Talk:39th Canadian Parliament

39th Canadian Parliament was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 3, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
December 11, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
February 2, 2023	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Canada: Governments Mid‑importance

	Canada portal 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bill C-30 missing from major bills?

Sorry, I should wait until I have more time to comment on this properly but if someone has the time then some discussion of Bill C-30, the Clean Air and Climate Change Act, really should be included on this page. I just came across this seeming oversight now, while seeking information on how the controversial Bill C-30 died. http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/bills_ls.asp?source=library_prb&ls=C30&Parl=39&Ses=1&Language=E&Mode=1; http://www.pembina.org/reports/CAA-analysis_oct2006_MW.pdf; Hollo et al. (Springer: 2012) Climate Change and the Law, p. 501 thereabouts.

What On Earth Is An MP??

Someone should do a breif introduction on what an MP is cause man im at skool and i dunno wut on earth it is man!!!! (and what is their role)

That's why the term is linked. --Arctic Gnome 19:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stay in school. Especially english class. Haysead ^talk 13:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy

Could use some checking of names....I updated Kelowna-Lake Country's winner to Ron Cannan, new candidate this year, any other visible faults?

Bold and Italicized Names

There were four names in the chart which were emboldened or italicised. Two of them make sense: Stephen Harper (Prime Minister), and Paul Martin (Leader of Opposition). The others I've removed; I can't see why Ralph Goodale or Joe McGuire warrant special notice. --Llewdor 20:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Bill Graham is going to be the Leader of the Opposition, rather than Paul Martin (who remains Party leader), shouldn't his name be emboldened?

I would tend to think so. Since this is a page about the parliament, highlighting all the party leaders doesn't seem to fit. But the Prime Minister and Leader of the Official Opposition have specific parliamentary roles. --Llewdor 01:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While they don’t have as large a role as the leader of the opposition, the leaders of the third and fourth parties are officially recognised positions. They get paid more than your typical opposition member, for what it’s worth. -Arctic.gnome 07:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone and changed it all to match the 38th parliament, that is, ministers emboldened and leaders italicized. --coldacid 16:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave Bill Graham back his italics. This is a historical record, not news, and Bill Graham did historicly serve as a party leader in the 39th Parliament. --Arctic Gnome 17:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops...

In the process of bolding and italicizing based on CBC's latest on cabinet ministers, it looks like I buggered the page. Give me a few minutes to fix things... --coldacid 16:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's all fixed now. --coldacid 16:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fortier?

Why is Michael Fortier on this page? None of the other parliament pages list senators (AFAIK), and last I checked, the Cabinet is not an organ of Commons (or the Parliament at all, it's simply a committee of the Privy Council that happens to be staffed primarily or exclusively by MPs). I guess what I'm getting at is that when we say "nth Canadian parliament" here, we're really speaking of Commons rather than all of Parliament (which does happen to include the Senate) and as Fortier doesn't sit in Commons, his being on this page seems a mistake. --coldacid 17:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, this page is more about the Commons than about the Parliament. In any case Michael Fortier is part of the Cabinet and therefore important enough to be listed. He will probably play a role in this government and should be included on this page. --Funkmaster 801 17:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While this page should primarily focus on the House of Commons, the fact remains that the Senate is an undeniable component of Parliament and, therefore, should at least be mentioned (perhaps I could write a short paragraph describing how the Government in the Senate has less seats than the Opposition). A quick list of the party make-up in the Senate might also be appropriate. FiveParadox 18:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But this is not a page about the government or the Cabinet, it's a page about the 39th Parliament. It's is completely erroneous to include him on this page. There are many pages where his contribution will be noted, but this one is not appropriate, and listing him here contributes to a confusion between the legislative and executive branches of government. - Cafemusique 22:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Until he's in the Sneate, he should not be on a page about the 39th Parliament. Ground Zero | t 12:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Honourable Michael Fortier has now been sworn in as a Senator. FiveParadox 17:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Officeholders

Do we really want the Officeholders section? The previous parliament pages don't have it, and I believe it's because these roles, like those of cabinet ministers, may fluctuate during this parliament. That would mean more work having to keep the pages of not just the various members up to date but also this one; however if it's a short-lived parliament the point may be moot (especially if Harper pulls a Joe Clark when his budget arrives). I'm asking that HOTR explain this slightly anomalous edit, so that other interested parties can decide more fairly than if just hearing my wee rant. --coldacid 22:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to have a place where people can look up all the House leaders and Whips from the various parties - there isn't one at present and this page seemed like the most logical location as they are officers of the House. Homey 23:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some political observers

"Some political observers believe that Martin's chief motivation for remaining on as the official leader of the party is the hope of making a comeback as Prime Minister in the event of a quick defeat of the government. "

I'd like to know who these people are. I've never heard this before. Are these "some political observers" actually a single anonymous Wikipedian speculating at his/her keyboard? It's an interesting theory, but unless there is some verfiable evidence that this is more than just speculation, I think it doesn't belong here. Ground Zero | t 12:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just read this article (sic transit 39th) and I don't think the Martin discussion belongs at all, and the Trudeau parallel even less. I'm going to be bold and remove it on the weekend, unless someone supplies persuasive reasons as to why it belongs. Sounds like the answer to an esoteric polisci essay exam q;-) Bellagio99 (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, as suggested above. Bellagio99 (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed this from the previous "many political observers" which was unsupportable. I believe a few have speculated Martin would possibly return if the government collapsed - after all he was asked that by reporters once the Graham arrangemenet was announced - but I agree someone should add an actual citation to a "political observer" speculating on Martin's possible return.

I've balanced out the Trudeau parallel and fixed some glaring errors (it would have been absurd to resign on the eve of the election - ie the day before the vote). BTW another difference (aside from the lack of an interim leader) is that Trudeau was still very popular within the Liberal Party thus there was a strong constituency supporting his continued leadership - that is not my perception with Martin. Homey 12:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your edits, but I question whether the point belongs here at all, even in its improved form. I accept that there is speculation that he could come back, but is there speculation that that a possible comeback was his "chief motivation" for staying on as party leader? Ground Zero | t 12:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

The official website of Canadian Parliament (here) always capitalizes 'Parliament' when used in the context of "39th Canadian". Should the page title here be changed? -Joshuapaquin 03:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, yes; in the context of Canada, at least, Parliament is a proper noun when making references to one of the Parliaments in particular (the 1st Parliament, the 39th Parliament, the Parliament of Canada, and et cetera). FiveParadox 09:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal speaker

It looks like [1] we're pretty much guaranteed a Liberal as speaker by this afternoon. If someone has a seat layout image ready, we can get that up as soon as we hear... Radagast 17:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Milliken's back in. If I had a graphics program on this substandard Linux box, I'd alter the graphic myself; I thus beseech any passerby to please update and upload! Radagast 19:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 1979 paragraph

Doesn't seem to belong to me in an article about the current Parliment at all. (At least at this time.) Joncnunn 18:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It was relevant initially, as Martin had stayed on as leader, but with his formal resignation, the comparison is no longer relevant. PoliSciMaster 18:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fr:

Add fr:39e législature du Canada. Thanks.

Staatenloser 18:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added it. --OneEuropeanHeart 03:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Party abbreviations/identifiers

Someone added some party identifiers in the Speakers section that, in my opinion, look extremely awkward — such as Peter Milliken (LIB-Ontario). Could we please remove these crude identifiers and replace them with something a bit more presentable? Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? FiveParadox 05:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they're similar to the American model that we commonly see for US Senators (e.g. Senator John McCain, R-AZ). Well-intentioned, but not a normal form in Canada. -Joshuapaquin 06:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not customary to identify MPs by province. Riding, yes; province, no. Homey 06:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By-elections

I have again edited the party standings to reflect the pre-by-election numbers. While the by-elections have occurred, and it is clear who won both of them, neither of those people are yet MPs, they are not able to take their seat or vote, and they should not be indicated in the party standings until they are able to do so.

The results of the by-elections are preliminary. The results must be validated, the writ of election returned to the Chief Electoral Officer, and a certificate filed with the Clerk of the House of Commons. After that, the Member must swear the Oath of Allegiance and sign the roll before they can take their seat. You will note that the official standings on the Parliamentary Website continue to reflect the pre-by-election numbers. Please wait until that list has been updated before again raising the party standings.

To make it clear that things are in motion, I have added a note about the by-elections, and marked the two soon-to-be MPs as "member-elect." PoliSciMaster 20:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where the Canadian Senate?

In this article and the articles of the 1st through 38th Canadian Parliaments, there's no mention of the Canadian Senate. The Canadian Parliament is bi-cameral (made up of the House of Commons & the Senate). Has the Senate been abolished? without my knowledge?. GoodDay 19:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Senate is defiantly worth mentioning. I have no problem with you adding it to the articles. --Arctic Gnome 22:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to (in the next few days), begin editing in Past & Current Senators from the 1st through 39th Canadian Parliments. It may take a while, but I'll give it a try. GoodDay 22:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because this topic is about several articles, I'm moving the conversation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Government of Canada/Parliaments of Canada. --Arctic Gnome 01:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

125 Conservative MPs

Since the Jan 23, 2006 Election: the Conservative have lost an MP (kicked out) and gained an MP (crossed floor, from Liberals). Wouldn't the Conservative seat count be 124? GoodDay 20:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, David Emerson had crossed the floor (from Liberal to Conservatives, on February 6, 2006). The total is 'currently' 125 Conservative MPs. GoodDay 20:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mangled section

39th Canadian Parliament#===Leader=

The text of this section is:

== ===Leader===
*[[Sharona Clair - MP ]]* ==

This seems to have come about from this anonymous edit. Can somebody knowledgable in this subject check and fix this? Thanks. --Merovingian ※ Talk 03:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giving members their own article

This page is getting a bit long. I think we should split the list of house members into a separate List of House members of the 39th Parliament of Canada. I figured that I should ask here first since this would be different than how we do it on the other articles about Canadian Parliaments. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major events - Jean Lapierre

Is Jean Lapierre's resignation really worthy of being labelled a "major event"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CaptainCanada (talk • contribs) 10:03, June 6, 2007 (UCT).

Any change in membership in Parliament in notable, but maybe that information would be better in the list of House members of the 39th Parliament of Canada. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Arctic Gnome, that it should be moved to the sidde page. Sethpt 19:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gauthier

Sorry about declaring his seat vacant to early. They did a tribute to him on in the House but he has not officially retired. I will let you know when he has.Sethpt 19:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

This article is on its way, but it has a few problems at the moment:

The references aren't in a consistent format. It needs inline references throughout.
It could do with more images.

It shouldn't take much effort to get it the rest of the way. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 22:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more images and changed the references to be in-line. This should be close to another go at getting GA. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Party standings

I noted that folks were quick to update the party standings in the House after yesterday's by-elections. While certainly it is clear who won these three by-elections, the fact of the matter is that they have not yet taken their seats. Until such time as the Chief Electoral Officer certifies their writs of election, they take their oath, and sign the roll, they are NOT Members of Parliament, and as such those seats remain vacant (as can clearly be seen in the official standings on the Parliament of Canada website).

Before getting into reverting everything, I wanted to start a discussion here and see how others felt. I know an argument will be made that given the election results, it is inevitable so we might as well include them. However, any number of things could happen between now and then that could prevent them from actually taking their seat. My personal preference would be to keep the standings at the official numbers, with a footnote referring to the members-elect until such time as they actually do take their seats.PoliSciMaster 18:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. For the sake of informativeness the updated numbers should be used, but for the sake of being technically correct there needs to be a footnote. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Done b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail: on hold

This article is still on its way, has had improvements and is much much better than some of the other numerical previous Canadian parliamentary pages: The main issue still is references. There are still facts / paragraphs /sections that have no citations at all. Each paragraph should have at least 2-3 references, each fact cited if possible. ie Eight-year Senate terms no references throughout section and first three facts of the Floor-crossing section.

Done

A successful motion in the House to extend Canada's mission in Afghanistan by two years, until early 2009. is a sentence fragment, can it be re-worded?*While campaigning Harper promised a parliamentary vote on reopening the issue. verb confusion consider revising.

Done

On another note: The Officeholders area adds information as lists rather than prose, which may read in an article better as prose. As of late, it has been requested that each item in lists be sourced. See this ensuing discussion about list citations -list discussion ~If each biography listed is properly sourced, then the lists should be OK in this article (as per discussion).

Gave links to list items which referenced other articles without citations, and opened all other articles in list and they had proper ciations. Turned one list to prose.

Done

Let me know when the main paragraph (first point above) citations are popped into the article, and it will be a good to go. Wonderful work on the article BTW! I will put a hold on the article to let you'se fix it, and then hopefully it will get listed as GA, in a few days! Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 03:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added note that above requests have been added and second review requested. SriMesh | talk 22:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked this article, and I would say that yes, it should be a Good Article. <DREAMAFTER> ^<TALK> 23:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since it is coming up on a year... do you feel that there should be a response. Either pass or fail? Haysead ^talk 13:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 election

Anybody got the know how & citations to update this article? The 39th Canadian Parliament was dissolved on September 7th, 2008. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King minority government

The article says that Harper's was the longest minority government excepting King's "de facto majority government". The article on the 16th government does not make clear why it is a de facto majority. Can someone explain (possibly with sources)? This issue affects this article, the 2008 election article, and other article related to the government. -Rrius (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.liberal.ca/story_12970_e.aspx
- In Gary Merasty on 2011-03-19 18:56:11, 404 Not Found
- In 39th Canadian Parliament on 2011-06-19 07:06:03, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced link in this article with archived link. Didn't see it in the other article. --Big_iron (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 39th Canadian Parliament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 39th Canadian Parliament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Compilations/FederalGovernment/PrimeMinisters/Biographical.aspx
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget06/brief/briefe.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080925190104/http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/536641/2006457 to http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/536641/2006457
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061213/senate_elexn_061213/20061213?hub=TopStories

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 39th Canadian Parliament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GAR

39th Canadian Parliament

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2007. Quite a lot of problems with this. First, uncited statements such as

The Parliament was dissolved by Governor General Michaëlle Jean on the advice of Prime Minister Stephen Harper on September 7, 2008. The general election for the members of the 40th Parliament of Canada was held on October 14, 2008.
On March 14, 2008 Bloc MP Maka Kotto resigned, followed by Liberal MP Brenda Chamberlain resigned on April 7. Another Liberal MP, John Godfrey, resigned on August 1.
The motion may not have any legal effect, but it is related to Bill C-288 – which received Royal Assent on June 22, 2007.
Bill C-2, titled An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (Tackling Violent Crime Act) was the government's omnibus crime bill which received Royal Assent on February 29, 2008 and amended several pieces of legislation. Among other things, the bill raised the age of consent to 16 from 14, imposed minimum mandatory sentence for crimes involving firearms, instituted a "three-strikes-and-you're-out" (also known as a "reverse onus sentencing") for habitual offenders, and restricted "house arrest" policies for serious offenders. The bill received royal assent on February 28, 2008 and sections 1 to 17, 28 to 38, 54, 57 and 58 went into force on May 1, 2008 and sections 18 to 27, 39 to 53, 55, 56, 59 and 60 went into force on July 2, 2008.
Currently, senators can stay in office until they reach the age of 75. The bill was first introduced by the government in the Senate on May 30, 2006. After consideration in committee and making amendments to the bill, the Senate recommended that the bill not be proceeded with until such time as the Supreme Court of Canada had ruled with respect to its constitutionality, which had not occurred prior to dissolution. The bill was reintroduced in the second session as a Commons bill on November 13, 2007, but did not become law before the session ended.

Along with many other uncited statements. Along with that, the prose is just poorly written. The article is written so weirdly with so many 1 sentence paragraphs such as

Five members of parliament crossed the floor since the election on January 23, 2006:
On February 6, 2006, David Emerson, elected as the Liberal Member of Parliament for Vancouver Kingsway, crossed the floor to join Stephen *Harper's cabinet as Minister of International Trade.[9]
On January 5, 2007, Wajid Khan, elected as the Liberal MP for Mississauga—Streetsville, crossed the floor to join the Conservative Party.[10]
On February 6, 2007, Garth Turner, elected as a Conservative MP for Halton, moved to the Liberal caucus. He had been sitting as an Independent since being suspended from the Tory caucus on October 18, 2006.[11]
On June 26, 2007, Joe Comuzzi, elected as a Liberal MP for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved to the Conservative caucus. He had been sitting as an Independent since being suspended from the Liberal caucus on March 21, 2007.[12]
On August 30, 2008, Blair Wilson elected as a Liberal MP for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, moved to the Green caucus. He had been sitting as an Independent since he resigned from the Liberal caucus on October 28, 2007.[13]

And even then, i'm not sure if the article is broad enough as it feels like there's so much that could be talked about that isn't Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.