Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:03, 16 January 2010

Canada: Governments C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada.

Politics C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

In this Interregnum between the elections and the sworn in of the next government. Paul Martin is the PM and Stephen Harper is the PM-designate. They both conserved thier style. Actually, Paul Martin has not resigned, he has advised the GG his intention to resign, it's not the same!

Good night

A thought as I watch the results of the January 2006 election come in: the article states "If a general election gives an opposition party a plurality of the seats, the prime minister's party is still given the first opportunity to continue as the government. The incumbent prime minister may attempt to gain the support of another party (a coalition government), or he/she may resign and allow the party that won the most seats to form the government." I do not know if this is true in law or if this is a governmental tradition, but would this not suggest that Paul Martin could continue as Prime Minister, perhaps again with the support of the NDP? The NDP and Liberals, at current counts, have a combined total number of seats greater than the Tories (102+31=133 vs. 123), so such a potential coalition government would better represent the desires of a larger number of Canadians. In any case, it seems premature to be declaring Stephen Harper the new Prime Minister, even if the Conservatives do indeed have the plurality of the seats. V. Mulligan

How 'bout that. They're speculating about just that right now. Well, it'll be interesting to see which way this goes... V. Mulligan

However valid the arguments in this article may be, they are not neutral. They are entirely intended to support one point of view - i.e. that the prime minister has too much power. Ezra Wax

Do you feel that it's a bit more neutral now? Please respond. Also... All Prime Ministers have lived there since Prime Minister Louis Saint Laurent. That's a bit awkward. We should be mentioning the year, not whose term it was. I was going to put down 1948, but for all I know, he could have only started living there towards the end of his term. --cprompt

I think it's still lacking in NPOV re: the power of the PM. For instance:

Over time, the role of the Prime Minister of Canada has undergone some modifications but he/she today has the most personal and absolute power of any elected leader of any full democracy in the world.

...this is true only by a strict reading of the constitution. Indeed, Canada's (essentially unicameral) parliamentary system combined with our world's strictest system of party discipline (outside of sham parliaments in various dictatorships), combined with the (deprecated) power of disallowment over the provinces, would suggest that the PM has near dictatorial powers.

In practise, however, the power of the PM is greatly restricted by the power of the provinces (Canada is one of, if not the, more decentralized federations going). It doesn?t mean a lot to say the PM can do whatever they want within the areas of federal jurisdiction when a lot of the most important stuff (health, education) is either held entirely by the provinces or only involves Ottawa to the extent that they write the cheques.

As for this whole bit:

Unlike the Presidental system of government used in such countries as the United States, an elected member of the Canadian House of Commons cannot vote in accordance with the will of his constituents.

How exactly does a representative vote 'accordance with the will of his constituents'? Canada has a first-past the post system remember. Mose of that members constituents likely didn't even vote for the member, and the idea that even a convincing majority of them will agree on anything is unlikely. Therefore, 'according to his/her own preference' would be much more realistic.

While Canada's strict party control does put individual members on a tight leash, it also prevents the type of pork-barrel politics that plague the US and many other democracies. Members (i.e. parties) are forced to consider the national, rather than the purely local, interest.

It's also arguably more democratic considering most voters have some idea what a party stands for, but absolutely nothing about a candidates personal beliefs.

When I have more time (exams!) I'll try and add some balance to this article. -- stewacide 08:22 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

The article says "In contrast to the British government, in which members of parliament have long tenure but Prime Ministers have relatively short tenures, the Canadian Prime Minister typically has a long tenure except in cases where there is a minority government."

Considering Thatcher and Blair, I don't think UK PMs have relatively short tenures. Vicki Rosenzweig 20:43, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Strictly there is no limit on the length of time a PM can serve, they just have to call an election every five years. Anyone disagree with this? DJ Clayworth

It says "The Prime Minister is also restricted by two usually powerless branches of government", but it only mentions one branch, the Senate...

The "Jr." (as in Paul Martin, Jr.) has been removed--ref. Chicago Manual of Style. When the elder member of a family dies, the "junior" designation is usually dropped. While there is a trend to keeping the designation in the U.S., it generally isn't done in Canada (check CBC or Globe and Mail websites if you need to confirm this). Sunray 04:20, 2003 Dec 18 (UTC)

Canadian PMs do not appear to have long terms. Since 1970 Britain has had five PMs, while Canada has had 6 (not counting Martin). What is unusual is the extremes. Three of the Canadians had terms of ten years or thereabouts, while two had terms of less than 1 yr. Go figure. DJ Clayworth 06:56, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A bit of trivia: Actually it is three PMs since 1970 who had terms of less than one year: Clark, Turner and Campbell. Turner and Campbell replaced a retiring PM (Trudeau and Mulroney respectively) and then lost the subsequent election. Clark is unique. He led a minority government in 1979, but lost a non-confidence motion over the budget. An election was called and he lost. Sunray 21:56, 2003 Dec 19 (UTC)

I'd like to see the prime minister's salary on this page. Just for fun.

I've posted the PM's salary for 2004, according to the CBC. In 2004, Paul Martin made $284,000 (CAD). --Mattthemutt 15:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Graphical Timeline

I have added a new graphical timeline similar to the one over at President of the United States. I hope it is useful. If anyone sees any errors or if you are better at manipulating those EasyTimelines than I am... - Lucky13pjn 20:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

A timeline was already created at Template:Prime Ministers of Canada timeline. That timeline has exact dates, not just the year. I suggest some sort of merge. I'd do it, but I dont have the time. Zhatt 19:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree with a merge vote.

but also, the 3 blues used in the current one are almost indistinguishable. --Quiddity 07:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I just checked and, in fact, they are the same colour. Zhatt 08:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Because they are essentially the same party. The difference between the historical and current Tories might present a problem though. - Lucky13pjn 04:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

books by Prime Ministers

I have created a page List of books by the Prime Ministers of Canada to list the books written by (not about) former Prime Ministers. Dowew 02:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Too soon to say Harper will be PM?

I'm not from Canada so I may have missed something along the way somewhere, but I don't understand how people have come to the conclusion that Harper will be PM. It seems to me that there are still a few seats where a handful of votes could swing the result. A Prime minister would need to be able to secure the confidence of the House. Normally in a situation where no party has a majority, parties enter into negotiations to try to secure support for a confidence vote. Wouldn't the numbers would seem to suggest that Martin could potentially secure the support of the BQ and NDP to form Government, or have the other two parties already ruled out their support for the Liberals and pledged it to teh Conservatives? -- Adz|talk 05:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There is also parliamentary tradition that says that the party that wins the largest number of seats gets the first crack at forming a government. The one time this custom was not followed, we ended up with a consitutional crisis (see King-Byng Affair.) Also, Martin has now conceded defeat. While niether the BQ nor the NDP are natural allies for the Conservatives, all parties (except the BQ) will be expected to try to make the new Parliament work. Voters would likely punish a party that forces a new election too quickly by being obtructionist. Ground Zero | t 05:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems that the CBC and others seem to have accepted a Conservative Government as a given, so I guess that is the way it will be (and the fact that Martis said he will stand down), but it just seems so different to what happend in germany for example, or New Zealand, where the parties spent weeks negotiating who would be PM. Is there a precedent in Canada for a Government to change without an election? The process, as I've always understood it, is that the Governor General (or equivalent) would offer the leader of the largest party the option of forming Gov't, and if that leader was unable to do so, they would then see if another party could form Government. In 1996 in Queensland, following a by-election where the Government lost a majority, the Government faced a vote f no confidence on the floor of the Parliament, and the Leader of the opposition then formed a Government without the need for a General election. One would think that a similar process could take place in Canada without an election necessarilly being triggered when a minority Government lost a confidence vote. -- Adz|talk 06:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There are a couple of precedents for a change in government without an election: Mackenzie took over from Macdonald in 1873 following a vote of non-confidence; Mackenzie called a general election a few months later, which he won. In 1926, during the King-Byng Affair, Meighan took over from King, but then he quickly lost a confidence motion, called an election, and King won a majority. In the current case, forming a coalition with the Bloc or even an informal alliance is unthinkable for both Conservatives and Liberals, the NDP does not have enough seats to make a coalition with either of the big 2 workable, and the Liberals would quickly lose a confidence motion if they tried to continue as government. A Conservative minority with Harper as PM is the only option. He will have to get support from the Liberals or the Bloc for each of his major bills on a case-by-case basis. If this fails in the first year or so, we may indeed see the GG give the Liberals a try without another election. Indefatigable 17:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

In the Ontario general election, 1985, the incumbent PC Party won 52 seats, the Liberals won 48 seats and the NDP won 30. The PC Party returned to the Legislature, and introduced a Speech from the Throne to attempt to continue to govern, despite the public knowledge that the Liberals had meade a deal with the NDP for support. The Liberals and NDP moved non-confidence in the government, and it was defeated. The Lieutenant Governor asked the leader of the Libveral Party to form a government. The government, with fewer seats than the Official Opposition, governed for two years with the support of the third party. No coalition was formed. 17:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for these two explanations. It's has helped make sense of it all from a distance. Sometimes its difficult to understand local context from far away. -- Adz|talk 23:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

PM-designate or PM-elect

I seem to recall that during other transitional periods following elections the term "PM-elect" was used rather than "PM-designate". However, during the time before Martin's swearing in, the term "PM-designate" had to be used because he had not been "elected" by the Canadian people at large in any direct or indirect way. I don't want to do any editing until I get confirmation because I'm not 100% sure my recollection is correct. Indefatigable 17:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"PM-elect" is a term used by media people who have picked the term up from US politics where the president is elected. The prime minister is not elected. Members of Parliament are elected. It is incorrect in the Canadian context to use the term "PM-elect". "PM-designate" is not an official designation, but it is commonly used. In fact, it would mkae more sense to use PM-elect in the Martin case because he was elected by his party, which had a majority in parliament, but let's avoid importing a US term that doesn't make sense in the canadian context. Ground Zero | t 17:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "PM-designate" is the more appropriate and sensible term. Let's hope the media settle on it this time. Indefatigable 18:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct. As the PM is not elected but appointed, calling him PM-elect is factually incorrect. FearÉIREANN\ 19:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a PM-elect in the Westminster system as PMs are not elected, but rather appointed by the monarch (or a Governor General in the Commonwealth realms). Also, "president-elect" in the US context is used to refer to a person who has already been elected president, but is still waiting the end of the previous presidential term in order to be sworn-in. That is really not the case in the UK, where a sitting PM normally resigns the day after his/her party's defeat in a general election and the Queen immediately calls upon the leader of the winning party to form a new government. Parliament doesn't have to be in session at the time and the new PM doesn't have to wait for a new Parliament to be convened before he can be sworn-in. I don't know how it works in Canada, but I'd suppose it should be similar. 200.177.7.127 (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

From the Senate

Who were the PMs who governed from the Senate? DJ Clayworth 18:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• The two prime ministers to govern from the Senate were the Rt. Hon. Sir John Abbott and the Rt. Hon. Sir Mackenzie Bowell. It should be noted too, perhaps, that the Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Tupper governed for a part of his term without a seat in either house of Parliament. FiveParadox 02:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Well John Turner spent his whole term as PM outside of the House, and several others Kim Campbell, King stand out in my mind have lost their seats in elections and thus been PM without a seat. - Jord 14:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Main image

Is it not a bit early to have Stephen Harper's image at the top of the page already? Technically, he is still only Prime Minister-designate. I'm thinking his image should only go up once Martin is off the scene. Riyehn 02:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Might be worth having, but it's interesting to note that in the edits in the last day or so, both Martin and Chretien have vanished. One, or both, should be restored. Nfitz 05:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

PM Infobox too big!

Infobox PM on all the Prime Ministers pages are way too big, and need fixing. SFrank85 01:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Language

"Too Much Power?" is kind of a charged title. I rephrased and deleted unencyclopedic language and framed criticisms more generally than the previous version, which was focussed on evaluating the Prime Minister vis-a-vis the American Presidency. If a comparison was to be made in a criticism of something like party discipline and motions of confidence, it is more relevant to use the British Parliament, where more votes are free due to different protocol regarding motions of confidence. Still, I don't think an incomplete comparison of the PM to the POTUS on the matter of party discipline is all that crucial to include. Lotusland 08:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Right Honourable Title

It seems like someone took out all the Right Honourable titles from every individual prime minister page, should this be put back up? --130.15.219.161 23:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I definitely think it should be done. I have no idea why so many of those titles were removed in the first place. The Fwanksta (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

the picture

Can somebody get a better looking picture of this guy? Harper's expression is identitical to that of someone who's just smelled a bad fart in an elevator with another 30 floors to go before he can get off.

Oath of Office

Maybe someone could add the oath of office, where the prime minister has to plege allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II.

"succession"

I removed the section that was added concerning Harper's "succession" list, as I believe there was misunderstanding about both the history behind this, and the purpose. First off, to deal with the purpose, it is not meant as a list of succession. It is a prioritized list as to who can act in the absence of the PM, and is in effect nothing more than a list of alternate signing authority (ie. PM is overseas, and something needs to be signed, who do they go to). Also, there is nothing historic about Harper doing this list. It is quite standard for a PM, upon having had his Cabinet sworn in, to issue an OiC outlining those who can act on his behalf, as well as alternate ministers. As just one example, I will link the OiC from when Martin was sworn in , the only difference from the current format being that it clearly indicates the Deputy PM is first, and then proceeds down the list in order of precedence. It would appear that Harper has mixed his list up a little more, but that's it.

That is correct should he die/become unable to do his job an acting prime minister would be appointed by the party. They would then hold a leadership convention, and the new leader would be sworn in as Prime Minister.

Not necessarily. They might just appoint a caucus member and that would be the end of it. They would probably do what you mentioned, but there are many other things that "might" happen.Habsfannova 01:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up

In my opinion, this article needs to be seriously modified...half of it just seems to be complaining about how much power the PM has, and even factual sections are lumped in the "Criticisms" section. I think we should concentrate more on the historical gaining of power by the office then just having the complaints. Just like to see what the consensus is.Habsfannova 23:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. HistoryBA 14:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ellen Fairclough

Can she be footnoted here, under Diefenbaker's entry? -- Zanimum 15:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Why? HistoryBA 15:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I am assuming because she was acting PM for a two days - Jord 16:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Would we include every "acting prime minister" in Canada's history? HistoryBA 17:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I am, by no means, suggesting that, just trying to answer your question ;) - Jord 00:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I should have made it clear that I'm not posing the question to you, but to the person who first raised the issue. HistoryBA 03:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Parents of the Prime Ministers

I'd like to create an article listing the parents of the Prime Ministers, but I need to know the parents of Clark, Turner, Campbell and Chretien which are not listed in their articles. --curling rock Earl Andrew - talk 03:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've found them all, I just need Kim Campell's mothers' maiden name. --curling rock Earl Andrew - talk 06:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

minor suggestion

Regarding; "The Prime Minister, along with the other ministers of the Cabinet, is formally appointed by the Governor General on behalf of the Queen." Would it not be better if read "The Prime Minister and the other ministers of the Cabinet are formally appointed by the Governor General on behalf of the Queen." or "The Prime Minister is formally appointed by the Governor General on behalf of the Queen."? 70.48.205.78 01:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The best description of the system would be: "The Prime Minister is appointed by the Governor General on behalf of the Queen. The other members of the cabinet are then formally appointed by the Governor General upon nomination by the Prime Minister. " That emphasizes the important point that the PM, not the Crown, chooses who will be in the cabinet, whereas the Queen (or her GG in Canada) chooses who will be PM based on the strength of each political party in the House of Commons. 200.177.7.127 (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Image:Can-pol w.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages 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 05:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Canada Election Act 2007

Where in the aforementioned Act is it written that an early election can be called only in the event of a vote of no confidence ? As far as I read it, the 2007 act says clearly that nothing therein restricts the power of the Governor General to dissolve Parliament and call an election whenever he/she wants (in fact, any provision otherwise would be unconstitutional). Therefore, in theory, the PM is still capable of advising the GG to call an early election even in the absence of a no-confidence vote. I agree though that in practice, as a matter of unwritten convention, PMs will refrain from doing so given that the act does contain an explicit default fixed date for elections to be held in the absence of early dissolutions.

In other words, I believe that the claim that elections from now on will not be called earlier (i.e. on a date other than the default date) unless the government is defeated in the House is, in practical terms, factually correct. However, I think it is factually incorrect to say that is so because the 2007 Act explicitly excludes any other possibility. Please correct the text. 200.177.7.127 (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This has since been challenged in court. As a result, Harper requesting the writ being dropped before the 4 year term was vindicated. Thus, all the act really managed to do in law was to ensure an election at least once every four years, as opposed to the possibility of a five year mandate previously enjoyed by the Government of the day. Dphilp75 (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

PM Leader of Party With the Most Seats

In the opening of the article it reads: "The Prime Minister is almost invariably the leader of the political party that holds the largest number of seats in the House of Commons." Was there ever a PM who wasn't the leader of the party with the most seats? The Qualifications and selection section provides no information stating if this is possible. --142.68.189.28 (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes there was. The 1925 minority of William Lyon Mackenzie King. See Minority governments in Canada. --NeilN 04:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reworked that section hopefully adequately. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Trudeau, Turner, Chretien, and Pearson.jpg

The image Image:Trudeau, Turner, Chretien, and Pearson.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --18:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Prime Minister not directly elected.

In comparison the US listing for US president...the US president is not 'directly' elected...however you do vote for a President...the difference is that each state gets electoral votes....?

In Canada the name of the Prime Minister does not appear on the ballot...you vote for a local MP and if he or she belongs to a party, then 'the party rep' gets a vote, based on the seat...

I hope someone finds the time and words to explain this detail on the site...

Good luck....The Truth, and not merely truths will set us free...

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, hopefully to your satisfaction. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms of Prime Ministerial Power

I've done a bit of reworking there to provide sources and remove weasel words, but there's still some more for me to do. I figured I'd get a section going here on the talk page for anyone to give me some suggestions on how that section is coming along. I also hope to work on this article in general, but I'm unfortunately a little busy at school right now. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Mandate

I have an issue with this section referring to the GG avoiding contradiction with an Act of Parliament. An Act of Parliament which would interfere with the GG's/HM's power to appoint a Prime Minister or drop a writ, would be Unconstitutional. This is exactly why the Canadian Elections Act 2007 stated that nothing with in the Act would remove any ability of the GG/HM to do so. This has also been the opinion of several Constitutional experts (Professor Ned Franks for one) and a Court Case brought against Harper for requesting the dropping an "early" writ was dismissed for lack of understanding of the separation of powers.

I plan on removing the reference to this unless someone can come up with a better argument? Dphilp75 (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

I think the infobox should be changed to the one that the Prime Minister of the UK and the President of the US have. It look much more professional and has more info, like the residence and website. I have tried to change it but someone keeps cahnging it back so I would like to disscuss it here and see what everyone thinks. Tell me if you like it or not. (To see what it would look like see the President of the US or Prime Minister of the UK page.)

174.7.14.105 (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If you wanted more information in the box, all you had to do was change the template or ask someone to do it for you. I have put into the template used here the additional slots the other one has.

The template you keep deleting was designed so as to use a colour coding system to differentiate between ministers in simple states and federations, as well as between federal and provincial/state ministers in the latter. You are not entitled to bulldoze all of that out of the way because you don't like it or because of what's done on other pages (though, the infobox employed here is used on other articles as well). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay... I still don't agree. The Prime Minister of the UK has almost the exact same job as the Prime Minster of Canada so they should have the same infobox. It makes no difference. It would look better and more professional and the info it the same. I don't care if it was designed for whatever. When something needs to be changed to something more modern and better looking we should change it. I am willing to change all the provincial and federal position that have that. I will do it because i believe it looks much better. Lets just see what everyone else thinks befopre you change it back.

174.7.14.105 (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You've already seen what I think; per WP:BRD it is you who should cease and decist with the reverting and discuss your changes before they are implemented. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. We should stop here and see what people think. Lets leave it like this and wait for people's responses. 174.7.14.105 (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• C-Class Canada-related articles
• High-importance Canada-related articles
• C-Class Governments of Canada articles
• High-importance Governments of Canada articles
• All WikiProject Canada pages
• C-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles