Talk:Carolyn Parrish

Removed non-NPOV text:

A rabid Anti-American, with a propensity to place both feet in her mouth. Left leaning on social issues, fiscally center-right. Is actually a Libertarian, but seeks power through the path of least resistance. Not beyond bullying as a tactic and will garner support by prostrating herself at many altars. Principled in Voice, corrupt in practice.

-- Marnanel 15:58, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's also an obvious absurdity. This is her least-resistance path to power? If she were powermad she'd be french-kissing Bush's and Martinet's @sses, not kicking them. Kwantus 21:48, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

• Thank the heavens that she is kicked out. But something worthy of note is that her riding consists of a LARGE muslim population. Captain433180 03:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • I quite like her courage to stand up to Martin and of course Bush. She can go over the top I suppose, but I like that. Martin's move is a sad one for freedom of speech. Earl Andrew 04:27, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • • So as an employee I can tell my boss to go to hell and face no consequences? I am all for freedom of speech and so what about what she said however, bosses have this weird thing about "firing" employees if they said they don’t care about the care about the boss/company (leader/party). Freedom of Speech has limits.--Captain433180 14:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • • • I believe her boss is the people of Mississauga, as they were the one's who elected her. Mr. Martin did not chose her. Many MP's forget this fact. This is also not an example of a limit to freedom of speech. She is not physically or emotionally harming anyone by her comments. Earl Andrew 18:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • • • On the News today she said she would have done that same thing in Martins situation. This was not second had I heard her voice say that not some spin jockey. So we can discuss this from one end to another however, since this was said (her comments on would have done the same thing) then people saying this is censorship have nothing left. But I didn't mind what she said. Frankly I think its great someone speaks their mind (for being a liberal) and not follow status quo. For me now the issue is over if this "out spoken" (I say this as a complement) MP says the would have dismissed Martin if the roles were reversed.--Captain433180 19:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • • • • Well in that case- touché Earl Andrew 19:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • • • • You present a very good case though. I tip my hat to you. Freedom of speech is something that should never be taken for granted. Thank you for reminding me of that.--Captain433180 19:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This does not represent her at all

Aside from being an (overly) outspoken member of Parliament, Carolyn Parrish has demonstrated the power of Independent members of the House of Commons, and should be thanked for that. Therefore, the page should not be fully devoted to her use of the freedoms afforded to her under section 2(b) of the Canadian constitution. Andrew pmk 21:55, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain what you're arguing here, but I think it might be more useful to *add* other information about her political career than to put up an NPOV notice. CJCurrie 23:15, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, I wrote most of the article as it appears now and I am a big fan of Ms. Parrish and her actions. As for her having "demonstrated the power of Independent members", a scan of the Hansard index (http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/indexE/p-38-1_-e.htm) shows that she has only spoken once since becoming an independent, and it was to ask for some statistical information on immigration to be tabled. Moreover, despite whether or not you agree with what she has done (as I do), it is still the most noteworthy thing that she has done and is the obvious focus of such an article. However, as CJCurrie said, if you think the scope of the article is too limited, add to it OR put up a stub notice not a NPOV notice! - Jord 08:55, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Resolved. NPOV message removed. Andrew pmk 01:50, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Caucus Membership and Party Designation in the Commons

I find this sentence confusing: "Initially still nominally a Liberal in the House of Commons, she became an independent on November 21 so that the speaker would give her time in member's statments and question period without the notice of the Liberal whip." How could she still be considered a Liberal in the Commons after she was expelled from the Liberal caucus? Aren't the party designations merely a recognition of caucus membership? HistoryBA 18:24, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's actually a bit more complex than that. Jean-Guy Carignan (anyone remember him?) was an "Independent Liberal" in the House for a number of years, after being expelled from caucus. Technically, it's not the same as being a true "Independent"; I'm sure the parliamentary website (www.parl.gc.ca) would explain the matter in further detail. CJCurrie 20:30, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is my point exactly. Once he was expelled from the Liberal caucus, he had to call himself an "Independent Liberal." He was no longer designated as a "Liberal" because he wasn't a member of the Liberal caucus. Have the rules changed since then? Didn't Parrish cease to be designated as a Liberal in the Commons as soon as the Liberal caucus informed the Speaker that she was no longer a member? HistoryBA 00:55, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Parrish also was an Independent Liberal for several days and that is what the article alludes to. Despite the similarity in names, an Independent Liberal and an Independent are considerably different things. Properly an Independent Liberal would be known as a Liberal excluded from caucus and there is a big difference. Someone who still identifies with a party, despite being excluded from its caucus, is not considered an independent from the chair and thus does not get recognized for statements or questions unless s/he is put on the list by the party whip. You may note on Parrish's parliament page (http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/key/bio.asp?lang=E&query=223&s=F) that though she is only listed as a member of the Liberal Caucus until Nov 17, she was a Liberal until Nov 21. - Jord 17:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So why don't we make the article say that? HistoryBA 20:02, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is what it said. There is no such thing as an Independent Liberal it is a shorthand used on the parl.gc.ca site, she was still a Liberal, just excluded from caucus... that is to say a Liberal by name -or- nominally a Liberal... I am going to revert your edit. - Jord 23:31, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article is confusing, as witnessed by the comments here by myself and others. Rather than revert my edit, why not try to bring clarity to the article? It does not say what you say above (your 11 December 2004 comment); as you admit, it only "aludes" to this state of affairs. I also wonder about your use of the word "nominally." Wasn't she technically a Liberal but "nominally" an Independent Liberal? HistoryBA 15:41, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As explained in my note below she never sat as an Independent Liberal, that term was used on the parl.gc.ca site as a shorthand for Liberal excluded from caucus, she never designated herself as an Independent Liberal and it is up to a member to register his/her affiliation with the clerk of the house. Per your above request, I have changed the wording. Please advise if it is now sufficiently clear. I apologize if you took offense to my reverting your edit, however your change contained inaccurate information. Unlike some who have used similar terminology, such as Inky Mark (http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/key/bio.asp?lang=E&query=9139&s=M) who actually designated himself a Independent Conservative, eventually joining the PC caucus only after they passed a democratic reform plank for their platform. Parrish, as seen here (http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/key/bio.asp?lang=E&query=223&s=F) stayed as a Liberal after he exclusion from caucus. - Jord 18:02, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My understanding was that, for certain purposes, a member can identify any way they want: that any member could choose to be listed as a Liberal, Conservative, Independent Liberal, Independent Conservative, Liberal-Conservative-Independent, or what not. One of the folks who left the BQ caucus a few years back sat as an "Independent Sovereigntist." Jag Bhaduria, late in his term, sat as Canada's lone Liberal Democrat. (Not reflected in Wikipedia, but I know I have seen it in an official Parliamentary source.) Samaritan 00:14, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The source you are looking for is here (http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/key/bio.asp?lang=E&query=36&s=M), and you are largely right. A member has the right to sit with whatever party label s/he chooses. However, in the case of Parrish, she was still sitting as a Liberal from Nov 18 to Nov 21. The parl.gc.ca site simply labels her as Independent Liberal to indicate that she was not in the Liberal caucus, not because she identified herself as an Independent Liberal and then decided to label herself as Independent. As you can see here (http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/house/HofCChange.asp?lang=E&Hist=N&query=34) and here (http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/house/HofCChange.asp?lang=E&Hist=N) she spent those three days as a Liberal excluded from caucus. - Jord 02:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yep - that's canonical. Samaritan 04:26, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Redistricting vs redistribution

Though the redrawing of boundaries in Canada is known as "redistribution", the technical political science terminology across borders for such a thing is "redistricting", hence why I used it instead of redistrubting. I am going to edit the redistricting article to mention the other terms used and then re-link this article to it if there is no objection? -- Jord 17:09, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)