Jump to content

Talk:Canada/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10
Archive

Archives

2003–2005
1
2
3
4
5
6
2006
7
8
9
10
2007
11
12
13
14
15
2008
16
17
18
2009
19
2010
20
2011
21
2012
22
2013
23
2015–present
24
25
26
27

Discussion of Canada's official name

Canada's name
Official Name 1

Future TFA paragraph

Main Page

Halifax photo - Dominion building

Astrotrain removed the Halifax photo. I have one I recently took showing the Dominion building (designed by architect David Stirling and completed in 1867). It is now occupied by the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia. It is a very handsome building and shows the historic character of 19th century Halifax. If there is consensus a photo of Halifax is required here or elsewhere, I can send it to you and you can upload it, as this is a procedure I am not comfortable with.--BrentS 02:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why Astrotrain removed Image:Halifaxnighttime.jpg but I do believe a Maritimes photo should be on the Canada page. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I was just a photo of some boats, with buildings in the background. It could maybe go on the Halifax page, but it isn't suitable for the main page. I've also removed the charming tourist snap of the Parliament building with several trees in front. I also think the photo of a random Montreal street could be removed, as well as nighttime Calgary. Astrotrain 21:12, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I've had quite enough of your arbitrary edits. All those pics should be returned. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree. If you have better quality examples of these pictures, go ahead and replace them, but do not simply remove them. Even if you believe removing all these photos is appropriate, its common courtesy to talk about major changes to a popular page before enacting them.
•Zhatt• 23:48, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
The photos I removed were amaeteur toursit photos. The Parliament building is obscured by trees, the picture of Halifax was of some boats with a distaetter photos, I'm sure a quality Parliament photo and a photo of Quebec would be much better! Astrotrain 15:56, July 21, 2005 :::::As I said, that is not the point. You did not discuss major changes before going ahead with them.
"Why not get some better photos...?"
As I said, go ahead and replace them. These are currently the best photos we have on Wikipedia. If you would like better photos, you will have to get them yourself. Please be constructive, not destructive. Thank you.•Zhatt• 16:38, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I am not required to discuss changes to articles, Wikiepdia is free to edit, including the Canada page, despite some people's personal claims.... In any case, the changes made were minor, an in an attempt to improve the article. Photos are benefical, but not if they are poor quality, generic, or excessive. There is too many photos on this article versus the amount of text, there is no need for a photo of every Canadian city. The number of city photographs should be reduced to, at the most, two. There is no need for photos of Calgary, Halifax, Dawson Creek or a random street in Montreal. Astrotrain 18:13, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Clearly I disagree. I believe that there should be a photo of one city from each region plus a photo of the Parliament Buildings. The photos should stand until replaced by better ones. I found the photos you removed were quite acceptable. The new Parliament building photo is no better but also adequate. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

territorial disputes (land and water)

Does anybody think we should add a disputes section (or add to an existing section). We could mention:

Mainly I'm wandering if this list is to long or to short. Then, the question is where to put the information. --rob 07:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You could make an article with that information and go into more depth about the disputes. I also thought that Canada claimed 370km of offshore waters that doesn't reach the north pole? Matthew Samuel Spurrell 14:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

This belongs in Foreign relations of Canada, section Territorial and Boundary Disputes. You cannot put everything in the main article Canada.--BrentS 15:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Western city images

I hope you're going to put back decent images of Calgary and Vancouver into this article soon.  Denelson83  07:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who you're talking to, but the old Vancouver image was copyrighted and so was removed. If you want those images back, just pluck your favorite off of the articles you mentioned and add it.
•Zhatt• 17:08, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that the Vancouver waterfront pic was deleted for disputed copyright status but for the life of me, I could not find the discussion for doing so anywhere on Wikipedia. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Whither go the portal link?

There have been recent ideas [2] on changing the placement of the {{portal}} link. I like El C's version with the portal in the external links much like the links to sister projects. Previously, it was at the very top of the page. Sunray's version has it just below the infobox. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree with El C's version Astrotrain 14:51, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

The Dominion of Canada

[I have refactored this section to shorten and improve readability. The original version can be seen at [3]. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)]

I suggest a change of the first sentence to:

"The Dominion of Canada is a country in North America, the northernmost in the world and, after Russia, the second-largest in area."

I feel strongly since the offical name is the Dominion of Canada, and that this change (the addition of the Dominion of), a mere 3 words in the first sentence, does not constitute an undue lengthing of this article.

The precident of listing the full length formal name of country, is shown on the USA page:

"The United States of America—also referred to as the United States, the USA, the US, America, the States (colloquially),"

The Dominion of Canada is the proper term. There is no sensible reason that it should not appear in the first sentence.

As well, in support of the term "The Dominion of Canada", I sight the following reference: James P. Taylor, Cardinal Facts of Canadian History, The Hunter, Rose Co., Limited, Printers, Toronto, pp. 228, (1899).

Take care, ArmchairVexillologistDon 09:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I have thought about this overnight and I think the right place for referring to the description of Canada as a Dominion belongs in the second paragraph of the intro with the other legalistic, constitutional mentions. It is, of course, more fully discussed at Canada's name.
As for re-wording the opening paragraph, how about:
Canada is a country in North America bordered on the south by the United States and extending through the Arctic Ocean to the North Pole, making it the northernmost country in the world. It is also the second largest country in area, after Russia.
Criticise freely! :-) DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to point out the equivalent of saying The Dominion of Canada is saying The Republic of the United States of America. While quite accurate, it is unnecessary. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Susvolans objections to the term "The Dominion of Canada

Given the facts that both the name of the country in the Canadian constitution and the name used by the government in official documents for the past fifty years are simply “Canada”, how can you argue that “The Dominion of Canada” is the official name? Susvolans (pigs can fly) 09:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Hell Susvolans,

First off, the last 50 years?

So you are claiming since 1955 there have no offical Canadian Government documents that contain the term "the Dominion of Canada"?

Is this what you are advocating here?

Secondly, I presume that when you mean constitution, you mean the Canada Act of 1982? If so, that act does NOT formally change the name to "Canada", it only choses to refer to the country with the term "Canada". The name is still the Dominion of Canada, and it uses the this term several times, if one takes the time to read the document.

The Canada Act of 1982 only amends the original British North America Act 1867, is does not wipe it out. The name was NOT changed to Canada, and the name (although not chosen to be used by Federal Liberal Governments) is nonetheless, still to this day in 2005, the Dominion of Canada.

So you would forbid the use of full formal name, the Dominion of Canada, in the first sentence of this article? ArmchairVexillologistDon 10:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

AVD, this issue has been hashed out over and over again, and every time, the conclusion has been that the formal name of the country is "Canada". It was previously commonly styled "Dominion of Canada", but that was not "official". Please review the talk archives on this where the references in the BNA Act were cited and discussed. If I recall the discussion correctly, the BNA Act does not use the term "Dominion of Canada". In says that the country will be "one dominion under the name of Canada", and not "one country under the name of the Dominion of Canada". The one source that you cite, a book published in 1899, is not authoritative. I think you will have to provide citations from Government of Canada legal documents that state that D of C is the official or formal name in order to convince people here. Regards, Ground Zero 14:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Why Should I do all the work: Track down the Canadian COA Proclaimations

Here is the link to the Canadian Coat-of-Arms

http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/arm1_e.cfm

They were first granted in 1868, (1 year after Confederation), and then formally re-proclaimed in 1921, 1957, and 1994.

just to get technical, these are not re-proclamation, these are the adoption date of different designs and modifications. The Canadian COA was composed of the various provinces' own coat of arms until 1921 when the current design was adopted. The last modification in 1994 was the inclusion of the ribbon with "Desiderantes Meliorem Patriam".--Marc pasquin 01:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Hello Marc Pasquin,
No, you are incorrect. The Coat-of-Arms of the Dominion of Canada was created via Royal Proclaimation in 1868. In 1921, the Coat-of-Arms was offical re-proclaimed in the Royal Proclaimation of 1921. The Proclaimation of 1921, explicitly supercedes that of 1868. The subsquent changes in 1957, and 1994, would have to be re-proclaimed. The changes in the Coat-of-Arm of the Dominion of Canada were not offical submitted to the UK College-of-Arms, the only Heraldry Authority "in Canada", until 1994.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I think you missed my point: It is not the same design that was, 4 four, declared to be the official COA of canada. The wording you used could lead to confusion in that regard--Marc pasquin 16:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The text on this webpage clearing shows the Dominion of Canada cited explicitly as the countries name.' Now, in 1957, and 1994, the Coats-of-Arms would have to re-proclaimed. The establishment of the Royal Canadian Heraldic Society in 1994, notwithstanding, they still would have to be re-proclaimed.

Find me the text explicitly stating "the Dominion of Canada" was offically changed to only the term "Canada", or let me put the 3 words (i.e., the Dominion of) in the first sentence of this article.

It is that clear cut "boys and girls". ArmchairVexillologistDon 11:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The Dominion of Canada was actually never officially changed but the government just stopped using the name and made the schools and publishers stop printing it. They did this because they wanted to seem less British so the French-Canadians would be less offended. But instead a lot of English-Canadians were offended and tried to keep using our name but failed in the end. My birth certificate even says I was born in The Dominion of Canada.
Matthew Samuel Spurrell 4:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Howdy Matthew Samuel Spurell,

Yep, you are completely correct. That is exactly what happenned. Now if the next elected government is the Conservatives under Stephen Harper, it is possible that he could re-institute the practice of using Canada's full formal name, The Dominion of Canada.

Take care, and best wishes, ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

THe Royal Proclamation cited above is one that enacts the Coats of Arms of Canada, not the name of Canada. The BNA Act, as has been cited before (check the archives), refers to "one Dominion under the name Canada". There has been no official change from "Dominion of canada" because "Dominion of Canada" was nover official. It was the commonly used styling (so common that it was used in official documents), but the official name in the BNA Act was "Canada". The Government's decided to stop using the styling, and revert to the offical name. Stephen Harper, should he become prime minister (shudder), could decide to adopt the "Dominion of Canada" styling, or the styling "the Most Serene Borealian Autonomous Collectivity of Canada", but neither would be "official". Ground Zero 20:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

In 1868 there was a royal warrant, not proclamation (note spelling), that created coats of arms for the four provinces and a "great seal" for Canada consisting of the four coats quartered. This great seal was never officially Canada's coat of arms, though it was used as such (and ironically was never used on a seal). In 1921 there was a royal proclamation that established the royal arms of Canada (a proclamation was necessary because the provisions of the 1801 Act of Union were held to apply to the arms and flag of Canada, just as for the arms and flag of the United Kingdom). The changes of 1957 and 1994 were simply new official drawings of the arms. Since the blazon was unchanged (in 1994 there was an augmentation that did not substantially change the blazon) there was no need for royal proclamations, and there were none. The 1965 flag, by the way, was established by royal proclamation rather than act of Parliament because of the precedent of 1801. Indefatigable 03:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I almost forgot another thing: don't confuse the Royal Canadian Heraldry Society with the Canadian Heraldic Authority. One's a private "club"; the other exercises part of the Queen's prerogative. Both were established well before 1994. Indefatigable 03:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Present Day Canada Government website incorrectly Titles BNA Act 1867

The Government of Canada (mainly Liberal since 1963) is very "skilled" at practising the Sin Of Omission as shown in the linked text below,

British North America Act 1867 [4]

This website incorrectly refers to this document as the Constitution Act 1867, which is a misnomer, and a shameful one, indeed.

[5]#(2)
(2) As enacted by the Constitution Act, 1982, which came into force on April 17, 1982. The section, as originally enacted, read as follows:
1. This Act may be cited as The British North America Act, 1867.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 10:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation. You're reading a footnote, which merely says that *originally* the 1867 act was to be cited as the British North America Act 1867. But, under the law since 1982, it is now to be cited as the Constitution Act 1867. All acts forming the constiution were retroactively renamed. Judicial decisions, and subsequent legislation, use this new naming system. This reflects the fact that these documents were not a part of a "constitutition" when originally created, since Canada had no consitution until 1982. Collectively, these acts were turned into a constitution, and hence renamed. --rob 11:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

What?
"Canada" had no Constitution until 1982?
You are completely wrong as well as per retroactive re-naming, that is not what happened at all. Please get your facts straight.
    • It seems as though in this claim rob is following the approach taken by the 1930s social credit party in Alberta when they claimed that the Statute of Westminster granted independence to the provinces because Canada had no constitution as they saw it. I think this approach is flawed and that the BNA Act was in fact a constitutional document because it laid out the institutions of state and it outlined the relationships between the various levels of government.

It is true that it quite broad and that it does not mention the existence of responcible government and the conventions associated with it. However while the BNA Act did not encompass the entire constitution (much of it was, and still is unwritten) the does not mean that it is not a constitutional document.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 12:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Howdy rob,

You wrote above,

I disagree with your interpretation.

Fine, the Dominion of Canada, is a free country. The "footnote" was not the basis of my arguement. Constitutional Law does not afford the retroactive re-naming of terms within a Constitutional Act. Each term that is repelled must be specifically indicated. Each Clause that is replaced, must be explicitly indicated.

Your grasp of Constitution Law and procedures is complete ill-informed. Do you have any idea the Constitutional Chaos that would be created in any present day independent country, that has used as a basis English Common-Law as a template? (i.e., the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand)

Do you?

Constitutions, under your idea of how things work, would be akin to toilet paper!!!

As well, where the **** did you learn that "Canada had no Constitution until 1982?"

Oi. ArmchairVexillologistDon 12:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

  • What I said is true. Canada, like the United Kingdom, had no constitution until 1982. Although some people would re-phrase it to say we had no "written constitution". We had no constitutionally guarenteed rights. The Dominion of Canada was created by an act of British parliament in 1867. That act, could only be changed by British parliament (at the request of Canada). As for retroactive renaming, please read your own link:
  • http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html#VI
  • Notice how it uses the phrase: "Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982"
  • This includes the BNA(1867), the Statute of Westminster 1931, and other acts of British parliament detailing the powers of Canada and it's provinces.
  • It's perfectly possible for a country to have no constitution.

--rob 12:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

update: I never said the name "British North America Act 1867" was repealed. I just said a new name was given to it, which can be, and is used to cite it, in courts. Numerous Supreme Court decisions use the new name in citations. Legally, there are at least two ways to refer to the same acts. Please, don't get so upset. It's not that big of a deal. --rob 12:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Rob,
Avant que je me decider de continue cette conversation, je vous demande si vous etes Canadien-Francais?
Mois meme, je suis Canadian-Anglais, et le Constitution du Dominion du Canada est un construit "premierement dans les traditions du Royaume-Uni".

ArmchairVexillologistDon 12:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

ArmchairVexillologistDon is banned from the editing of any Wikipedia page related to vexillology, fascism, or Canada pending a decision in this matter. What constitutes "Vexillogy," "fascism," or "Canada" shall be interpreted broadly. Homey 19:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Is there a List of Canada related articles? It would be usefull for navigation and just something to point people too when they want to add more information to the Canada article (as it's more than full as you know).
Zhatt 22:15, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, wow. OK, thanks. Zhatt 22:23, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Form of government

This issue wasthe subject of a long debate at Template talk:Canada infobox between those who believed that since Parliament governs the country, i.e., it makes decisions on a day-to-day basis, "Parliamentary democracy" is the best description, and other who believe that the nature of the head of state is paramount, even though she does not exercise her power. In the end, a compromise that reflected both views was adopted. This was lost when the new template format was introduced, and we have ended up in the same debate. I propose to end the debate by restoring the previous compromise which reflects both Parliament and the head of state. Ground Zero 14:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I do not understand the anonymous editor's complaint against my change. By adding "parliamentary democracy" to "constitutional monarchy" in the "Form of goverment" line, I do not think that anyone could reasonable misunderstand that to mean that Canada is not a constitutional monarchy. Clearly it is. In deleting "parliamentary democracy", does the anonymous editor suggest that Canada is not a parliamentary democracy? And I wish he/she would address the issue here rather than through edits. If someone can show me that I am wrong in saying that Canada is both a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy, then I will stop making this edit. Ground Zero 20:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Parliamentary democracy is implicit to the term "constitutional monarchy" and therefore the term is redundant. Perhaps the term "Parliamentary Monarchy" would be appropriate?
    • I don't think it's automatic. Constitutional monarchy merely means the monarch is under the restriction of a constitution (written or not), which limits his or her power. Some like Canada, limit it to the point of near non-existence. But, in other cases the monarch has so much power it can't be considered a democracy, but isn't quite an absolute monarchy either. Also, in some cases, the monarch, may have the freedom to appoint a government from outside of the elected parliament, but still need parliament to pass laws, which they must obey. As well, sometimes the "parliament" is not elected by the people. I think several countries in the middle east are (on good days) a "constiutional monarchy", have "parliaments" (sometimes councils), but are not "parliamentary democracies". Anyway Canada is both, and we should say so. --rob 02:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Canada is also a Confederation, should that be thrown in as well? I still believe that the best short description is either "Constitutional Monarchy" or "Parliamentary Monarchy" as these are easily understandable terms used by most encyclopedias. Also 'democracy' is a rather ill defined and mushy term. As we often see, Albertans and othe westerners as well as the NDP like to claim that Canada is not democratic because of the Senate and the republicans claim that the monarchy renders Canada undemocratic. Therefore I feel that it would be most proper to only use that word in a comparative sense (eg 'more democratic' or 'less democratic') rather than in the absolutist sense as is seen in the term "Parliamentary democracy". I would like to ask whether "Parliamentary Monarchy" is an acceptable compromise term and what others would think. -- Anon. editor

The problem I have with "parliamentary monarchy" is that I've never heard the term before. I don't think we should be inventing new terms for the sake of saving one line of text in the infobox. Why are we so concerned about one single line? We had a compromise that lasted for quite a while and that kept everyone happy and avoided the endless debate. Why not restore that? As far as Alebrtans and republicans questioning whether or not Canada is a democracy, I think that that sort of rhetoric has to be taken seriously. A comparison of Canada to CHina, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Belarus or a hundred other countries should be sufficient to pu that arguments to rest. How about "Parliatutional demonarchracy"? ;-) Ground Zero 14:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, if "Ground Zero" hasn't heard the term "Parliamentary Monarchy" before, then it most obviously does not exist! So are there any other words or phrases that don't exist by virtue of never being heard by "Ground Zero", please let us know when we dare use them! I did not know of the word "antithesis" until I was seventeen, but that doesn't mean that it is nonexistent!
    • You may have never heard the term "Parliamentary Monarchy" before, but it is in common usage. Perhaps you should try googling it and see the results that you get. Perhaps take a look in real encyclopedia, such as Britanica, and you will see the term as well as Constitutional Monarchy. None of this "Parliamentary Democracy" nonsense which is for soft-core republicans who are ashamed of Monarchies and feel the need to qualify the term with something more "modern".


The Dominion of Canada is a Constitutional-Monarchy, that uses the British Parliamentary System (i.e.,Prime Minister, House of Commons, Senate (House of Lords) ).
ArmchairVexillologistDon 14:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
So... you would agree that it would be correct to describe Canada as a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy? Ground Zero 14:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


Sure thing. I agree. Parliamentary Democracy is accurate, however having both terms present makes that best description.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 14:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Don. I'll wait a day for other comments before making any change. Regards, Ground Zero 15:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


Howdy GroundZero,

You're welcome. Nice to hear from you to eh.


ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok I have talked with 5 MP's on this issue they say its Constitutional Monarchy is the Form of Government. A Majority of Canadians know It's Constitutional Monarchy be be quite frank. I'm a Proud Monarchist and Liberal Party of Canada Member and The Liberals helped build Modern Day canada Aswell as the Canada Act. I Know Canada is a Parliamentary Democracy but is reduced bigtime in the Constitution, I Know you are wanting it to be Parliamentary Democracy but its Constitutional Monarchy in all 16 Realms Including Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy and Please Get Over It. Please Consult a MP or Senator and The Constitution. Thanks :) PeterAKer 15:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you wholeheartedly that it is a constitutional monarchy, and my edits did not remove "constitutional monarchy" from the description. I was adding back in "parliamentary democracy", which has been there for several months now.

Of course, MPs and cabinet ministers would say that it is a constitutional monarchy because it is one. No dispute. Do you dispute that it is not also a parliamentary democracy? Will MPs, senators and the Constitution tell me that Canada is not a parliamentary democracy?

"I Know Canada is a Parliamentary Democracy but is reduced bigtime in the Constitution".

I'm sorry -- I don't understand this. Could you please explain? If you agree that Canada is a parliamentary democracy, why do you keep deleting it from the agreed-upon compromise? As far as I know Parliament still debates and passes bills that receive Royal Assent from the G-G, and Parliament can bring down the government. Ground Zero 18:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

RCMP

I propose we remove the RCMP officer on horseback and replace it with an RCMP officer in every-day outfit, or remove it alltogether. These red outfits are never used except for ceremonies, so it presents an urealistic and unaccurate view of the RCMP. If it is really necessary to show an officer and a horse, use an old photo, when the RCMP really did ride horses to patrol the vast areas of what was once the Northwest Territories. dave 00:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Governor General doesn't generally stand around with the Order of Canada medallion around her neck, the Queen rarely wears her crown, and Gretzky doesn't usually walk around with the World Cup over his head. All these photos are symbolic of Canada, and legitimate. The RCMP photo is placed under "symbols" not "law enforcement". But, I am open minded, and would suggest you put a link to an image you think would be better. --rob 01:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I have seen the RCMP wear their traditional uniforms where I am. Also in samller communities they wear them more often. Im not sure why they don't wear them as much anymore I remmember they used to always wear their uniform. Matthew Samuel Spurrell 7:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with rob on this account, it does show that the RCMP article itself does need a more modern and representative photo. One where not everyone is riding a horse, petting sled dogs, or sitting in front of a log cabin. An modern RCMP officer normally (or at least offten) wears mostly black and generally looks like an average police officer, correct? I don't quite remember and I'm surprised at how hard it is to find an image.
Zhatt 02:50, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Mostly black with yellow highlights and a grayish shirt. I'm sure there are variations and I believe there is a more formal dress too that isn't the typical red one.
Zhatt 02:56, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canada/Archive_4&oldid=1142376655"