Talk:Canadian federalism

Untitled

There is much more we can discuss here about this constitution when someone gets around to it and there are some interesting cases that could be cited and linked here.

I moved the page from the awkward name of "Federal Provincial Distribution of Legislative Powers" to "Canadian federalism", for what (to me) seems obvious reasons. The so-called "division of powers" is what, in Constitutional terms, is called Federalism. It's a well-defined term and is far more widely used than "Federal Provincial distribution...etc". Hope I'm not ruffling any feathers with the moving of the page. Cheers! - PullUpYourSocks 01:31, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• BTW this article could really use some fixing-up. For starters I really don't think it's necessary to quote ALL of s.91 and s.92. It seems a bit excessive. - PullUpYourSocks 01:49, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Requested article

A simpler article is needed on which activities fall under federal or provincial jurisdiction, for example for employers who want to know which mimimum wage or anti-discrimination law applies to them. Wuzzy 15:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Requested article

"Have and have not provinces" Provincial equalization grants and transfer payments. 24.77.80.153 (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You're looking for this: Equalization payments in Canada. Oreo Priest ^talk 12:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

One of three pillars

This article has come a long way since the request for fixing up, if I don't say so myself; but I'm still wondering about one thing. While I'm inclined to agree federalism, the Charter and responsible government would be the three pillars, is that a common saying or original research? Who else has said that? CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 23:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I would say it is original research. Personally, I believe the 3 pillars of constitution of Canada are actually the Monarchy, federalism, and, since 1982, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 200.177.33.89 (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Territories

Why is there no mention of the territories in this article (while the article on the Australian counterpart do)? — Instantnood 22:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Crucial details missing

This page is missing much important information concerning the constitutional framework for Canadian federalism, such as discussion of: The POGG clause, illustrative vs exhaustive powers, disallowance, the relative important of separation of powers (then & now), the role of JCPC interpretation, etc... You cannot really understand the shape of Canadian federalism without a clear understanding of these concepts.

Rename

Can I rename this to Federalism in Canada as it refers to the country of Canada rather than Canadian people? AndrewRT 21:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Aye. —Nightstallion (?) 14:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Why? "Canadian" doesn't mean exclusively Canadian people. It also means anything "of Canada." "Canadian federalism" is also a common term in print. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Jurisdiction

This article should really explain what the areas of provincial and federal jurisdiction are. It's lacking without it. -Oreo Priest ^talk 22:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Prime Minister / Premier

It's somewhat awkward that the opening paragraph specifies the principle institutions of each jurisdiction to be its legislature and first minister, which is not the case. The chief political institutions are the legislature and the executive council, with the first minister simply being the acknowledged political leader within both institutions (as in practice, the political structure of the executive council results from that of the legislature). SteveMcQwark (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Expansion of discussion on powers and doctrines

I've attempted to gather together - and hopefully summarize - the extensive jurisprudence that has developed on the nature of Canadian federalism, the nature and scope of the various powers, and how they can coexist and overlap. There is more that can be added, but it still needs to be made into something that is both concise and cohesive.

Some other commenters above have also made the same point. I hope this will help out.

Other contributions still need to be made, such as some commentary on the indivisibility of the Canadian Crown, the "colourability" doctrine, the nature of a matter's rising to a national dimension, and so on.

Raellerby (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe the section on the Crown requires further expansion; the topic is already covered in detail at Monarchy of Canada and Monarchy in the Canadian provinces. That is unless there's some way to redistribute the existing information amongst articles. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

nothing wrong with a thorough summary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No, nothing wrong with it at all. However, I see what's there now as being a fairly thorough summary, already.

What Raellerby added were quotes (one within the other) that simply elaborated on the opening sentence of the section in question. His cite (which is a good find) can be used to support the opening sentence here with all the detail at Monarchy in the Canadian provinces (indeed, I placed a part of Raellerby's quote there). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit looks good to me, and the move over to the other article looks quite well-placed.Raellerby (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

points for improvement

The introduction, together with the sections on the Charter and the history, need to be clarified. Too much political discussion over the years has tended to cloud the nature of this topic, as the various court cases have shown. It will take time, as this is a very complex subject.Raellerby (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)