank of every country. Re-making probably taking the GDP from the Human Development Report 2004 of United Nations for the Development Programme UNDP, which features the GDP of 2002 for most of the countries with official numbers. --phil_websurfer 06:55, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Largest Canadian city

I have read various websites referring to Timmins, Ontario as the largest city in Canada although both Canada and Ontario's pages refer to Toronto, Ontario as such. One such source was an Ontario government website that made this claim. I would change the referrences to largest cities on both pages but I wouldn't want conflict because I think many people just assume Toronto is. SD6-Agent 15:14, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I had never even heard of Timmins until seeing your note. A quick peek at its page here suggests it is relatively small population-wise at under 50,000 people, but that its land area is quite large (perhaps due to some quirk of the regions geography, or the way the city was incorporated). When people speak of the "largest city" I always assumed that they were speaking of population, but I'd be happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. Saucepan 15:22, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Largest city," unmodified, is almost always understood to refer to population. Toronto is Canada's most populous city. Timmins is (or was) Canada's largest municipality in land area, though I seem to recall hearing it's Greater Sudbury, Ontario now. - Montréalais 15:44, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The 'Municipalité de la Baie James' covers 350,000 square kilometers. Greater Sudbury only claims to be the largest municipality in Ontario, not Canada (according to their official site). I once heard (no proof, mentionned for 'fun') that the James Bay Municipality sent a 'cease and desist' to Timmins about making claims of being the largest city (landwise). However, I do agree that the "largest city" in the article should refer to the most populous. jag123 11:32, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph : Article Needs a heavy hand

Geez, i just returned from a nice visit to your country and went here to read up on it. This article isn't up to par. I made a few obvious minor edits, and then realized it needs a bold and more knowing (native) hand to whack all the (good) info into shape, starting with the meandering introductory paragraph.Sfahey 21:49, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What exactly do you find lacking? I am Canadian and see nothing not up to par --Will2k 22:22, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

As Sfahey noted, the introduction could be worked over. Compare to the United States entry, for example. Having said that, the major sections are all 'hit' in the entry; how much more can you add before spilling over into the sub-articles, eh? So aside from fleshing out the intro with a bit more, it looks alright. The population factoid at the end is such a little orphan, I'll tidy that up... Krupo 02:05, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

As a result, the country has mixed results on the world stage: its artists achieve world renown, while the under-funded military is stretched thin.

This seems rather POV to me. Also, is the bit about the economy supposed to suggest that our economy is larger or smaller than might be expected? It's unclear. - Montréalais 04:28, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, that's definately POV, take it out --Will2k 15:17, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

"With a population one-tenth that of its southern neighbour, the United States, Canada might be expected to have an economy one-tenth as large. In practice, Canada's economic leverage usually exceeds this ratio."

Why might one expect Canada to have an economy comparable to any other country simply based on size of population? Using this method, what can we say about India or China in comparison to the United States? Hate to say it, but this POV seems like a rather veiled poke at its southern neighbor.

It is not only POV, it's just wrong. Canada's GDP per capita is slightly lower (check Gross domestic product). (But income is much more evenly distributed: GINI-Index 31.5 v. 45, check CIA World Factbook). I suggest replacing this passage with something like: "Canada ranked fourth on the 2004 list of nations with the highest standard of living, behind Norway, Sweden and Australia."
Comments? richarddd 23:13, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User Sfahey is right. The introductory paragraph is leaden, arranged around marginal links like that to Earth. Where else would Canada be on? Mars? The Governor-General is mentioned five times in the article including the photo (the PM 13 times), and gets more mention than is really necessary. As to the PM and GG living in the capital Ottawa, where else would the head of state and government live? Why is it so significant to mention the northernmost nation? What about Russia, Sweden, Finland, Norway? Why "sovereign" country? Is this some obscure reference to Greenland?. Another example of questionable links is "contiguous" in Geography. The link to the article titled "International Boundary" is bizarre - what two countries do not have an international boundary? You would think this was unique to the US-Canada border. If the template allows, why not separate Government from Politics (one the mechanics, the other the real world). One could go on, but I agree that the first three paragraphs need reworking and reduction in repetition and questionable links. --BrentS 00:02, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

National Parks

Canada's national parks are known worldwide, therefore i think there should be an addition to the article pertaining to theses parks. p.s. does anyone know what the first canadian national park is?--Larsie 18:28, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Banff National Park was Canada's first (and the world's third) national park. [7] Darkcore 19:23, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Statistics (lies, damn lies and statistics)

I haven't yet looked into the standard of living statistics that you posted for this year. What i do know is that they are very selective on certain factors. For all of those years that Canada was ranking first if you put gender in as a larger factor we dropped below the top ten. I think that some type of discussion of what type of statistics should go on here, or alternate statistical views. Yes its nice to put us 4th in the world and a well intenetioned thing to add---but is it the best way to write the article?--Marcie 14:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've changed "standard of living" to "UN Human Development Index." It is not NPOV to say that the Index is an objective measure of "standard of living." The UN does not make this claim (which is why it is called the "Human Development Index" rather than the "Standard of Living Index," and many, many commentators dispute whether it is an accurate reflection of a country's standard of living. HistoryBA 15:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Northernmost Country in the World

On what basis do we say that Canada is the northernmost country in the world? Aren't there several countries that claim sovereignty to the North Pole? Is there anything special about Canada in this regard? HistoryBA 14:20, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since the North Pole is in the middle of the Arctic Ocean it does not count as land, so it doesn't really matter whether anybody claims sovereignty over it or not. In order to be the northernmost country in the world, a country needs to have land further north than any other. That land is Oodaaq Island which belongs to Greenland, a Danish dependency. However see the earlier section on this page which discusses whether Greenland really counts. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:39, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

Photo possibilities?

The 'Demographics' section of this page has lots of white space ripe for a photo insert. Any ideas on a good picture to set this off? Radagast 15:01, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Vikings

is there any source indicating that the scandinavians going there were vikings? Dan Koehl 12:11, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dan: see http://www.pc.gc.ca/lhn-nhs/nl/meadows/index_E.asp

Yes, I saw it mentioning norse buildings, and Viking lifestyle, whatever that is, that article, belonging to a website of national parks, doesnt describe this inovation further, or what the main parts of that life style was. Since so little is known by those colonists, Id say its vise not to speculate to much in their life styles, and even inventing new terms for that.

The colonists was scandinavians. Theres no need to confuse it by using misunderstood words from 1800´s romantic periods, afais. Dan Koehl 05:34, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It has been mostly the history kept by the Scandinavians themselves through their sagas that claim it was the Vikings that first came to Canada. We already know they made their way to Iceland and Greenland so their saga of Vinland, and subsequent discovery of Scandinavian settlement in Newfoundland make the story credible. - Beckie

Commonwealth Template

Why was the template for Commonwealth nations removed? Isn't Cananda still a member of the Commonwealth? Edwinstearns 19:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It has long been the consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries that footer templates for random international organizations do not belong in country articles. - SimonP 20:05, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

I personally resent that any other group's consensus has any more authority that a consensus reached here. Unless it is a Wikipedia policy the consensus reached for a project has no binding to this article. --[[User:Sunborn|metta, The Sunborn ☸]] 21:56, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have not seen a discussion on the Canada talk page that reached a consensus saying that the Commonwealth Template should be here. I even took a few pokes in the history just to see if I missed something. So, it appears that SimonP made a bold change to make the Canada page more consistent with other countries on Wikipedia. Unless I am pointed to a discussion that reached consensus otherwise, I believe that the Commonwealth Template should stay off this page. -- JamesTeterenko 04:00, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems poor of an encyclopedia not to strive for consistancy. What's the point of having a Commonwealth template if it's not applied to ALL the Commonwealth nations' articles? Canada IS STILL IN the Commonwealth.[8] Do not be fooled by the fact that they changed their flag to a maple leaf! :) -- Eric 10:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Consistency is exactly why the commonwealth template appears in no country articles. - SimonP 18:15, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Territories

In the Provincial and territorial government section, what does this sentence mean? "Due to the reduced political powers, many people say that the Canadian territories have not received proper and equal representation in the Canadian Parliament." The three territories should have more MPs and Senators? I find it obscure. What about the question of representation by population?--BrentS 22:07, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Statute of Westminster vs BNA Act 1867

The Statute of Westminster is a pretty obscure piece of British legislation. Though it is taught for all of five seconds in Canadain high schools, nobody really pays it any notice and it is not commemerated by anybody except maybe wistfully by the Monarchist Club. The British North America Act(1867) is usually the date given for the founding of Canada as an independant country. And an arguement could be made for the Constitution Act(1982)which finally removed the right for appeal to the British Privy Council for criminal cases. Even now the Head of State appointed by the Queen of England can disolve Parliament and force an election. The First Nations still have treaties with the British Crown because of treaties entered into before July 1st 1867. When the Canadain government fails in its treaty responsibilities Natives still press their case in Westminster. I don't think that it has a stronger claim than 1867.

First of all, it's the Monarchist LEAGUE, not the "Monarchist Club". Also, there is no Queen of England, as England is not its own kingdom, it is a constituent country of the UNITED KINGDOM. You should really say "The Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Canada does not have any sort of head of state APPOINTED by our Queen. That is entirely impossible, as the Queen herself is our head of state (You don't believe me? British North America Act, Section IV. Executive power, paragraph one, sentence one -- I think). If you believe Her Excellency the Govenor General is our head of state, you are wrong, as she is simply a Representative of our head of state (the Queen).

Two16 06:47 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)

In 1929, Lord Sankey compared the Canadian Constitution with "a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits". Indeed, the Queen does not appoint the G-G of Canada. The actual functions of G-G resemble more with those of the head of state. Anyway, BNAA 1867 said something about the Cabinet and Prime Minister functions? --Vasile 19:33, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

--BrentS 22:37, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC) Read the article on the Westminster system. The BNA Act section III Executive power says "9. The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen." The next clause says "10. The Provisions of this Act referring to the Governor General extend and apply to the Governor General for the Time being of Canada, or other Chief Executive Officer or Administrator for the Time being carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the Name of the Queen, by whatever Title he is designated." Clause 11 says about the cabinet "11. There shall be a Council to aid and advise in the Government of Canada, to be styled the Queen's Privy Council for Canada; and the Persons who are to be Members of that Council shall be from Time to Time chosen and summoned by the Governor General and sworn in as Privy Councillors, and Members thereof may be from Time to Time removed by the Governor General." The cabinet by convention is the functioning part of the Privy Council. Clause 13 says "13. The provisions of this Act referring to the Governor General in Council shall be construed as referring to the Governor General acting by and with the Advice of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada." ie. the GG acts through the cabinet or privy council. See the full text at various websites.

Sections 11 to 13 of BNAA 1867 are referring to the Privy Council. That is not the Cabinet, and the Privy Council hasn't ever detained the executive power. The preamble of the BNAA defined the Canadian Constitution being "similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom". A couple decades before 1867, the British North-American provinces gained "responsible government", similar in principle with that of the United Kingdom.

About the name of the country, s3. of Constitution Act of 1867: "one dominion under the name of Canada". --Vasile 12:38, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Population 2003

Where did the 2003 population figure come from? Statistics Canada on its website shows an October 2004 population of 32,040,292. So, where does the inflated 2003 figure come from? Also, the article seems to be duplicated twice now, scroll down. --BrentS 17:29, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Canada's Name: Canada vs Dominion of Canada - Again! (see above)

Do many other country sites have sections devoted to the origin of the name? Since the name of Canada is so contentious (Canada vs Dominion of Canada) and there is already an article Canada's Name, why is the Naming section still there? Is there a REDIRECT from Dominion of Canada? The article is getting quite long and we are getting warning messages about its length.--BrentS 17:29, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Come See Canada---Venez nous voir!

Really, after reading some responses, I am convinced that the non-Canadians really have to come and see Canada for themselves! Our country has so much to offer, especially for the naturalist! Please verify facts prior to writing something. A book is the best place to start--the internet cannot always be trusted!

P.S.

I also read from someone that Canada is not the 2nd largest nation in the world---well WE ARE!!! (SECOND TO RUSSIA)

anglo chauvinism

137.186.252.157's recent edits to this article (e.g. [9]), which minimized American influences and utterly erased any mention of French Canadian culture, make me think that one of the articles (either Culture of Canada or Canadian identity) ought to discuss the phenomenon that is this kind of Anglophone chauvinism—if it has any significance, which I'm not sure it does. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 18:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Simply put; my deletion of the mention of French culture was done so partially because of the wording not because I believe it to be false. It is true that one province in Canada has a strong French cultural presence. But the fact is, this culture has little barring on the lives of Canadians out side of Quebec; the same way that Mexican culture has little influence on American culture despite the large majority Mexican population in some areas of the southwest United States. It is not as though Canadian culture is some sort of blending of British and French culture as it is portrayed to outsiders. Canadians outside of Quebec know very little of French culture and language.

Because the Liberal government decided to call Canada a multicultural nation in official government policy, does not make it so. Partisan policies can not decide the culture of a country. That is up to the people. Canada is a nation whose seeds were planted in war, rose during war, was born during war and has grown during war. To simply make Canada out as being a liberal-socialist nation because of the fragmented resistance to liberal ideology is unfair if not un-ethical. Canada has a strong history and development (as noted above) as well as its own unique culture. Do you believe that our ancestors who fought in Canada's many wars, especially WW1 and WW2 thought that they were fighting for a socialist multicultural Canada when they were dying in freedoms cause on Europe’s battle fields? They did not. They were fighting for there ideals, their culture, their country.

So keeping in mind the truth about Canadian history and culture, one may realize why many Canadians have a hard time accepting the policies of a government who claims that "Canada has no culture" (1994- Sheila Finestone).

137.186.252.157 14:28 MT

Since you're obviously spinning your wheels here, I suggest you try to find a compromise wording that will be acceptable to others watching this article. You've already broken the Three-revert rule, so you are liable to be blocked by an admin. If you think another point of view is important, try to add that information, in an encyclopedic fashion, instead of deleting what's here. —Michael Z. 2005-02-5 23:53 Z

1) You may be right about the ideals of those ancestors fighting in WW1 and WW2. Nevertheless, Canada (and the world) has changed a lot since 1945. 2) I don't think that the Mexican culture has not an important influence on the American culture; anyway, it is not an isolated phenomenon.--Vasile 00:15, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you were to look farther back in the history of the article, you would notice that the article I keep posting is a basically a compromise reached between me and various other users a number of months ago. It was another user who deleted this article and replaced it with one of the pre-compromise articles. I am simply posting the article people seemed to agree upon (with some minor modifications including some of the more recently posted information such as the cultural symbols). 137.186.252.157 17:22 02/05/05

Okay, I apologize for coming in late. Anyway, instead of reverting so much, some discussion, lobbying, or further compromise may be necessary. I guess Vasile has gotten started. Is the previous discussion still on this talk page? —Michael Z. 2005-02-6 00:36 Z

Since I introduced the apparently unacceptable concept of Canada having two main cultures (the two solitudes - also read historian Arthur Lower who was an early historical proponent), I wonder if I live in the same country as some of the above. The anonymous 137.186.252.157 14:28 MT seems to think that Quebec and French Canada are of no account in Canada or Canadian culture. This simply seems outlandish to me. I prefer the two cultures approach, as does the Government of Canada (Radio Canada, CBC; NFB two sections; National Arts centre English & French theatres, alternating GGs, alternating National Archivists and National librarians, etc.). The music scene, literary scene and popular culture in Quebec have little to do with that of English Canada. So we ignore them, because this article is written in English. Little wonder Quebec wants to separate with Anglo-chauvinism alive and well.--BrentS 03:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is exactly what I am talking about (post above). "I prefer the two cultures approach, as does the Government of Canada" --BrentS As I have said before because the Government says it is so, does not make it true. I agree that the French culture is strong and alive in Quebec, but the fact remains that French culture has almost no influence on the lives of Canadians out side of Quebec. There are more Mexicans living in the United States than there are French people living in Canada. In the article on American culture, should we refer to America having two cultures? No, we don’t because of he fact that this Mexican culture has little barring on the lives of Americans out side of the southwest.

BrentS:

Some thing you said really interests me. You said, "So we ignore them, because this article is written in English. Little wonder Quebec wants to separate with Anglo-chauvinism alive and well." Are you suggesting that we should include Quebec to a greater extent than they deserve to appease them and prevent them from separation? Well that is what the Canadian government thinks. That is precisely the problem. It is because we did so in the very beginning that Quebec is in a position to separate. (See Samuel P. Huntington's "Hispanic challange") As for you wondering if you live in he same country as me; unless you live in Quebec, you most likely see the same thing I do. The problem is that you look at Canada through a multicultural lense. Try studying Canadian history. You will see there is a lot more to it then we are lead to believe. At all the critical moments in our nation’s history, only the very beginning had anything to do with the French. So what is the point of including it in an article of Canadian culture? That is why we have a different article for the culture of Quebec, because it is different than Canadian culture in general.--137.186.252.157 09:19 MT 02/06/05

I don't live in Quebec, and I sure don't see the same thing you do, 157. The influences of Franco-Manitobain, Mennonite, Jewish, Ukrainian, Vietnamese, Filipino and many other cultures, over the last century or more, are pretty visible and accepted by most people here. If you think that a multicultural lens is a problem, then maybe you are wearing blinders. —Michael Z. 2005-02-6 18:06 Z