This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia
This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 106 million views since December 2007.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2008, 2009, and 2010.
Please read before contributing The Canada article is already too long (oversized) and should serve only as an introduction for topics on Canada in general. To keep this overview article concise, please consider adding information instead to one of the many "main" articles about individual topics that link from this article, e.g. History of Canada, Culture of Canada, Canadian football etc. See Index of Canada-related articles for a complete listing of topics. Why? see Wikipedia:Article size.
In the Government and politics section of this article, the opening text states that "an implied bill of rights" is a "founding principle of the Canadian government", with a link to this page for further reading. However, that page states the exact opposite: this theory was never taken seriously by the courts, and was in fact explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Not sure how to reword this to be more clear....lets first look at how some sources word this....or we can swap out sources to the one below that are more extensive?
McLachlin, Beverly (Jun 30, 2014). "Human Rights Protection in Canada". Chief justice of Canada. Canada's experience with human rights. Canada's experience can be divided into three phases: 1) Judicially implied rights; 2) Legislatively protected rights; and 3) Constitutionally protected human rights. Before human rights legislation and the Charter, courts in Canada relied on the theory of an "implied bill of rights" to protect traditional civil liberties such as freedom of speech and association. The theoretical foundation for these rights was the importance of free political speech and discussion in a democracy.
Jonathon W Penney, Ivan Rand's Ancient Constitutionalism, 2010 34-1&2 Manitoba Law Journal 43, 2010 CanLIIDocs 229, Even today, the judicial work of (Ivan Rand) “one of the greatest— if not the greatest— jurists in Canadian history” 2 remains required reading in law schools; and many of his most important decisions retain a central place in the minds of judges and legal commentators. For example, his judgments in the so-called “Implied Bill of Rights” cases were called the Supreme Court of Canada’s “most distinguished achievements,” 3 “the ‘golden’ moments of the civil liberties decade” 4 and the theory of implied rights described as “valuable”, 5 “one of the most original and provocative contributions ever made to Canadian constitutional law
Eric H Cline et al, Case Comments: Whither the Implied Bill of Rights? - A.G. Canada and Dupond v. The City of Montreal, Saskatchewan Law Review 137, 1980 CanLIIDocs 227,Much of the concern has focused on the court's changing approach to the Bill of Rights, but the Bill or Rights is not the only protection for civil liberties which has been recognized by the Supreme Court. Switzmann v. Elbing,1 and Saumur v. Attorney General for Quebec2, the leading civil liberties decisions of the 1950's, rested in part on a doctrine created by the court itself: the implied Bill of Rights.
Since few people know what an "implied bill of rights" is, it should be explained if it is included at all. The way the paragraph combines different claims about the country is implicit synthesis and should be re-written. It might make more sense to describe the situation as it stood at confederation, then describe the current one.
Maybe say something like although Canadian confederation did not provide a bill of rights, Canadians were assumed to have the rights traditionally recognized by courts in England. On the other hand, some have argued that peace, order and good government was a defining principle of the new confederation.
It should be noted that Canada does have (and had at the time) a literal “Bill of Rights”. I point this out as the language should reflect this fact (or not lose sight of it via good faith wording) 142.127.4.14 (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The founding fathers also believed in the supremacy of the British constitution, which they believed guaranteed certain rights such such as the right to own weapons. TFD (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. See talk page archives for extensive discussion on this topic and the consensus is it not any longer considered by anyone other than old documentation to be the official name of the country. Canterbury Tailtalk18:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Update Canadian population from 41,012,563 (2024 Q2) to 41,288,599 (2024 Q3). It's from the same source, whic has been updated (Population estimates, quarterly). ZeusMinerva25 (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current clause "Canada's economic integration with the United States has increased significantly since the Second World War." I think reads better as "Canada's economic cooperation with the United States has increased significantly since the Second World War." How is Canada integrated?
I as a born American cannot simply waddle to Canada without a passport. If I step across the border at a non-port of entry I would be fined. Canada is a separate legal and tax system. As-in I have to declare certain things at the Canadian border. How is Canada integrated into the United States? US Virgin Islands or Puerto Rico are "integrated" into the United States as I can hop on any plane going there and don't need any passport as a U.S. citizen. I don't lose my right to vote. I don't even have to declare a bank account in USVI or PR but I would have to if I have one in Canada.
Now as it stands- Trump says there's an offer (of sorts) for Canada to become the 51st state of the United States.(ref 1, ref 2) If that were agreed to I would think that was when 'integration' has begun (subject to the terms agreed to). But for the topic of tariffs removal Trump says as soon as he gets in he's slapping huge tariffs on Canada and Mexico. But there's no plans for the borders or even on-boarding of Canada's government into the United States jurisdiction. Persons born in Canada still must apply to move to the USA unless they have a U.S. parent. I think Canada just cooperates you're not integrated with here. Not like other parts of USA are actually "integrated" and there's no signs more measures are being implemented to make this easier. CaribDigita (talk) 06:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence is specifically talking about "economic integration". For example auto parts made in Ontario going to Tennessee for assembly, or Alberta beef cattle going to Omaha for disassembly, then trucked to Montreal. Indefatigable (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of things are shipped to/from many places under globalization. I can open/disassemble many products in my house and find components "Made in X" I'm sure. I bet same goes for you if you look. CaribDigita (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is about the degree of economic integration. While you could say that globalization has increased the integration of national economies, you could also say that the Canadian and U.S. economies are more integrated than say France and Australia. We may find out just how integrated the two economies are after Trump takes office. TFD (talk) 08:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Update Canadian population from 41,288,599 (2024 Q3) to 41,465,298 (2024 Q4). It's from the same source, which has been updated (Population estimates, quarterly). ZeusMinerva25 (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the change .....simply because the percentages don't match the statistical analysis that has been published by the Daily. That said....I think I agree we should stick with statistic Canada group's.... Over Wikipedia made up groups such as European Canadians (that is not a terminology used by statistics Canada). We just need to take a closer look at what has been published number wise over Wikipedia own calculations (that is allowed) however the past calculations don't match official publications that analyze the data. Think it's best we stick with the sources that analyze the data over analyzing the data ourselves.
Let's compare the two sets of data
Change of stats... South Asian (6.9%), Indigenous (4.9%), Chinese (4.5%), Black (3.8%) sourced to the raw data (that I assume was self calculated).
I do not believe Moxy has provided an actual basis for reverting or disagreeing with my edits. Please read carefully.
Old version:
The major panethnic groups chosen were: European (52.5 percent), North American (22.9 percent), Asian (19.3 percent), North American Indigenous (6.1 percent), African (3.8 percent), Latin, Central and South American (2.5 percent), Caribbean (2.1 percent), Oceanian (0.3 percent), and other (6 percent).
My new and preferred version:
The population groups as categorized by Statistics Canada are: White (67.4%), South Asian (6.9%), Indigenous (4.9%), Chinese (4.5%), Black (3.8%), Filipino (2.5%), Arab (1.9%), Latin American (1.6%), Southeast Asian (1%), West Asian (1%), Korean (0.6%), Japanese (0.2%), mixed (3.2%) and other (0.7%).
Moxy first reverted my edits by writing "Where does 6.9 for indigenous come from ? https://www.statcan.gc.ca/o1/en/plus/3920-canadas-indigenous-population". My version, as well as the link they provided, both clearly state 4.9%. Obviously, not a basis to revert it. Despite that, Moxy still reverted the edits by writing "Nope looking further.... these must be all self edition that don't match publications such as https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/221026/dq221026b-eng.htm". Frankly I'm not sure what that means what "doesn't match" as zero information has been provided on what does not match!
Moxy has stated my edits "don't match the statistical analysis that has been published by the Daily" Let's have a look. Ctrl+F on The Daily "Close to 70% of Canada's population report being White". I wrote that 67.4% were white. Other quick examples, The Daily article also says "In the 2021 Census, just over half a million people (580,000) reported being Latin American only" which matches the source I am using and the information I had written. It also says "Just over three-quarters of the 360,000 people who reported being West Asian". I mean for goodness sake, this is government data... it is consistent, but Moxy has reverted my edits claiming they are inconsistent with other government data that is also published by Statistics Canada? I just don't understand what Moxy means by "doesn't match publications", when they have provided no examples of what does not match.
The previous "Ethnic groups" section included continents of origin. I find it arbitrary because "French Canadian" as an ethnic origin is counted as North American, not European. "French" is counted as European - it is basically arbitrary as it depends on what one writes into the census rather than what they actually are, and I just generally think race is more relevant here. Here is the link I am using to write the population groups as categorized by Statistics Canada. C.monarchist28 (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? No explanation or example? Though I was clear. We have 2 different sets of information presented (close but different or old) .....stable version from 2022 regurgitating the source verbatim in the article vs your new calculations of the raw data that differs. Moxy🍁 18:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You would like to "regurgitate the source that has analysed the raw data over your calculation of the raw data". Sounds like a word salad. The source you would like to regurgitate matches the simple calculations of the raw data perfectly. Sigh.C.monarchist28 (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm clearly not explaining myself well..... every number is different let's use the Indigenous one for example....our source being used says 1,807,250. You're using the number 1,772,025 so why a difference when you do the calculation? Moxy🍁 22:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is most likely because the source I provided only includes single race. Possibly, the difference between these two statistics is those who are mixed race with Indigenous. C.monarchist28 (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
100% in agreement with Moxy. Editors don't get to collapse groups and do new calcs based on their own preferences, especially when we have pre-existing analysis from the official group that gathered the data. Stats Can collects data on ethnicity, which is not exactly the same as "race", and so the stable version is clearly what should be used. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Collapse groups? I'm just taking this StatsCan data as it is. Not making "my own calculations based on my own preferences"? This is why I stated "The population groups as categorized by Statistics Canada". This is better than categorizing by continent of origin, when that is largely based on arbitrary self-identification (French Canadian ethnicity is counted as North American while French is counted as European, when these people have the same ancestry - it depends on arbitrary labels of self-identity). The population groups I am trying to have inserted are more objective. C.monarchist28 (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The categories listed by C.monarchist28 (White, South Asian, Indigenous, Chinese, Black, Filipino, Arab, Latin American, Southeast Asian, West Asian, Korean, Japanese, mixed and other) appear to come from the StatCan definitions for the different population group information used in respect to the visible minority variable (see StatCan ref) and is collected for employment equity purposes.
The population groups previously contained in the article (European, North American, Asian, North American Indigenous, African; Latin, Central and South American; Caribbean, Oceanian, and other) are the ethnic or cultural origins from this StatCan reference here, which appears to have been dropped from the paragraph sometime this fall.
Both references are valid StatCan resources, but the context of what is being discussed is important. If we were discussing employment equity measures, the former would be useful. If however, the paragraph in the Wikipedia article is referencing Ethnic origins (as evidenced by the paragraph title "Ethnicity", and the subordinate hatnote "Main article: Ethnic origins of people in Canada") then the original article categories are more applicable. Loopy30 (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Resolved