Talk:Canada/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

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

Weasel Words

When authoritative sources say that real power lies in Canada, there is no need to use weasel words to attempt to weaken a simple statement of fact. Real power lies in cabinet; the power of the GG and monarch are strictly ceremonial. --soulscanner (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Also, please do not delete relevant quotes from articles. They are important in this dispute. --soulscanner (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. So stop ignoring the constitution.

I didn't delete your precious quote, so stop making unfounded accusations and petty threats in my direction. --G2bambino (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Using quotes from a ministerial website to prove that real power lies with ministers in not persuasive. I'm not commenting on whether it's true, I'm only saying that quotes from interested parties are not the best way of making a point. -Rrius (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

G2 did remove the quote. I've restored it for a second time. I restored it yesterday. The fact has been note on G2's talk page [1]. His edit is here [2] Please do not remove it again. Also, please do not remove the dispute tag until the dispute is resolved. Removing the tag before resolving the dispute would also violate wiki policies.

If we're going to be picky about sources, the whole section would be questionable. The other quotes come from 1. Eugene Forsey, a sitting Liberal senator and strong monarchist (a marfginal position in today's Canada) 2. Larry Zolf, a newspaper columnist writing an editorial; 3) an uncredited Canadian Archives display . A department of justice quote is as significant as these, if not moreso. It certainly does not excuse removing the quote. --soulscanner (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it seems I did remove the quote; I apologise. It was done in my revert, but I did not remove it originally; which is what I meant above. The quote being there or not being there isn't of much importance to me, so I didn't remove it intentionally.

I removed the "weasel words" tag because I re-composed the section specifically in order to address your concerns. Obviously my efforts were wasted.

There is no being "picky" about sources. Your one source says something, and a slew of other sources say something else. That's not to say your source is completely invalid, but it must be taken in conjunction with all the others; it does not stand alone as the definitive source on this matter. --G2bambino (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of article

The article must in some way reflect the fact that a) the Executive role of the GG is marginal or nominal b) that the role of the Prime Minister is decisive:

• "The prime minister's role technically is that of an adviser who makes recommendations to the governor general -- the de facto head of state and the formal head of Canada's executive -- on matters ranging from Cabinet appointments to setting the date for a general election. Since the early twentieth century, however, that advisory role has been largely symbolic, with the governor general's Crown prerogative set against the constitutionally mandated power and authority of the government-of-the-day."
• "While the modern governor general has only a nominal influence on the operation of the Canadian government, the prime minister's influence is decisive."
• "The prime minister gives shape to the centre of government, not only by selecting Cabinet members, but also by organizing key executive agencies including the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office. [3]

As of now, the authority of the GG and monarch are exaggerated. --soulscanner (talk) 05:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific. As the section presently reflects everything you've quoted above, how is the GG's and monarch's roles exaggerated? --G2bambino (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

1. I'll be very specific: this is too wishy-washy about the role of the Monarch and GG being strictly ceremonial; much better to be direct and bold:

• "Executive authority is constitutionally, or "formally," vested in the monarch, but is in practice exercised on a day-to-day basis by the Cabinet (a committee of the Queen's Privy Council) through the monarch's representative, the Governor General; making the Cabinet the "active seat" of real executive power."
• "Executive authority is formally vested in the monarch, whose ceremonial duties are carried out by an appointed viceroy/representative, the Governor General. Real political power is exercised by the Cabinet, which is selected by the Prime Minister, the head of government."

This is more concise. It introduces the main figures in the Executive. It also describes the ceremonial roles of the GG and Monarch, and the principal political roles of Cabinet and the PM.

2. The role of the Prime Minister and principles of democracy (modern constitutional documents use this to describe the principle of Responsible Government) needs to be emphasized, not that of the governor general:

• "The Prime Minister, generally the leader of the political party that commands the confidence of the House of Commons, is appointed by the Governor General to select and head the Cabinet;[33] thus, the Prime Minister's Office is one of the most powerful organs of government, tasked with selecting, besides the other Cabinet members, Senators, federal court judges, heads of Crown corporations and government agencies, and the federal and provincial viceroys for appointment."
• "After a general election, the Governor General is bound by precedent to ask the the leader of a political party that commands the confidence of the House of Commons to form a government and become Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's Office is one of the most powerful organs of government, selecting Cabinet members, Senators, federal court judges, heads of Crown corporations and government agencies, and new viceroys. Under principles of democracy, the Governor General always appoints these choices."

3. If you insist on using the formal procedural term "advises the governor General", then it is neccessary to elaborate according to the above reference

• "Although the Prime Minister technically advises the Governor General on these appointments, the Prime Minister's recommendations are in fact decisive."

You might add: "The GG has no influence on these appointments." However, I feel it's better for the sake of brevity to simply say that the PM appoints these figures. I'll concede to your formalized description if the above caveat is added verbatim.

4. To this end, any one of these bold, simple statements standing alone in the section will do with regard to introducing and clarifying the roles of Prime Minister, Governor General, the or the Cabinet with regard to Executive power

• Cabinet exercises real power, and the governor General's role is symbolic in modern Canada.
• The Prime Minister's influence is decisive.
• The Prime Minister shapes government, selecting cabinet ministers, appointing Supreme court judges and senators. The Governor General always defers to the Prime Ministers choices.
• The Prime Minister selects the Cabinet, Supreme Court judges. The Governor General always defers to the Prime Ministers appointments according to principals of democracy.
• Since the early twentieth century, the Prime Minister's advisory role is only symbolic and the Governor always defers to the Prime Ministers decisions.

Also, the limited role of the Governor General in exercising needs to be described boldly, as in the given references:

• The Governor General's role is apolitical and purely ceremonial.
• The Governor General's role in modern Canada is nominal, and the Prime Minister's decisive.
• The Governor General always defers to Parliament in signing Bills into Law.--soulscanner (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet, you haven't a shred of evidence that the role of the GG is "purely ceremonial." I've given about a hundred sources that outline the constitutional roles and procedures, you've given one. You want to write the GG completely out of the picture, but all the sources say that isn't the case; not really. Maybe this unecessary disruption will end faster if you take your dispute to a wider audience. --G2bambino (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There are limited circumstances in which the Governor General exercises real power, though they attempt to follow precedent as much as possible. See the King-Byng affair. Questions arise when there is uncertainty as to whether the Prime Minister has the confidence of the House in practice, such as if it appears they're about to lose a confidence vote. In those cases, it may not be necessary that the Governor General follow the PM's advice. Joeldl (talk) 05:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That is indeed correct, and I don't think the section in question puts it any other way. --G2bambino (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In the 1920's there were limited circumstances in which the GG exercised power. Things have changed since then. Now, the check on the power pf the PM lies in the ability of Parliament to bring down a government through a nonconfidence vote. Only then can the GG act. That is what ultimately was shown in the King Byng affair; ultimately, King ended up dismissing Byng for politically interfering, and put explicit limits on the powers of the GG in the Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminster. If we allude to powers last exercised in the 1920's, we should add a caveat that these powers have not been used since the 1920's and/or that the last attempt to use these powers resulted in the GG being removed from office. That could get long though.--soulscanner (talk) 03:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the problem here is that there is no evidence that the GG's role is anything BUT ceremonial; there is one reference by the Late Senator Eugene Forsey, and ardent monarchist, that the GG has powers. That is one opinion, written 30 years ago by someone active in political life 50 years ago. It is a significant opinion, but a biased one that needs to be put into perspective. No governor General has attempted to exercise any political decision making power since King-Byng; all they've done since then is sign Bills and make the PM's appointments, and handed out literary awards. Be that as it may, primarily/mostly/mainly ceremonial is fine for now. There are still other options to put GG's role into perspective, as listed above. --soulscanner (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Exactly. It is the epitome of bias to so use a biased and dated opinion. Further, the suggestion that the Canadian government is not a reliable source on its own workings is utter nonsense. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 04:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, ministers are not a great source for unbiased information on their power vis a vis the monarch and viceroy. Moreover, the source advanced gives very basic information and is not of the sort of scholarly work that would provide the nuanced explanation we need. In other words, the executive is trying to explain government in a way that high school kids will understand, not to provide a definitive statement of the rights of various actors in the Canadian system of government. -Rrius (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't confuse "ministers" with the Government of Canada. The former are individual politicians; the latter is the on-going institution, or set of institutions, within which the ministers serve (often quite ephemerally). This is an important difference as regards source-reliability. The Government of Canada is a reliable source on its own workings; what a particular Canadian minister might have said, not so much (the Ministry of Truth on the workings of government in Lower Berzerkistan, not at all.)
Nuance is fine where warranted, so long as it does not obscure the essential facts of the matter -- in this case, the fact that Canadian executive power is really the PM's and Cabinet's, while the GG is purely ceremonial except under highly unusual circumstances which might well never come to pass. WP actually should aim to be understandable by "high school kids" and other ordinary readers. Clear, direct, yet accurate statements are the way to achieve this, not an obscuring fog of "nuance". -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not confusing anything. I am trying to avoid the unfortunate Canadian double usage of "government". The website is run at the direction of the PM and other ministers, who have every reason to understate the importance of the monarch and GG.
WP is meant to present verified fact, not to obscure it in favor of dumbing things down. The nuance here does not obscure the truth; it is the truth. The monarch and GG hold certain reserve powers that could be exercised in extraordinary circumstances. To state otherwise hides the facts and has more than a whiff of POV. -Rrius (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not say, the Governor General officially peforms the executive duties of the Queen (in her absents) . But the Prime Minister performs exectutive duties in practice. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

At first blush, I don't have a problem with that, but it may not fit the "purely ceremonial" standard of some other editors. -Rrius (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

At least we know the Governor General isn't completely ceremonial. In the Queen's absents, the GG's signiture is required to make bills into lawes. Also, the GG opens the Parliament sessions. PS- I hope things work out, with this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What do we mean by 'ceremonial'? Do we wish to call the appointment of ministers, the calling, dissolution and proroguation of Parliament ceremonial? In my opinion, these are not ceremonial powers. These are real executive powers. Certainly, convention requires that they be exercised on the advice of the Government. Nevertheless, the Government still needs the GG in a very real way in order to exercise the mandate of the People. The proof of this is surely that if the GG died or resigned, the Government and Parliament could not continue to function until a new one had assumed office.--Gazzster (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

But the GG does not exercise these powers; these decisions are made by the PM; saying that the GG holds executive power means that the GG has the discretionary power to make them. Real politicalpower lies with the Prime Minister. The executive power of the monarchy is ceremonial. Several quotes above say so. --soulscanner (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot about those other executive functions. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Others have already exposed the various weaknesses in Soulscanner's "argument," so I'll just point out that the paragraph says what a multitude of sources say. It doesn't seem Soulscanner is able to dispel them, and so just ignores their existence and insists his one source - replete with its own questionable content (written constitutional law is just a "convention"?) - is the only one to use. The debate is then reduced to one of speculations and personal theories, rather than one that looks at the content of sources. --G2bambino (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've offered a host of sources that say otherwise. --soulscanner (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No you haven't. You've offered one. --G2bambino (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've offered several. --soulscanner (talk) 04:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

And only one says what you want. --G2bambino (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Soulscanner means when he says Lord Byng was "dismissed". In fact, he served out his five-year term. And the fact that this hasn't happened since the 1920's has more to do with the fact that the circumstances in which it could happen seldom arise than with anything that might have changed. The "limits" imposed on the governor general's powers in the Statute of Westminster relate only to the fact that the governor general is to act solely in the interests of Canada and without instructions from the British government, something which would have changed nothing in the King-Byng affair since Lord Byng refused to consult the Colonial Office.

Just to make things really clear that "purely ceremonial" is inaccurate, here is an excerpt from Constitutional Law (1997) by Patrick J. Monahan:

The doctrine of responsible government removes most of the discretionary power of the governor general since, on the vast majority of matters calling for his or her decision or action, the governor general is bound to follow the advice of elected ministers. There are certain residual powers possessed by the governor general which permit the office holder to exercise some measure of personal discretion, rather than simply following the advice of the prime minister. These residual powers, however, are exercisable only in certain exceptional or unusual circumstances, as will be discussed in Chapter 3.

Frankly, I don't find anything objectionable in this old version. I don't believe the neutrality tag is called for. The current version is also in my opinion less well-written. Joeldl (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Lord Byng wasn't fired. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the older version was better and about the tag. -Rrius (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I pretty much put that older version together, so I can't have any objections to it! --G2bambino (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I do. Too much emphasis on GG, whose primary duties ARE ceremonial; it advances a monarchist view that the GG is consequential in Canadian politics, which they are not: they are ceremonial figureheads with a few vestigial powers. If you do not like the phrasology, we can say "Most of the GG's duties are purely ceremonial" and give examples. If the vestigal colonial powers are to be mentioned, then a big caveat needs to be added that they have not been exercised since the 1920's. There are also several other short, sharp sentences that can clarify the relative benign nature of the monarch. And yes, King had Byng removed, as is the prerogative of the Prime Minister.--soulscanner (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As for the tag, there are clearly editors who disagree on the nature of the GG's role. I think the tag is perfectly in order until this is sorted out. --soulscanner (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, you ignore the sources. Could you please deal with them instead of ranting about your personal feelings and imagined history? --G2bambino (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, reviewing this further, I don't think anyone's particularly clear on what your objections are. You speak about too much emphasis on the GG's role, but where exactly is this? The section is about the government and politics of Canada, not ceremonies; so, the paragraph outlines the constitutional structure of the government, and is fully supported by more than enough reliable sources. If you think the GG has "too much emphasis" in government, well, contact the PMO and get him to set up some constitutional conferences so as to have the system altered to suit your wishes. Otherwise, suck it up and get over it. --G2bambino (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Please review the four very specific points I have made above. No one has adressed any of them. The GG has done everything the Prime Minister has asked for the last 80 years. Prime ministers have appointed their cronies for the last 20. The GG has made every appointment, passed every law, and read every throne speach verbatim, and been the PM's sockpuppet in veryway. There's no need for a constitutional conference, becasue all GGs have always been diligent in their ceremonial duties. I also implore you to remain civil. This promises to be a long dispute, and we should approach it rationally. I had the courtesy to provide you with specific points when asked, and you could be decent enough to address them instead of asking me to repeat them. --soulscanner (talk) 04:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed your diatribes ad-nauseum and still only come to the conclusion that you are willfully ignoring that which you don't want to hear in order to make your personal views more sound. You've been asked time and time again to explain specifically how the GG's role is over-emphasised in the paragraph, and each time you've simply come back with an opinion unsupported by any sources save for one dubious one. Thus, this "debate" will only be a long one if you continue to be so obstuse and irrational; like the "dominion" stink you caused here earlier, you keep the discussion going round and round in perpetual cycles by refusing to accept anything less than what you personally believe to be true. I find that terribly irritating and disruptive, so I believe my being a little bit curt isn't uncalled for. If you're going to continue to hijack this article and talk page in order to promote your individual beliefs, the only step to go to next is bringing in more official parties to make binding rulings on the matter. --G2bambino (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

May 17 2008: The point many have missed below is that the Canadian Government acts, and must act, in the name of Her Majesty. Her Majesty does not personally make decisions. But in order for decisions to be formalized they must be done in the name of Her Majesty. This is what is meant by the Crown acting on the advice of Ministers. The Crown is constitutionally bound to accept advice of Ministers. So when someone is appointed to the Senate, for example, the appointment is made by the Prime Minister but in the name of Her Majesty, to make the appointment legal. The PM of the day has no individual legal authority to make the appointment him (or her-) self.

Nick

Thank you for your unnecessarily italicized contribution. However, no, I don't think anyone is confused on this point. -Rrius (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Then a simple staterment "the appointment is made by the Prime Minister but in the name of Her Majesty, to make the appointment legal." The article says that the GG makes the appointments. That would settle a lot. --soulscanner (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Because, while practically fairly accurate, it is formally incorrect and and inelegant way of putting it. The concept that the monarch or viceroy appoints on the advice of the PM, where "advice" means "instruction" is importatant to understanding how Canada, or any of the Commonwealth reams, operates. I assume you took my comment to imply complete agreement with the substance and wording of the contribution. You should not have done. I am assuming that your suggestion was in good faith, but if I am wrong and you were merely trying to make hay out of the fact that I let "in the name of Her Majesty" pass, shame on you. -Rrius (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

POV Pushing in G2bambino's posts

My objections here lie in G2bambino's belief that the monarch is invested with all executive authority in Canada. It taints the section on Government:

"However, not at the expense of accuracy, which stating "true power" lies in the Cabinet is not. There are a few unavoidable facts here that cannot be dismissed: 1) The Queen is vested with all executive authority. 2) The Queen has delegated almost all this authority to the Governor General. 3) The Governor General makes all appointments. 4) By constitutional convention the Queen and Governor General keep out of the political arena and almost invariably follow the advice of the Cabinet. 5) However, because the Queen holds all executive authority, she, or her representative, can refuse the advice of the Cabinet in exceptional circumstances." - G2

This is contradicted by various sources.

• "The executive power in Canada is vested in the Queen. In our democratic society, this is only a constitutional convention, as the real executive power rests with the Cabinet."Department of Justice

• "While the modern governor general has only a nominal influence on the operation of the Canadian government, the prime minister's influence is decisive. The prime minister gives shape to the centre of government, not only by selecting Cabinet members, but also by organizing key executive agencies including the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office. Together with the ability to control the government's legislative and policy agendas, the prime minister's considerable authority lies behind each and every executive decree." National Archives of Canada

• "Every act of government is done in the name of the Queen, but the authority for every act flows from the Canadian people." - Eugene Forsey

• "The doctrine of responsible government removes most of the discretionary power of the governor general since, on the vast majority of matters calling for his or her decision or action, the governor general is bound to follow the advice of elected ministers." -- Monahan

• "Responsible government means that the Crown no longer has the prerogative to select or remove Ministers. They are selected and removed by the first Minister — the Prime Minister. Ministers are thereby accountable to the Prime Minister who, in the Canadian tradition, has the sole power to appoint and dismiss them.Canada School of Public Service

• "Forsey’s credibility as an authority on these matters notwithstanding, many Canadians today would find these scenarios unthinkable. Thankfully, they are not used to seeing Prime Ministers act unconstitutionally and naturally would regard such concerns as overblown. Furthermore, they might view the exercise of the reserve power of the Crown as undemocratic because the Crown is not an elected institution. As a result, the reserve power of the Crown does not represent much of a check on the government in Canada today, and is certainly not comparable to the power of the Crown in Britain in 1832 or perhaps even in contemporary Britain. It is not much of a check in Australia, either, and for the same reason — the lack of legitimacy.[4]

• "The prime minister is the chief minister and effective head of the executive in a parliamentary system ... Formally, a PM is appointed by the GOVERNOR GENERAL who has little discretion in the matter, except in a crisis such as the death of the incumbent PM. " W.A. Matheson - Canadian Encyclopedia

All sources presented in fact present information that contradicts any notion that the monarch has all executive power, or any discretionary power. To those who object to government sources as "interested", I'll note that these were all used by G2 (selectively) to advance his thesis. All such theoretical and hypothetical questions about residual discretionary power are based on the opinion of the late Senator Eugene Forsey, an ardent monarchist. Again, this article reads like an essay designed to promote the notion that the monarchy is more than a formal and ceremonial institution. --soulscanner (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It is still not clear exactly how you think this contradicts what G2 is saying. Sure, for practical purposes the PM and ministers make all the executive decisions. You seem to want to ignore the fact that they must still advise (or direct or whatever verb makes you happy) the GG to do things. You must also recognize that, although the chances of there being used is remote, the Crown still has reserve powers that can be used without (or even against) advice from ministers. A quote in your second to last paragraph is instructive: The reserve power of the Crown does not represent much of a check on the government in Canada today. This gets to the very heart of it, I think. If the powers did not exist, they would be no check at all. As it stands, they are unlikely to be used, and are therefore not much of a check. In any event the fact that by authority of the written constitution, the Crown holds the executive power is as necessary to understanding the way Canadian government works as is the fact that the PM effectively wields that power. It is your desire to have the article not reflect this, rather than what G2 has said, that smacks of POV. Your original complaint is that the article over-stresses the role of the GG. That is not the case. The GG's role and how she interacts with the Cabinet simply require the amount of explanation they get. Let's walk through the text that was objected to:

Executive authority is constitutionally vested in the monarch, but is in practice exercised by the Cabinet, a committee of the Queen's Privy Council, through the monarch's representative, the Governor General.

I should think this is unreproachable. The written constitution vests executive authority in the monarch. That power is in practice exercised by the Cabinet. The Queen is generally not in Canada, so the Cabinet must work through her representative.

In practice, the role of the monarch and viceroy is apolitical and predominantly ceremonial in order to ensure the stability of government.

I can't imagine why this would be objectionable.

By convention, all governmental matters are almost invariably deferred to ministers in the Cabinet, who are themselves responsible to the elected House of Commons.

Again, this simply restates that in practice, matters of state are left to ministers who are answerable democratically elected house of Parliament.

Real executive power is therefore said to lie with the Cabinet, though the monarch and Governor General do retain the right to use discretionary powers in exceptional constitutional crisis situations.

I can't imagine how you can argue that the Crown does not have reserve powers. The fact that we are unlikely to see them used in our lifetime does not mean they do not exist.

I also have trouble understanding how any of these sentences is POV. They say that the GG has essentially no power. The only power being to act in an "extraordinary constitutional crisis". It is not inconsistent to say that the Crown holds the executive powers but has essentially no power. In fact, it is the reality. -Rrius (talk) 06:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This post skirts the issue of whether you believe that all executive power or authority is really vested in the monarch, which is the root of the problem. Whether one believes this is going to affect whether you see what is written as POV or not. I'll assume the point moot for now.

Lets take this one sentence at a time to illustrate. Evidently, there are references that back up either version, both from the same sources. This is becasue these sources, like this article, have to navigate between the obscure Parliamentary language, and plain English to explain what the jargon means. I feel it is is necessary to be very clear about the ceremonial powers of the monarchy vs. the real political power of the

Executive authority is formally vested in the monarch. Political power is exercised by the elected Prime Minister and his or her Cabinet. The Prime Minister's Office is one of the most powerful organs of government, directly appointing Cabinet Ministers, Senators, federal judges, the directors federal agencies. Cabinet decisions are carried out through the Privy Council Office and are given Royal Assent by the Monarch's appointed viceroy, the Governor General. Although the Prime Minister is said to formally "advise" the Governor General on all decisions, the Prime Minister's role is decisive. The Governor General's role is primarily ceremonial, and scholars disagree on the small amount of legitimate power the viceroy has.

• This phrasing gives a more realistic and plain language account of the monarch's role. Using the word formally implies that the power is limited right off the bat, whereas the word constitutionally implies that the power is substantial.
• Prime Minister needs to be mentioned first, and the PM's role outlined. The PM plays the decisive role in the executive. It is important to understand how much power the PM has in Canada. The GG's role is nominal and primarily ceremonial, and hence should be mentioned later.
• The Cabinet is that of the PM. He changes it at will.
• Modern official usage is Privy Council Office (PCO) [5]. Using the antiquated form promotes monarchist POV.
• Presents issues of GG vestigial powers neutrally; links to Forsey source and site above would give reference for further reading.
• Getting deeper into the role of the GG is problematic.. Constitutional Crisis situations are more likely to arise out Federal/Provincial power grabs and decided by the Supreme Court rather than the GG. Mentioning obscure, hypothetical musings made 30 years ago makes the GG seem more important than she is. These points are better discussed on the GG article. However, if the vestigial powers are to be mentioned, the point of their democratic legitimacy needs to be made, and the "Late Senator Eugen Forsey" need to be directly cited to ensure neutrality. The qupote above certainly questions the democratic legitimacy of GG political interference.
• Meaning of "advising GG" is clarified. It is not clear in the current article.

Please let me know what is wrong with this. Other issues of Responsible Government could be dealt with in a seperate paragraph. I'm trying to focus on one topic at a time. Lets iron this out first and then approach questions of stability and Responsible Government. --soulscanner (talk) 08:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)--

What's wrong? Well, let's see:.

Political power is exercised by the elected Prime Minister and his or her Cabinet. The prime minister is not elected. What is "political power"?

The Prime Minister's Office is one of the most powerful organs of government, directly appointing Cabinet Ministers, Senators, federal judges, the directors federal agencies. Obviously the PM does not directly appoint anyone.

Cabinet decisions are carried out through the Privy Council Office and are given Royal Assent by the Monarch's appointed viceroy, the Governor General. Cabinet decision don’t go “through” the PCO. Orders-in-Council are not given royal assent, only legislation passed through parliament is.

Although the Prime Minister is said to formally "advise" the Governor General on all decisions, the Prime Minister's role is decisive. As the GG retains the ability to dismiss her prime minister, the PM's decisions are not ultimately decisive.

scholars disagree on the small amount of legitimate power the viceroy has. What scholars? What is "legitimate power"?

It's clear from this proposal that you have a very weak understanding of the workings and structures of government. All the more reason for you to be directed to the sources that could educate you on these matters; but, of course, you appear to not want to let facts get in the way of your opinions. --G2bambino (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As a sometime sparring partner with G2, whom I respect, I fail to see how he is pushing a flawed POV. We all essentially agree, but we're using different language to say it. You say that Canada, being a democracy, is ruled by the People. Correct. The GG, the Queen's rep has (in ordinary circumstances) no discretionary power to exercise the powers given him or her by the Constitution. Such decisions are made by the elected representatives of the People. Quite so. G2 (and myself) are saying the same thing, but in a more technical and constitutional manner: executive power rests with the GG. By convention, he or she is bound by unwritten constitutional law to exercise it in accordance with the will of the People as expressed by their elected representatives. So we both say the same thing. But you seem to think that executive power means absolute power. It does not. Executive power is only the authority to execute the will of the People. Every society must have a means to make laws, appointments and other acts legal and binding. In Canada and other nations whose monarch is Elizabeth II, that function happens to be exercised by a Govenor-general. This does not imply that the GG is the font of all authority. He or she is simply the means by which the People's will is made binding.--Gazzster (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Similiarly, the executive or Chief Executive Officer of a corporation does not have power to run that corporation and dispose of its assets as she or he thinks fit. Rather, the executive executes the will of the corporation's shareholders.--Gazzster (talk) 10:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Res to Soulscanner. Prime Minister King didn't dismiss Governor General Byng. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Issues with government section?

I just wanted to take a little straw poll to see just who actually thinks there are problems with the government and politics section.

No, the constitutional structures are explained sufficiently

• --G2bambino (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Governor General is given way too much play

• Yes - I think it would lead a non-Canadian reader to overestimate the importance of the GG and monarch in day to day Canadian politics. Like with all the articles which deal with the role of the monarchy in Canada, I really think we need to differentiate between legal formality and practice. For example, to say that PM serves at the pleasure of the GG is pretty misleading, given that the GG actually exercising influence on PM selection hasn't happened in 70 years, and even then it caused a constitutional crisis. --Padraic 14:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Yes As per Padraic, it gives undue weight to formalities over the way things work. The important role of the monarch as a ultimate quasi-veto needs to be included but in this overview article, the focus should be on the normal functioning. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Yes Per Padraic and DB. Right now, it reads an awful lot like a colony. The GG has one important "tie-breaking" function in forming/dissolving governments, everything else is strictly ceremonial in practice, doesn't need to be discussed at great length here. Franamax (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, I'm questioning the opinions expressed here when they seem to be based on things the section doesn't actually say. As for excess detail, well, it was more simplified before Soulscanner started making a fuss. Perhaps we should go back to the original version. --G2bambino (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here are some of the phrases I'm referring to:

• is appointed by the Governor General to select and head the Cabinet - implies the GG has power in selecting PM
• by the Cabinet (a committee of the Queen's Privy Council) -- implies cabinet members are selected from the PC as opposed to the HoC
• governmental matters to their ministers - implies cabinet reports to the GG, as opposed to PM
• the Parliament is made up of the Queen and two houses - implies the Queen has a role in parliament

Nothing in here is untrue, it just needs heavy qualifiers, is all. --Padraic 17:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, surely this section should make reference to the provinces and federalism?! --Padraic 17:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well firstly, none of those come close to explicitly stating the PM serves at the GG's pleasure, which is what you referred to above. But being specific does help immensely. Now:

• is appointed by the Governor General to select and head the Cabinet - This is fully true, and is immediately preceded by The Prime Minister, generally the leader of the political party that commands the confidence of the House of Commons. Maybe "generally" is too weak a term, but we must still remember that the scenarios of a PM who doesn't sit in the House or who doesn't command the confidence of it are still possible.
• by the Cabinet (a committee of the Queen's Privy Council) - All members of the Cabinet must be members of the QPC - when being sworn in it is into the QPC, not anywhere else. And not all of them are from the House; there are currently two, I believe, Cabinet members who sit in the Senate.
• governmental matters to their ministers - Again, this is immediately preceded by This arrangement stems from the principles of responsible government, wherein, by convention, the monarch and viceroy remain apolitical. Maybe some elaboration like "remain fully apolitical and predominantly ceremonial" or something like that could help, but otherwise the sentence in totality is pretty sound.
• the parliament is made up of the Queen and two houses - Implies? Far from it, it asserts without reserve that the Queen has a part in parliament, which she does, through the Governor General. Almost every source covering the Canadian parliament will make this clear.

In summary, I think people are showing a pattern of pulling sentences out of the wider context in which they sit in order to make it appear as though they're saying something they actually aren't. I've no issue with gentle editing to finely hone details, but getting carried away to the point where blatant untruths are being presented as fact just isn't on. --G2bambino (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Who's trying to present blatant untruths? The point being made here is that the current wording is far too heavy on the formalities and doesn't give the casual reader a clear and accurate picture of the way the government works. People aren't coming here for a detailed lesson in civics, they want a readable overview of the government of Canada. The constiutional arcana can be well explained in a subsidiary article. Franamax (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Who? Well, Soulscanner, for one. The opinion being expressed is that the wording is too heavy on formalities, but nobody has yet offered an alternative way of explaining the situation in any more compact and accurate a manner; Soulscanner's attempts either belie the truth through omission or are just plain wrong (as illustrated above), and I fear that as long as we stick to the facts as they are he'll never relent. --G2bambino (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, here are my alternatives for these four phrases:

1. GG "selecting the PM": say that in general, and since Byng-King, the leader of the biggest party in the HoC has been Prime Minister, although (s)he must be formally appointed by the GG and there are some reserve powers.
2. Queen's Privy Council: this should be removed, I don't see how this is notable enough to be in a paragraph summary of the Canadian government. At the least, write it in a way which explains ministers automatically become members upon cabinet appointment.
3. their ministers: don't call cabinet "their", just remove the possessive. "Governmental powers are left to cabinet."
4. the Queen in parliament: as I did in my edit, put in a parenthetical reference to the Queen and GG. "Parliament is made up of two houses (and formally, the Queen).

--Padraic 19:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

In response:

1. It already says the PM is usually the leader of the biggest party in the HoC. Was Meighen the last PM to deviate from this? Wasn't there a point where a PM didn't have a seat in the House following an election?
2. Okay, QPC I guess is a detail not ultimately important enough for this summary.
3. I'm not sure about this one; not using "their" implies a split between the Cabinet and the Governor General, as though the Cabinet works as an entity completely separate from the viceroy, and Orders-in-Council prove otherwise.
4. The "formally" bit was an addition without referenced support; I provided two sources that affirm that the Queen is a part of the parliament, not just formally. --G2bambino (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

1. not the biggest party in the HoC, the leader of the party which has confidence of the House. Meighen was not a deviation of this since King resigned upon losing confidence of House and upon Meighen's loss of confidence vote, Parliament was dissolved. Even when the PM is not a member of the HoC, his party must have the confidence of the House. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

1. I think "confidence" is a pretty non-intuitive concept to those unfamiliar with parliamentary systems. If there's some way we can explain in this section, great -- otherwise I would just say "with some historical exceptions, the PM is the leader of the biggesty party".
2. For a source on the Queen playing a formal role in Parliament: From the Canadian Encyclopedia: "When Parliament is referred to in some formal usages, all 3 institutions are included. In common usage, however, the House of Commons alone is often equated with Parliament;" --Padraic 20:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• As below, I suggest the wording "has the greatest support in the House", since this is true and intuitive in all cases. "Confidence" is arcane, "support" is easier to understand in practical terms. Franamax (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) I don't see the problem with "appoint" or how "select" would change things. There is no risk of overstating the GG's power to appoint when you explain the limitation immediately. (2) Since Canada is the only commonwealth realm other than the UK to have a privy council, it makes sense to mention it. On the other hand, it could be a little more detail than is necessary for this article. It does, after all, appear in the subarticle. (3) "Their" could go, as an American, I did not find the use of that word the least bit confusing. As an aside, I think those who are concerned about people overestimating the role of the GG after reading the original language are overthinking things. The language makes clear the weakness of the GG. (4) The Queens role in parliament should only be mentioned in this article if it is explained that her main role is granting Royal Assent. It is another thing that may not be necessary in the main Canada article. (5) If people do not understand "confidence", they can follow the wikilink. -Rrius (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes As per Padraic. The article should focus on a description of the normal day-to-day functioning of government, not exceptional circumstances that highlight the hypothetical role of the monarch and GG. I'll also add that the over use of technical language is used to forward beliefs on the part of the main author (very few others have been permitted to contribute) to overblow the importance of the monarchy and obscure obvious facts about Canadian democracy. G2bambino has been clear about his views on monarchy.

1) The Queen is vested with all executive authority. 2) The Queen has delegated almost all this authority to the Governor General. 3) The Governor General makes all appointments. 4) By constitutional convention the Queen and Governor General almost invariably follow the advice of the Cabinet.5) Because the Queen holds all executive authority, she, or her representative, can refuse the advice of the Cabinet in exceptional circumstances. This means that a) "true power" does not lie with the Cabinet, it lies with the sovereign; it only appears to lie with Cabinet because they've exercised it on a day to day basis without intervention by the monarch or viceroy since 1926, as far as we know.G2bambino

This has clearly been contradicted by several references that I have given. G2bambino has also stated that the Prime Minister is not elected, and that he does not make direct Cabinet, Senate, and Supreme Court appointments, again contradicting direct references that I have given. This too has been contradicted by direct quotes. I think there are more than POV problems here; the factual integrity of this section is compromised. --soulscanner (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Rewording of Government

Here is the way I would reword the section for better flow, in very rough unref'd form, in a section separate from the real discussion above. Starting at the second paragraph:

Executive authority is formally vested in the monarch, but in practice is exercised by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. The monarch appoints a GG as the vice-regal representative and has no effective participation beyond that point. The monarch and GG act as strictly apolitical heads of state.

The most powerful office of government is the Prime Minister, usually the leader of the political party with the greatest support in the elected H of C. The PM appoints cabinet ministers, senators and federal judges and recommends G's-G and Lt's-G of the provinces.

Members of the federal Cabinet exert executive authority in their various areas of jurisdiction, including appointment of heads of Crown corporations. Cabinet members in almost every case are elected or appointed MP's.

The GG carries out many formal roles, almost always on the recommendation of elected representatives. An important role of the GG is to assist in the formation and dissolution of the government of the day.

The federal government is made up of two houses... (and Official Opposition goes here)

The federal government is responsible for...(defence, foreign relations, etc.)

Other areas of government responsibility such as (education, resources, health...) are managed by Provincial governments...

Currently, the GG is xx, the Prime Minister is xx, the Opposition Leader is xx.

This may end up longer but maybe clearer, and introduces the provinces. The Privy Council is not needed here, along with many of the exact details of who appoints who. This article is the overview, we can omit many truths as long as we don't present a false picture of how things work day-to-day, which is what the casual reader is interested in here. Franamax (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Some observations:

• The Prime Minister is not separate from the Cabinet. Appointing the GG is not the monarch's only role. The monarch & GG's apolitical nature is, I think, already adequately stated.
• The Prime Minister appoints no one.
• There's no such thing as an appointed MP.
• The federal government is made up of no houses; parliament is made of two plus the Crown. The government is the Governor-in-Council.

Other than that, the jist of it is fine. I just don't see how it, with errors removed, says anything different to the present composition. --G2bambino (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your comments are an example of the misleading nature of your writing. To say that the "PM appoints no one", full stop, is highly inaccurate. De jure, the GG appoints many position; de facto, the PM appoints them all; to only explain one of these, in the absence of the other, is the kind of omission which would give a reader the wrong impression about Canadian government. As for the role of the monarch, what are its other political responsiblities? --Padraic 20:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Misleading? Unless you can prove otherwise, the PM does appoint no one, full stop. What is misleading is your accusing me of doing something I did not do; I said here that the PM appoints no one because that is the correct rebuttal to the erroneous statement that the PM appoints X, Y, and Z. That does not mean, however, that I ever tried to subvert the additional fact that the GG almost invariably follows the PM's advice when making appointments; my edits to the article would make that obvious.

As for other duties: issuing of Letters Patent, creation of extra seats in the Senate, and giving force to royal proclamations are a few that immediately come to mind. --G2bambino (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

After e/c, and let's cool down here if we can :)

• Let's recognize reality, the PM is the boss. The PM selects the Cabinet, that is the essence. The monarch's only role for the purpose of this article is that she approves the GG selected by the PM.
• The PM appoints everyone - the GG only acts on the PM's say-so, again this is reality. Judges come from a list, but the PM has the final choice. And when has a GG ever appointed a cabinet minister over the PM's head?
• There are appointed senators, as in, all of them. Senators are part of parliament, aren't they? Just not the legislative assembly. But feel free to correct my wording, I did say it was rough.
• Again, point taken on the wording, it's the parliament. But let's drop the "plus the crown" and "governor-in-council" stuff, you're absolutely right, but we're trying to convey the overview here. That can all go in the subsidiary article(s), we want to be descriptive here, so the casual reader has a chance of actually reading the whole thing.

Yes, it is mostly a rewording, except bringing in the role of the provinces, plus I moved the crown corp responsibility. The other big difference is that it re-orders the precedence of the presentation, to make more clear the practical operation of the government. Some of your objection may be that it also de-emphasises the role of the crown, but that's reality, in practical terms the Queen doesn't make decisions about cabinet ministers, nor would the Queen ever presume to do that (save in emergencies, which we don't need to discuss here). This is an overview article, let's give a clear overview. Franamax (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That's all I want to do: make sure the reader understands that Queen/GG has only a ceremonial role in Canadian government, outside of emergencies and consitutional crises. Can you agree with that sentiment, g2? --Padraic 20:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, reality is exactly what I'm striving for as well. Now:

• There are two things necessary to mention in this summary in relation to the monarch: 1) she is vested with executive authority, and 2) she appoints the Governor General on the advice of the prime minister. The latter seems to have been removed somewhere along the way.
• The PM can't appoint himself, so he obviously doesn't appoint everyone. Beyond that, it is simply a supported and justifiable fact that the PM does not carry out appointments. Now, the GG does indeed almost always follow his advice when doing so, but the section already mentions this very clearly.
• There's no "plus the Crown" stuff; the Crown isn't an add-on to parliament, it is one of the three components that make parliament. If we're going to drop any mention of the Crown from the sentences dealing with parliament, then mention of the HoC and Senate goes as well, to be covered elsewhere. I don't think that should happen, though.

It is completely wrong to take the mass media route here and dumb down the situation to the point where the truth is obscured for the sake of convenience. We are bound to convey only what the sources say, and, so far, the section on government and politics pretty much does that, including covering the PM's role, the conventions around advice, ect. In that vein, it's wrong to say the GG's role is purely ceremonial; the very real duties that person has in relation to legislation and government, as well as the existence of the Royal Prerogative, prove the statement to be false. However, yes, the importance of the Cabinet should not be played down either. --G2bambino (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Check out what the sources I posted below say (I've posted them several times before). Put them there verbatim with footnotes and quotes (you've already deleted one quote once), and the debate here is over. --soulscanner (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

1. So we have to complete write off the "mass media" as a credible source?
2. Do you agree with the statement that the PM de facto appoints the GG, senators, etc? --Padraic 21:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

G2, please respond to Padraic separate to my own comments. Now, to your points:

• The Queen is vested with all authority but in reality has no authority. If the Queen decides to exercise authority contrary to the will of the Canadian people, the result will be that Canada no longer has a Queen. You must surely recognize that, the monarchy certainly does. And in my rewrite, the fact that the Queen appoints the GG on the advice of the PM is certainly present, although indirectly mentioned.
• Nice one with the PM doesn't appoint themself. But the PM does appoint everyone else, that is a practical fact, no matter how you wish to couch the terms of who signs the piece of paper.
• Queen+2 - again, we're trying to convey the reality here, not the on-paper stuff. The Queen/GG reads the throne speech written up by the governing party. The Queen/GG signs a bunch of stuff on her desk. This the Canada article, not the consitutional minutiae page, we want to explain how the Canadian government functions, not the details of who signs what.

The "truth" is by no means being obscured, the truth is that Canada is an independent self-governing state. If anything, casting everything around the role of the crown obscures the truth. That may be unpalatable to you, but it is reality, and here we want to describe reality. There is another article available where you can precisely outline how the monarchy, constitution, government and people interact, this is not the one. We need to keep this "dumb" i.e. as simple as possible, so that people can actually read it. Franamax (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to split this into multiple threads; it's already getting complicated as it is. So, I'll address all of your points together:

• We have a wealth of government and educational sources which are superior to mass media. Why use the inferior?
• I agree that the GG makes appointments on the advice of the PM, normally.
• What could happen if the Queen or GG exercised the royal prerogative against or without ministerial advice (which I assume is what you're talking about) is pure crysal ball gazing.
• I've already addressed this two points up.
• I think we both agree this is where we describe in brief how the government is set up and functions, but we disagree in thinking that to do so we must sacrifice accuracy. The minutiae arguments are red herrings; it isn't necessary to get into minutiae to be correct. --G2bambino (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

To the last point, this is not minutiae. The section succinctly describes how the government works. Yes, it notes that the GG acts, but it also notes that her role is apolitical and that she does what she's told. While one of the discussions above points out a couple of phrases that could just as easily be left out of the article, there is nothing wrong with them. The only one that could mislead the reader into believing that the Crown has a meaningful role in the day-to-day workings of government isn't even in the section on the executive; rather, it is in the section on Parliament. One could come away with the understanding that the Crown does something more than give Royal Assent when told to do so. -Rrius (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This can be cleared up early in the article by first decribing the PM's role as decisive, hen describing the GG's role as nominal and ceremonial; it could be left up to the reader to decide how important that ceremonial role is.

There are any number of quotations below from scholarly sources that describe the role of the executive more concisely. This is because these source do not seek to promote the POV that the executive role of the GG is more than ceremonial, and instead state clearly that the PM has true executive authority. The currently writing is clearly an attempt to promote monarchy as more important to Canada than it really is. --soulscanner (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The referenced sources below plainly and directly contradict G2's assertion. The referenced fact that real power lies with the PM (as opposed to G2's personal opinion that it only appears to lie there) and that the GG's executive roles is exclusively ceremonial (I would accept the statement "in practice exclusively ceremonial") are obscured in the article by antiquated technical jargon (e.g. "appointed on the advice of the PM"). Any editor is perfectly entitled to believe that these scholarly opinions are wrong, but not to exclude their conclusions from this article just because said editor does not like them. --soulscanner (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Factual accuracy of section in question

Once more, G2Bambino has ignored direct quotes that contradict his stated opinions. He has said that the following do not contradict his assertion that actual executive power lies in the monarch, and that I'm simply misinterpreting them. I'll repeat myself once more, and offer the quotes that directly put (Choose one: real/true/actual/effective/legitimate) executive power in the hands of the Prime minister and Cabinet.

Who has actual executive power?

G2bambino has made his beliefs on where actual executive power lies:

• 1) The Queen is vested with all executive authority. 2) The Queen has delegated almost all this authority to the Governor General. 3) The Governor General makes all appointments. 4) By constitutional convention the Queen and Governor General almost invariably follow the advice of the Cabinet.5) Because the Queen holds all executive authority, she, or her representative, can refuse the advice of the Cabinet in exceptional circumstances. This means that a) "true power" does not lie with the Cabinet, it lies with the sovereign; it only appears to lie with Cabinet because they've exercised it on a day to day basis without intervention by the monarch or viceroy since 1926, as far as we know.G2bambino

I had at the time already posted several documents that contradict this. After King-Byng, King had explicit limits put on the power of the monarchy. In addition, constitutional scholars are explicit on where real power now lies.

• The present practice under which Acts of the Dominion Parliaments are sent each year to London, and it is intimated, through the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, that “His Majesty will not be advised to exercise his powers of disallowance” with regard to them.Balfour Declaration 1926
• The Constitution sets out the basic principles of democratic government in Canada when it defines the powers of the three branches of government: the executive, the legislative and the judicial. The executive power in Canada is vested in the Queen. In our democratic society, this is only a constitutional convention, as the real executive power rests with the Cabinet.Department of Justice "
• The Governor General's executive powers are of course exercised in accordance with constitutional conventions. For example, after an election he asks the appropriate party leader to form a government. Once a government is in place, democratic principles dictate that the bulk of the Governor General's powers be exercised in accordance with the wishes of the leadership of that government, namely the Cabinet. So the true executive power lies in the Cabinet. Joseph Magnet - University of Ottawa Faculty of Law
• "The prime minister is the chief minister and effective head of the executive in a parliamentary system ... Formally, a PM is appointed by the GOVERNOR GENERAL who has little discretion in the matter, except in a crisis such as the death of the incumbent PM. " W.A. Matheson - Canadian Encyclopedia
• "While the modern governor general has only a nominal influence on the operation of the Canadian government, the prime minister's influence is decisive.National Archives of Canada

*Parliamentary government is also associated with the presence of a dual executive. There is a ceremonial executive, which possesses some constitutional powers as well as performing symbolic functions, and a political executive, which performs the basic governing functions (see Magstadt and Schotten, 1999; O'Neill, 1999)page 15 Athabasca University.

To clarify matters, we need bold statements like this in the article as opposed to technical language that only constitutional scholars can understand. Indeed, the constitutional scholars themselves do a much better job at clarifying issues above than the article and obscure the facts expressed above. They are being excluded from the article only because G2bambibo disagrees with them personally, as noted above. --soulscanner (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Constitutionally, the Canadian monarch posses the executive authority. In his/her absense this authority is held by the Governor General. In pratice, the Prime Minister welds authority. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This is fine. Add, "Hence, true executive power lies with the Prime Minister and his or her Cabinet.", and you have a clear statement, justified by scholarly references, about where real power lies. What is wrong with adding this? --soulscanner (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the Prime Minister elected or appointed?

The prime Minister is elected by the people of Canada.

• Stephen Harper Elected Prime Minister [6]
• The prime minister is elected by the legislators. Spindler - SFU)

I could giv emore references, but is there really a point to this? The PM is formally appointed by the Governor General, but the Governor General has no choice in the matter. Mentioning the Governor Genernal at all is a good example of the obfuscation duly noted by several editors. This level of technical and formalized jargon is not appropriate in a review article, especially when used to obscure verifiable facts. --soulscanner (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the Prime Minister is appointed. For example, the only thing Stephen Harper was elected to (as recently as January 23, 2006) was his seat in the House of Commons. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this not similar to the UK prime minister being appointed by the Queen? More a tradition than anything else. Jack forbes (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep; the Governor General appoints the Canadian PM, on the Queen's behalf. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you, soulscanner, in that the actual way things work need to be in this overview article with specifics and technicalities in more specific articles but I disagree with saying the PM is elected. There is no election for the prime minister, only for seats in the Commons, as Good Day says. Obviously, the PM is selected by whichever leader can hold the confidence of the House, or as someone worded it in an earlier section, has the greatest support in the House. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As with this article, it's all a matter of how much space you have to explain. If I were writing a paper, I would talk about responsible government and constitutional monarchy. If I had a paragraph, I would explain confidence from the HoC. If I had to sum it up in a single sentence, I would say "Harper was elected prime minister in 2006".--Padraic 00:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Harper became the prime minister when his party won more seats than any other party in the 2006 election. However, if the other parties agree to a coalition, another leader can become PM. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(I hate e/c's)Technically, I think the GG "invites to form a government" that person which the Queen thinks most able to sustain the confidence of the elected legislature. That's a fine distinction though, if it's a majority, it's the majority leader. If it's a minority, it's the head of whatever coalition can deliver majority votes. If it's unstable, it would be whatever the Queen thought best I guess - we'll write that article when it actually ever happens. So no, the PM is not directly "elected", the PM is appointed. Now how to convey that in a way people can understand? Franamax (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it necessary to point out that John Turner and Kim Campbell were never "elected" prime minister? Joeldl (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I still don't really see the Broo haha. Every society has a means of making its acts binding. In Canada and other nations the GG formally appoints the leader of the Majority in the Lower House to be chief minister and his principal advisor. So what? Suppose the GG were a president. Presidents in another countries are required to likewise appoint such leaders. It is simply a means of formalising the will of the People. It does not mean the GG (or president) has absolute authority.--Gazzster (talk) 10:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It is as Franamax says: Although the people of Canada "elect" the PM, he is not elected. This is because technically the election is not binding. It is still up to the Queen (or in this case the GG) to invite him to become PM; If he accepts then she appoints him. Obviously to avoid a constitutional crisis the Queen always appoints the leader of the majority. --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not just that, though. Joeldl is right to point out that John Turner and Kim Cambell were appointed as prime minister without an immediately preceeding election. It's only a matter of the leader of the party that commands the confidence of the House. --G2bambino (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

... indicating that the concept of Parliamentary elections and the confidence of the House are way more important than appointments by the GG. There is no need to even mention the GG here (although I'm not opposed to it per se). --soulscanner (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Governor General doesn't have to appoint an MP from the House of Commons. We've had two sitting Senators, serve as PM (Abbott & Bowell). GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Didn't know that. To Cameron: The monarch or GG is constitutionally bound by an election. That is because Canada, UK, etc are democracies and constitutional monarchies.--Gazzster (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Cananda and the UK are republics representative democracies, not democracies. As such, the GG is bound by Commons, not the election. If the leader of the largest (though not majority) party after an election did not have the confidence of the Commons, but the leader of one of the smaller parties did, the latter would be the new PM, despite the larger party "winning" the election. -Rrius (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Err, Canada & the UK are not republics. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems Rrius, you might be using the US understanding of 'republic': that is, an oligarchic state rather than a populist one. By 'democracy', I mean a state whereby the People govern themselves by elected representatives. All Westminster monarchies fall into that definition (as does, of course, the USA). The Queen or her GG is a servant of the People in these nations (Much as pomp and circumstance may suggest otherwise).--Gazzster (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really. I just used the word "republic" without regard to sovereignty. The difference between a republic and a constitutional monarchy is where sovereignty resides. In a republic, it is ultimately with the people; in a republic with the Crown. I was merely making the distinction between these and a democracy. In political science terms, a democracy is not what you say it is. It is rule directly by the people. It is Athens and the New England town hall meeting. If you prefer "representative democracy" to "republic", then fine, but the distinction I made there is key to the rest of my comment. The PM is not chosen directly by the people, he is chosen (or perhaps tolerated) by the House of Commons. -Rrius (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)\

OK, if you choose to use that distinction. The People directly choose MPs, not the prime minister. But they do elect with a prime minister in mind, not (usually) a particular MP. Call it indirect election if you like, but the People still choose the Prime Minister. The GG's formal appointment is a constitutional requirement, not a free choice.--Gazzster (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Not always, though. The party elected to a majority in the House can choose a new leader without going to the public. Or, the PM goes into a coma, or something, and the GG has to appoint someone without waiting for an election. --G2bambino (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And, to repeat, a party could be the largest, yet have its leader unable to command the confidence of the Commons. In that event, if the leader of a smaller party could obtain confidence, the GG would appoint her. This could be true as long as the largest party does not have a majority of seats. It is, in effect, the Commons that chooses the PM (and yes, I understand they don't vote for PM), not the people. -Rrius (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a semantic issue really. One could also argue that the People are voting for a government that can govern. And by the Constitution they have delegated the GG to use his discretionary power during a constitutional difficulty. It's not as if the GG has an absolute power that he is free to exercise when she or he wishes.The GG is always bound to exercise authority according to the will of the People. Call it the lower house if you like. But the lower house is the representative body of the People.--Gazzster (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not, though. Soulscanner wants to say that the people elect the PM. The point that the GG chooses a PM based on the mood of the Commons (thus indirectly on the will of the people) rather than directly on the will of the people is key to saying that Soulscanner is wrong. -Rrius (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes? You said it yourself: the People indirectly elect the Prime Minister. SS says the same thing. He's not suggesting the People directly elect a PM. We all agree! I don't know what the fuss is about. A says appointed by a GG after a General Election; B says elected by the People. We all say the same thing. The argument should be on how to word that.--Gazzster (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Both are true, but a reader who knows nothing about the long history of decolonization in Canada (99.9999% of the world, and probably 99% of Canadians) will see these as contradiction. I have no problem with saying that the people indirectly elect the PM, and a brief description about how the GG formally "asks" the PM to form a government, with an explanation that the GG has no choice in the matter. I have a problem with emphasizing that the PM is appointed by the GG, which is the intent of the article as it is currently written. I can pull out any number of sources that show that it is perfectly okay to say that the PM of Canada wins elections or is elected by the Canadian people. My problem is that the concepts of a majority and minority government, a coalition government, are far more important in this process than the GG's reading of the "mood" of the House. Particularly with the current situation in Canada, these are for more important concepts to understand (particularly Canadians) than obscure, hypothetical residual powers of the monarchy. I'm perfectly open to including these, but not before the role of the PM and the House of Commons is explained. --soulscanner (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to get the sneaking suspicion that this whole rampage you've been on is, at least partly, based on some belief that the Crown in Canada is still a branch of the British government, and that any action taken by the monarch or GG in Canadian political affairs would be nothing less than interference by a foreign government and a impedement on Canadian sovereignty. Is this true? --G2bambino (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Monarchy as symbolic or ceremonial executive

Another way of clarifying the role of the monarchy is to classify it as the "Symbolic Executive", as opposed to the political executive. A number of references support this:

• symbolic executive:

• Queen (de jure head of state) - see 2002 opinion poll on the future on the monarchy in Canada
• Governor General (de facto head of state)
• Lieutenant Governors: Alta., Sask., Man., Ont., Que., N.B., P.E.I., Nfld. Andrew Heard - SFU

• In practice, the Cabinet's political decisions are communicated in the form of recommendations to the governor general, who supplies formal, but largely symbolic, executive approval on behalf of the Crown.Library and Archives of Canada

• The symbolic executive is composed of the Queen, who is the legal head of state of Canada, and her representatives, who fulfill the monarch's daily duties in Canada. Nelson Education Ltd.
• However, the British monarch continues to serve as Canada's symbolic executive, appointing a representative, the Governor-General, on the advice of the Canadian Prime Minister. Commonwealth Secretariat
• In the British model, the Crown now serves as the ceremonial executive (or head of state) while the Prime Minister is head of government.David Stewart, University of Alberta
• In Canada (and indeed most parliamentary democracies in the world today), the majority of challenges to legislative power which develop no longer come from the ceremonial executive (the Crown), but from the political executive, the government of the day. Gregory Mahler - University of Vermont
• As Head of State ... Elizabeth II has no political power, only symbolic power.Ray T. Donahue - University of Virginia

I particularly like the last quote, a much more succinct way to summarizer the role of the monarch in Canada than the run-on sentences found in the current version of the article. It should follow the sentence saying that constitutional power is vested in the queen. It is one way of clarifying the difference between real political power and ceremonial power. It's good enough for scholars, why not here? --soulscanner (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

soulscanner's latest draft on article

I mostly approve of the new wording of the Government and politics section in this version and agree with removing the neutrality tag. From my own POV, I'd like to alter a couple of sentences but I recognise the present wording is well-sourced. The sentences are: "However, this [Executive authority of the monarch] power is only symbolic" and "The late Senator Eugene Forsey has argued that the sovereign and Governor General do retain their right to use the Royal Prerogative in exceptional constitutional crisis situations, but successive Canadian governments have long maintained that such actions would lack democratic legitimacy coming from an unelected institution."

I'd prefer that the first say "primarily" rather than "only" or, at least change to "now only". For the second, I dislike the "but" as I don't see these two ideas in opposition. The fact that the sovereign, or her representative, retains ultimate authority but has no legitimacy to do so is the very genius of our system. Should a government be acting unfathomably ridiculously, then the sovereign could over-rule the government and make a strong enough case to the people to act so illegitimately, and then it could be permitted to happen. However, the case would have to be beyond my imagination to allow such an event to happen and would otherwise certainly result in a change in monarchy by the will of the people, thus preventing the royal prerogative from ever being used and the genius of having an illegitimate, unelected person at the top of the system.

As I said, I recognise that the present wording is legitimate and well-sourced and will not withhold my approval nor further seek my requested changes as they are from my own POV. Should, however, alterations be seen to be acceptable to include these ideas, I would be very pleased. DoubleBlue (Talk) 11:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

New proposed language re executive power

Proposal 1

I am proposing the following language with an eye toward bringing this to an amicable conclusion or, at the very least, helping to bring sharper focus to the textual disagreement:

“ The constitution formally vests executive authority is formally and constitutionally vested in the monarch, but in practice it is exercised by the Cabinet, making the Cabinet the "active seat" of executive power. This arrangement stems from the principles of responsible government, wherein by convention the monarch and viceroy remain apolitical, deferring all governmental matters to the Cabinet, who are responsible to the elected House of Commons for their actions. Following this formula ensures the stability of government. While the sovereign and governor general do retain their right to use the reserve power in exceptional constitutional crisis situations, their role in government is largely ceremonial. ”

-Rrius (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Your edits go a long way to adressing editor concerns, and I (and I'm sure others) appreciate that you recognize the need for improvement. However, this omits several important bold and referenced edits made by several other editors. I've been very careful to keep the edits of others (even unreferenced ones) intact, and added qualifiers, clarifications, and balancing viewpoint where I felt they were neccessary. If someone wishes to remove referenced edits (and I've provided several), we need to justify it a little more than this. I think the current version [7] reads well and, IF IT HOLDS, I would recommend removing the neutrality for now . I'll recognize that the section is long and needs cleanup. If there are problems with specific passages, or if some are redundant, lets discuss them. --soulscanner (talk) 08:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Rrius's edit is good. I'm pleased that the phrase ' purely ceremonial, regarding the GG's role, has been avoided. That was what was troubling me in Soulscanner's suggestions. I suppose all this just goes to show how subtle the relationship between the GG and the government is, in Canada as in other Elizabethified nations. I think all parties agreed, but discussion was perhaps needed for the right language to use.--Gazzster (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I approve of the above paragraph, and the current wording of the section, with one exception: why are we including the view of a single senator (or scholar, writer, etc.) in such a short summary of the Canadian government? I really think we should stick to widely-held, conensus views. If this means saying that "there are mixed views of the constitutional status of the royal prerogative", that's fine with me. --Padraic 14:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the paragraph above also (except for the double wording). I'm also OK with the current wording as of 15:01 20May but agree with Padraic's point about Forsey. I'm not happy with the "responsible government" wordings, it just sounds so 1830's, but it's time to put this to bed. Franamax (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph is sound, in my opinion. But is it perhaps too simple? It leaves out the PM, as well as who the GG is. --G2bambino (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the proposed language was only meant to replace the one paragraph regarding executive authority. At any rate, I am proposing yet another version. This one takes into account the language Soulscanner added last night around the same time I was posting on this page. I have eliminated the redundant bit about "symbolic and ceremonial" and moved its reference up to where the Queen and GG are said to be "predominantly ceremonial". I have also once again changed "Royal Prerogative" to "reserve power". As I understand it, including from the two relevant articles, that is what is meant. I do not want to mess with adding a reflist on the talk page. If someone else does, great; otherwise, you can see it all on my sandbox. I think even this version needs to be tweaked to break-up the excessively long second sentence, but this is all I have time for at the moment.

The constitution formally vests executive authority in the monarch. However, by convention, the monarch and her appointed representative, the Governor General, act in a predominantly ceremonial and apolitical role, deferring the exercise of executive power to the Cabinet, which is made up of ministers generally accountable to the elected House of Commons, and headed by the Prime Minister, who is normally the leader of the party that holds the confidence of the House of Commons. The Cabinet can therefore be said to be the "active seat" of executive power, and the Prime Minister to be the effective head of the executive. This arrangement, which stems from the principals of responsible government, ensures the stability of government and makes the Prime Minister's Office one of the most powerful organs of the system, tasked with selecting for appointment the other Cabinet members, senators, federal court judges, and other officials, including the federal and provincial viceroys. However, the sovereign and Governor General do retain their right to use the reserve powers in exceptional constitutional crisis situations.

-Rrius (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Could we change the sentence "The Cabinet can therefore be said to be the "active seat" of executive power, and the Prime Minister to be the effective head of the executive." with the simpler: "The Cabinet effectively holds executive power, with the Prime Minister the head of the executive branch"? The term "active seat" will seem like jargon to readers (it does to me) and I wonder why it's necessary. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What does "effectively holds" mean? The Cabinet doesn't hold executive power, it exercises executive power, normally. Hence, "active" is appropriate to the description. Not to say that's the only way to put it. Frankly, I see little wrong with Rius' second proposal either; in fact, as it's 80% my most recent edit to the article (perhaps by coincidence?), how could I? --G2bambino (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, what does "active seat" mean? It's a rather opaque term, as far as I'm concerned. That's my only concern, however. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I aree "effectively hold" is clearer than "active seat".--Padraic 23:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say "active seat" was the ideal, it's just that the Cabinet really doesn't "hold" power, they exercise it. "The Cabinet effectively exercises" might be better, but it sounds like we're saying they exercise it well as opposed to exercise it normally. --G2bambino (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This can all be explained by simple statements in numerous references indicating that the Cabinet holds true/real/effective political power, and that the Monarch, GG, and Lieutenant governors hold symbolic powers involving ceremonial duties. It is all listed in the above quotes, and inserted into the text.

Please do not remove referenced quotes and items. They clarify the roles of all involved. --soulscanner (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This draft is good, especially with Shawn in Montreal's suggested edit though we could incorporate G2bambino's phrasing: "The Cabinet exercises the executive power, and the Prime Minister is, effectively, the head of the executive branch." DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that starts moving us backward. If "active seat" is so objectionable, let's replace the phrase without tweaking the meaning. Shawn's edit touched off another substantive debate. G2's version creates something that adds little to the article and could be left out. I suggest "practical center" or "practical seat" be substituted for "active seat". I'd also suggest not using quotation marks in the text as is currently the case. -Rrius (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

May I ask what is wrong with DoubleBlue's proposal, above? It nicely and clearly uses an active verb, "exercises (the) executive power," in place of asking the reader to imagine what an "active seat," "practical seat" or "practical center" (we should surely be using Canadian spelling in this article, therefore "centre") of executive power, in fact, is? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it repeats the preceding sentence. We need only say once that the executive power is exercised by the Cabinet. "Practical center" is not terribly difficult to understand, but does "day-to-day centre" or "seat" address your problems. I hope people don't underestimate the readers' intelligence by assuming that when reading such phrases in context, they won't understand them. We are trying to make the point that sentence is making without saying it is the "real" or "true" seat of power. I think "active" works fine, but the other suggestions I have made are serviceable as well. Keep in mind that I am not defending "active seat" because it is my language: it is not mine. In fact, I don't know who wrote it. That kind of phrase just does a good job of helping accomplish what that sentence needs to accomplish. -Rrius (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right about it repeating the previous sentence. Why don't we just remove this sentence completely, then? I don't see how it adds anything to the previous sentence that states the sovereign has deferred the exercise of executive power to the Cabinet and it is headed by the prime minister. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point. It does just restate the previous sentence. We don't need it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is important to Soulscanner. If there is a consensus behind ditching the sentence, by all means do it. If not, we need to make sure it is stated in a way that reflects consensus. -Rrius (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Several things need to be clarified that were removed from the article:

* The prime minister is the effective head of the executive

* Weasel words like "is said" need to be avoided, as do quotes around "symbolic"

* Power of cabinet is the true/real/effective political power, as documented in several scholarly quotes

* Responsible government removes the prerogative of the Governor General

* Cabinet is reponsible to the PM, who has the sole power to appoint and dismiss Ministers

* PM is responsible to the House

* All of these referenced facts have been deleted; they accurately represent given quotes

* Monarch's powers should be identified immediately to leave no dount that they are symbolic, as is outlined in over five references above

These are all based on refernced quotes; they should not be removed unless they misrepresent the given quotes. I had the decency not to delete any passages by anyone, which is why things were repetitive. I'm now restoring these passages, and would appreciate the same. If you feel they repeat some information, lets discuss what t delete, but not without consensus of all involved. --soulscanner (talk) 03:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Soulscanner, are you objecting to the second proposal I made in this section? -Rrius (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Which one is that? It's hard to follow. Yes, for the reasons stated above. The givern references are no longer quoted, as many key passages have been removed. I'm not sure why. --soulscanner (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Having looked at the paragraph as it stood in the article, and reviewing proposal 1, I see that the double mention of the monarch's mostly ceremonial role has been avoided by Rrius, but the duplicate of the PM being head of the Cabinet remains. If it is said that the Cabinet is the "active seat" (or "exerciser," or whatever term we use) of executive power, and that the PM is the head of the Cabinet, then it's redundant to say again that the PM is the head of the executive. Something like the following might hone the proposed paragraph above even more:

The constitution formally vests executive authority in the monarch. However, by convention, the monarch and her appointed representative, the Governor General, act in a predominantly ceremonial and apolitical role, deferring the exercise of executive power to the Cabinet, which is made up of ministers generally accountable to the elected House of Commons, and headed by the Prime Minister, who is normally the leader of the party that holds the confidence of the same house. The Cabinet can therefore be said to be the "active seat" of executive power, which makes the Prime Minister's Office one of the most powerful organs of government, tasked with selecting for appointment the other Cabinet members, senators, federal court judges, and other officials, including the federal and provincial viceroys. This arrangement, which stems from the principals of responsible government, ensures the stability of government. However, the sovereign and Governor General do retain their right to use the reserve powers in exceptional constitutional crisis situations. --G2bambino (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 3

My proposal:

Formal executive authority is constitutionally vested in the Queen and her appointed representative, the Governor General. However, this power is only symbolic. The Prime Minister is the effective head of the executive, with decisive influence on the operation of the Canadian government. True executive power is exercised by Ministers in the Cabinet.

The Governor General is bound by constitutional convention to "appoint" as Prime Minister the party leader who possesses the confidence of the House of Commons and "ask" him or her to form a Cabinet. In fact, as long as the Prime Minister retains the confidence of the House, he has the sole power to appoint and dismiss Cabinet Ministers, the Crown having no prerogative in the matter. This arrangement stems from the principles of responsible government wich developed during British colonial rule, and removed most discretionary power from the Crown. This makes the Prime Minister's Office is one of the most powerful organs of government, tasked with selecting, besides the other Cabinet members, Senators, federal court judges, heads of Crown corporations and government agencies, and the federal and provincial viceroys for appointment. The monarch and viceroy remain apolitical, and defer all governmental matters to their Cabinet ministers. The Prime Minister and Cabinet is responsible to the elected House of Commons for their actions, which acts as a check on executive power. Following this formula ensures the stability of government. The late Senator Eugene Forsey has argued that the sovereign and Governor General do retain their right to use the Royal Prerogative in exceptional constitutional crisis situations, but successive Canadian governments have long maintained that such actions would lack democratic legitimacy coming from an unelected institution. References--soulscanner (talk) 06:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Zolf, Forsey and residual powers

The reference to the Zolf quote was corrected. G2bambino's version incorrectly quoted the article. Zolf clearly cited Eugene Forsey as the source of the statement that the monarch retains residual powers. This is by no means accepted by all parties in Canada, as indicated by sourced passage. Please do not delete this again without discussion. We should not be promoting the POV of one dead senator, with clear monarchist bias when the Liberal policy since 1926 has clearly been to oppose this as undemocratic, despite the late Senators objections. --soulscanner (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we go by the Canadian Constitution? GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, because so much of it is unwritten? --Padraic 13:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Not one of the key parts that matters here (but don't tell that to Soulscanner!). As for Zolf, it seems he was referring to Forsey. Still, he's using Forsey to support his own comments on the GG execising the Royal Prerogative. --G2bambino (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

He quotes Forsey, and you deliberately misrepresented this by altering the quote (twice). This is clearly bad faith. Zolf is not a scholarly source; he's a journalist writing an editiorial, and bases his opinion on the legal opinion of Forsey, and it is the only one presented here. Still, Zolf is intellectually honest enough to state that the Liberals from MacKenzie King to Trudeau denied this power. You deleted that sourced reference; another act of bad faith. You cannot deny that there are many legal scholars who say that the Monarchy has no residual powers. This is an important and should not be deleted, particularly since it is referenced. Please discuss before deleting this once more. --soulscanner (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't start lecturing people on promoting POV until you cease to do so yourself. --G2bambino (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops; the solution is not as easily reached, as I thought. GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Inserted commentary

The late Senator Eugene Forsey has argued that the sovereign and Governor General do retain their right to use the Royal Prerogative in exceptional constitutional crisis situations -- A sentence manipulated to turn fact into theory and attribute it to one person as though he were a solitary quack. The sources show Forsey is not the only person to acknowledge the GG's right to unilaterally exercise the Royal Prerogative in certain, albeit rare, situations. (I suppose that in Soulscanner's world if the PM went into a coma or something the country would just somehow go on without a functioning chief minister.)

...but successive Canadian governments have long maintained that such actions would lack democratic legitimacy coming from an unelected institution -- Successive governments? Long maintained? Which successive governments have maintained for how long?

...the monarch's powers are symbolic or ceremonial -- There's a lot of contradiction to that statement. Thus, "predominantly ceremonial and symbolic" strikes a balance between the legal reality and the normal situation. --G2bambino (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The King of Sweden is purely symbolical & ceromonial; the Queen of Canada is not. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with G2bambino that this view is overwhelming, and is not limited to Forsey. Also, the current reference to the "Royal prerogative" instead of "reserve powers" is incorrect. The Crown prerogative refers to those powers retained by the Crown which have never been taken away by Parliament (though they could be), such as treaty-making powers, issuing of passports, powers relating to the armed forces, etc. These are of course exercised by the Cabinet in practice. Joeldl (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I mean this is a very non-confrontational way: could you direct us to some sources backuping up Forsey's view? --Padraic 22:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There's some in the article now. --G2bambino (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I too am concerned about the view that the ordinary use of the GG's executive powers are purely ceremonial. They are not. In fact, quite the opposite. Without the acts of the GG, albeit done, by constitutional (unwritten) law, on the direction of the Government, the acts of the Canadian Parliament would have no legal effect. That is not a p[urely ceremonial role. --Gazzster (talk) 09:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. The Governor General signs Bills into Law; not the Prime Minister. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And I think that very signing is what people are referring to by "ceremonial". Given that it's not clear the GG has the right to refuse to sign them, how can this act be anything but? --Padraic 14:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The governor has no choice in the matter. It's the Governor Genrals duty and obligation to ceremonially sign the law. It's an important ceremony, but it is not a political act. The GG has no discretion is the matter. --soulscanner (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The Governor General can veto legislation. Of course by doing so, he/she risks having his/her office become a political target (not to mention something for we republicans, to growl about). GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right. the PM would replace the GG with someone who would sign the law pretty quickly. The GG would violate principles of democracy in doing so, and the Supreme Court (which has established that democratic principles are part of Canada's unwritten constitution) could also rule the action unconstitutional. --soulscanner (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Got a source for that? I think this one of those things that constitutional conventions make pretty debatable. --Padraic 17:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Do I have a source? Nope. Can anybody out there, back up my statement? GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The GG's ability to exercise the Royal Prerogative is clearly laid out in the Constitution Act, 1867, and further enhanced by the 1947 Letters Patent. It's the need for ministerial advice that is a convention - the PM isn't mentioned anywhere in a constitutional document, save for one in a paragraph relating to a constitutional conference, I think. Of course, conventions matter almost as much as written law, so ministerial advice is a central, and pretty entrenched tenet of the operation of responsible government in Canada. However, the Crown remains empowered as it is exactly for those situations when ministerial advice is either not available, unconstitutional, or otherwise threatens the stability and continuity of governance. Rrius raised at my talk page the pertinent, potential scenario of a Prime Minister falling into a coma. Would the GG just sit there and twiddle her thumbs? Who would she take advice from on matters of war and treaties? Would she head the Cabinet herself? Or, would she dismiss the ill PM and appoint a new one? If people think the GG is useless, they should look to Australia circa 1975. --G2bambino (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming, the GG would name as interim PM or new Prime Minister, the person the governing party requests. At least that's what occured in 1891 & 1894.GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why it would have to be "interim," there's no set tenure for a prime minister, so there'd be nothing wrong with dismissing the incumbent as soon as he or she was deemed inable to perform their role. Obviously whomever the GG chose as a new PM would have to be someone who could command the confidence of the House, and they may only be in the position for a short amount of time, but they'd still be the GG's Prime Minister. --G2bambino (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite correct. We've had provincial interim party leaders serve as full fledged Premiers. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's all very nice to speculate, but there are no sourced references here. I've found at least five scholarly sources that clearly describe the monarchy's power as symbolic or ceremonial as opposed to political or real, and no one has offered any sources that challenge this. So why the statements in these references (if not the references themselves) are consistently deleted? --soulscanner (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm a republican. I'm not happy, that the Prime Minister needs to have things rubber stamped by another person; but that's how it works. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

They're not deleted, they're taken in a context that includes a number of other sources. --G2bambino (talk) 02:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

As the book citiation template does not allow for quotes, I'll put here what's said in Edward McWhinney's The Governor General and the Prime Ministers about the Royal Prerogative and the viceroy:

Canada has for many years had no political confrontations involving recourse to those inherent, discretionary powers of the governor general as titular head-of-state...

The more reasonable explanation seems, however, to be our good fortune since the King-Byng affair not to have had any recurrence of an extreme minority government situation in which the governor general is required to exercise discretionary choices among competing party leaders not prepared to extend minimal cooperation to each other.

I believe there are more, but I will have to take more time to go through the book tomorrow. --G2bambino (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is more. McWhinney is quite clear on this:

The conclusion today, for all practical constitutional purposes, is that the vestigal reserve powers of the Crown available to the governor general or lieutenant-governor are the two: first, the power to grant, continue or withold the mandate to form a government; and second, the correlative power to grant or withold a dissolution requested by the head-of-government or, in the extreme case, to dismiss a head-of-government and accord the mandate to form a new government to someone else. --G2bambino (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

So why is this an issue of contention? G2b has reiterated what I've said briefly far above. The GG is a tie-breaker. This is a footnote, not a lead-the-section and discuss-over-and-over statement. And where does the Queen come into this? In practice the Queen will keep her mouth shut and let Canadians figure it out. Think about it - the Queen is not going to step in and dismiss a sitting PM, it's not going to happen. So why do we need to go on about the Queen being in charge and being part of Parliament? Shouldn't we be describing here the practical reality of Canada? I'll say it again, this is an arcane debate. Let's make a realistic article. Franamax (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you misleadingly reduce the entire situation to simply the dismissal of a PM? There's more to the constitutional structure - which is what the section is, rightly, trying to explain - than just that. Are the scenarios where the GG or monarch may have to act unilaterally likely ones? No, probably not. But, does that make them any less possible? I think the section is presently pretty much fine as it is. --G2bambino (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, taking an example from the quotes you yourself have supplied is not misleading, it's called taking an example. Nice sidestep of the point though. The section is structured fairly well, however at a rough count, "Queen" or "monarch" is used five times, GG is used five times, PM is used five times. Ten mentions of the crown is disproportionate to the practical reality. And the section doesn't even address the government form-and-dissolve issues from your quotes above. Additionally I see that now Parliament's make-up has changed to "the Queen (represented by the Governor General) and two houses..." as opposed to Padraic's better parenthetical "(and formally, the Queen)". You've pushed it that one extra step, the Constitution IV.,17 just says "the Queen" - we should go back to Padraic's formulation which gave a much clearer picture. Franamax (talk) 07:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice sidestep of the point indeed; I said your selective choice of only the appointment and dismissal of the PM, as though it were the sole duty of the monarch, was misleading. You left out the issuance and retraction of Letters Patent, the appointment and dismissal of the governor general, the addition of seats to the Senate, etc. Frankly, looking again at the section, I can't really see how to take out any more mention of the monarch and GG; they're certainly not brought up any more than necessary. If you're going to try and explain Canada's constitutional workings, you're going to have to bring them up. That, of course, includes parliament; if saying the Crown is part of parliament works, so be it. But the position certainly isn't merely "formal." --G2bambino (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

OK now of all the duties of the monarch, which ones are not carried out on the instruction/advice of the PM/cabinet/privy council? The GG (not the Queen, in practical reality) can refuse to dissolve a government (unlikely) and can invite a minority leader to form a government even if the party they lead doesn't have the most seats, but has a coalition agreement (could happen next year). Those are the realistic discretionary powers, the rest of it is mostly stamp-collecting. You can explain Canada's constitutional workings at length in Government of Canada, this is the overview article, people around the world read this to find out how the government works, not who signs what in which order. And the Queen/GG part of parliament itself is strictly formal, they read the throne speech, they sign the papers. That's it. Oh, now I think of it, the section also doesn't mention that the power of taxation rests with the elected legislature - maybe that could go in instead of mentioning the crown ten times. Franamax (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe instead of wasting your creativity on snarky comments you could provide a proposed alternative to what's there now? I'd be intrigued to see it, given that the section currenty does explain how the government works. --G2bambino (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I get a bit snarky when my comments are described as misleading. I should work on that :) Read out the snarkiness though, and what I've said above is basically true - what substantive contribution does the Queen/GG make? Forming and dissolving the government, that's about it. And that's the one place where the GG has a crucial role. The detailed workings should not be in this overview article. And I have proposed alternatives, in a section above (some of it incorporated) and immediately above where I suggest Padraic's wording for the structure of Parliament, and including the bit about taxation. Franamax (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

French Canadian

Hello Canadians! I have just came back from France around the poitier area and the people were telling me that there dialect was very close to the montreal dialect. I knew a girl from about ten or so years ago from montreal who told me that the French had a hard time understanding her. Can anyone back up what I was told? Joe Deagan (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been told on several occasions that Canadian French isn't considered "real" French by the people of France in general. But frankly, I don't consider Newfie English to be "real" english, and I can't understand half of what they say;). It just depends on the person I think. Some Newfies (and Aussies, and Irish) I can understand just fine, and others are a lost cause to me 0_0. I imagine that it is the same way with French.Gopher65_talk 01:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think what they were trying to say was that they talked more old French rather than Parisian and the like. I have heard more than once that Canadian French was or is an old type of French! Joe Deagan (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Why is this blocked from editing?

Makes no sense. Landofpartinggifts (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected because of a history of persistent vandalism. You cannot edit it yet because you are not autoconfirmed. You need a couple of more days and 10 edits before you are autoconfirmed. -Rrius (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

On the Main Page for Canada Day

Hey guys. Canada Day is fast approaching, so I'm putting it out there that we need to try and get this on the main page for it, since I may not be available to do it. I think it's dumb that only 5 requests can be made at one time, but we gotta do what we can. The requests page has candidates for June 19, 22, and 27. I figure that anyone involved with this article should watch that page, wait for one of them to be removed, and if one is, submit a request for this article ASAP. I'll make the template here, and the text can be modified as necessary (ie. some severe summarizing to shorten it). -- Reaper X 05:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Canada (/ˈkænədə/) is a country extending from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west and northward into the Arctic Ocean. It is the world's second largest country by total area, and shares land borders with the United States to the south and northwest. It was inhabited for millennia by various aboriginal people before British and French explorers started settling the Atlantic coast. France ceded nearly all of its colonies in North America in 1763 after the Seven Years War. In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada was formed as a federal dominion of four provinces. This began an accretion of additional provinces and territories and a process of increasing autonomy from the United Kingdom, highlighted by the Statute of Westminster in 1931 and culminating in the Canada Act in 1982 which severed the vestiges of legal dependence on the British parliament. Now a federation of ten provinces and three territories, Canada is a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy, with Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state. It is a bilingual and multicultural country, with both English and French as official languages. (more...)

Economy

Perhaps I didn't read closely enough, but does the article mention where Canada's economy stand in relation to other developed countrie's economies, in size? I note in the Wikipedia article that Spain has the world's 8th largest economy. Why isn't Spain then part of the G8? Is Spain's economy larger than Canada's?Cd195 (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The history of this is that when they were setting up the G7, the Europeans insisted that Italy join. The U.S. in turn wanted Canada in to get a better balance between North American and European members. Also, I highly doubt that Spain is the worlds 8th largest. --soulscanner (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In the wikipedia you can see that Spain is the 8th largest economy, more that Canada. I don't know why do you have doubts... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.27.17.46 (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Rankings according to the WSJ/Heritage Foundation 'Index of Economic Freedom' should be removed, as upon close inspection their ten postulates governing the index have more to do with the security of property rights than with human freedom. It's a measure of how easy it is for investment and capital to operate without any interference from outside sources such as meddling governments, progressive activist groups, and labor unions, and not a measure of any kind of real benefit to citizenry at large. It also should not be the policy of Wiki to lend academic credence to conservative think-tanks, which gain visibility not because of the rigors of their research but because of the bounty of their funding, and do not engage in the same kind of critical peer review as actual academic institutions. Their allegiance is not to reveal the workings of the world around them, but instead to various right-wing shibboleths, regardless of whether they fit the facts or not.71.232.176.48 (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Canada's economy is 8th, Spain's 9th, by nominal GDP according to the World Bank, the ranks are reversed according to the IMF and CIA.

Canada Jack (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Federation

Under 'Geography and Climate' the following entry was made "Since 1925, Canada has claimed the portion of the Arctic between 60°W and 141°W longitude,[47] but this claim is not universally recognized." May we all know who this(these) countries may be, or is it simply rumoured?

Under the Constitution Act, the country's name was changed from Dominion of Canada to Canadian Federation. The United Nations recognizes this, Canadian law recognizes this, so should Wikipedia!!

Mnmazur (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not just call it Canada; less cumbersome that way. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Mnmazur):That is not factually correct. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Which one, Mnmazur's suggestion or mine? GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The former. --G2bambino (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Howdy,

In the British North America Act 1867, the long-form name is implied to be the Dominion of Canada, and would be entirely consistent with the times. The term Dominion of Canada was not explicitly used until its first amendment, the British North America Act 1871. Nevertheless, legal convention is clearly in support of this long-form name of the Dominion of Canada in 1871.

A long-form name by definition can not be the same as a short-form name. Your assertions to the contrary simply make no sense. Unfortunately, they are supported by the majority consensus of the Wikipedians here ... so for now we are stuck will "majority-held" falsehold of just Canada.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.204.225 (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Don, could you please explain your reasoning why a country has to have different long and short form names? You keep saying that they do without giving any source for this "rule", nor any explanation for what the other forms are for the numerous countries that seem to only have one name. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The name of Canada is "Canada", with no suffixes, prefixes or "of". This is attested to by many official publications of the Government of Canada. Please ignore ArmchairVexillologistDon who has been campaigning on this page for many years to get Wikipedia to call the country by a different name, on the grounds (apparrently) that he knows more about Canada's official name than the government does. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello DJ Clayworth.

Consider your long-form name (i.e., your legal name). Is it just DJ?

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.204.225 (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

When looking at stuff like the CIA factpage for various countries, they always give the long, short, and technical formal names of the country they are talking about. Canada is *always* referred to as just Canada, by every source. Can you link to an official source that refers to it by any other name? I've never seen one. There is no long form of name Canada right now. There used to be, and there may be at some point in the future, but right now there isn't. Gopher65_talk 03:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gopher65. The question is one of legal Order-of-Precedence. Does a long-form name have a "higher rank" than a short-form name? The legal tradition of English-Speaking Common Law countries is YES.

In the British North America Act 1867, the long-form name is implied to be the Dominion of Canada, and would be entirely consistent with the times. The term was not explicitly used until its first amendment, the British North America Act 1871.

In the USA Declaration of Independence 1776, Article I explicitly names the declared country as ...

"The stile of this Confederacy shall be the United States of America".

To sum up, Canada did not explicitly state its long-form name until the FIRST AMENDEMENT of its Constitution in 1871, whereas America explicitly stated its long-form name from the beginning in 1776.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 70.48.58.36 (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Armchair, why are you signing your posts with your User-name and an IP number? GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Howdy GoodDay. I forgot my password, and I'm trying to find it in my e-mail inbox. As well, I haven't had the internet at home for a while due to finicial difficulties, so I have being using public computers to get on the net. Take care eh,

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 99.239.203.61 (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If I may summarize ArmchairVexillologistDon's rather long post above about the question "Can you link to an official source that refers to [Canada] by any other name?", his answer is "No". DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello DJ Clayworth. The Government of Canada has not used the long-form name the Dominion of Canada since about 1953. The usage of the short-form name of Canada does not alter the fact that the Dominion of Canada is still this country's full name (i.e., legal name, long-form name).

Consider your long-form name (i.e., your legal name). Is it just DJ?

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 99.239.203.61 (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Don, you already asked this. My Wikipedia username is "DJ Clayworth". That is both the shortest and longest form of my username. It's not "Wikipedian DJ Clayworth" or "Administrator DJ Clayworth", though I have been referred to as both on occasions. Some people refer to me as "DJ" when they feel like it, just as some people refer to Canada as "The Frozen North" or "The Fifty-first State" when they feel like it. There is no point in insisting that Canada must have a longer name than it does just because you feel it ought to. There are many references to publications by the government of Canada saying explicitly that the full name of Canada is "Canada". Please stop disagreeing with the government about the country's name. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello DJ Clayworth.

I can disagree with the Government of Canada on any point that I wish. Why? I can do this because the Dominion of Canada was founded on July 1, 1867, as, and it is still today a "free-country" ... the last time I checked.

Just because the Government of Canada has an internet website where something is typed, does not make it true.

I am a reasonably intelligent person, and one of my hobbies is old documents and British Commonwealth of Nations Constitutional Law. In particular, I am fascinated by the "ins-and-outs" of long-form name(s) of Countries.

Since you will not discuss reasonably your own long-form name (out of privacy I imagine), please consider this dead famous person's long-form name...

John Fitzgerald Kennedy

or was his long-form name just ...

Johnny?

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 99.239.204.225 (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't you guys have this debate on your respective 'talk pages'; instead of clogging up this article's discussion page? GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be fine with having this debate on someone's talk page. Or not at all, for preference. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Recommend having it at Armchair's talk-page, as he seems eager to continue the discussion. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay. I don't mind stopping to talk about this subject. My opinion on the long-form name of this country being the Dominion of Canada is well known. My reasons for believing so have be re-hashed alot. So I'll stop. In closing, Please consider this dead famous person's long-form name...

John Fitzgerald Kennedy

or was his long-form name just ...

Johnny?

Interesting "food-for-thought".

Take care eh, and best wishes,

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 99.239.204.225 (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You too, eh. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Armchair, it does not make for particularly interesting food for thought because all of us already know that there exists names with both long and short forms; that has never been a point of contention. The issue is that you insist that it is impossible for something to not have a long-form version of its name. Sometimes the name "Will" is a person's real name, not "William", and sometimes countries don't have titles as part of their names. If, as you keep saying, countries must have both a long and short form, are you also complaining about the names of countries like Romania, Japan, Belize, because they are also claiming the apparently impossible feet of not having identical long and short-forms of their names. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Two Official Demonyms?

I believe that on my Canadian passport, Canadian and Canadienne are both official denonyms for a Canadian citizen, depending on which language they regard as their primary one (Anglosphones use Canadian whilst Francophones use Canadienne). I suggest that this gets changed to more accurately inform the public.

Regards,

68.151.24.187 (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this sounds reasonable, but I'll leave it to a Canadian editor to do something about it. Since this is the English wikipedia, I suggest, "Canada, Canadienne (French)". -Rrius (talk) 06:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If you account for French demonyms, you need both masculine Canadien and feminine Canadienne variants. Additionally, is it relevant to include non-English demonyms? For example, we do not include Français or Française on the France article; Canada's Canadien and Canadienne are instead covered at fr:Canada. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 14:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Nihiltres. Although since the infobox shows the languages as both English and French, perhaps the demonym of "Canadian" should have a parenthetic "(English)". Franamax (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's implicit. "Canadian" is the correct English language demonym. "Canadienne" is the French, and the one the French Wikipedia should use. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Why Canada is in the G8 and Spain,Brazil aren't

Because being a G member is a political decision based on democracy principles, backed by a World top economy, not the other way around (see the extension process from G6 to G7 to include Canada in 1976 and not Spain, and then G7 to G8 to accommodate Russia in the 1990's, and not China or even India)Yannn (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

India exports almost the same as Thailand and its nominal gdp is almost the same as Australia's. for the last decade almost every second year Spain and Canada swich positions in the nominal gdp rankings because they are very close. 2009 Canada's gdp growth is suppose to be much larger than Spain's so in 2 years Canada could be slightly larger again. you can't really say that one country has the larger gdp. TRADE Canada's exports are almost 2 times larger than Spains Canada's imports are over 20 billion dollars larger total trade Canada 830 billion dollars total trade Spain 637 billion dollars These statistics make Canada the only country with a top 10 gdp outside of Germany,UK,France,Italy,China,Japan,US to make the top 10 list for imports and exports. so far in 2008 the world's largest economy (US) traded more with Canada than China (world's 2nd largest economy using ppp gdp) and Japan (world's 2nd largest economy using nominal gdp) combined. US gets more petroleum products from Canada than Saudi Arabia and Iraq combined (soon it could be Saudi Arabia and Mexico combined). That country has to be at G8 meetings because the US always has something it needs to discuss with Canada. GDP PER CAPITA Spain and Canada have the same nominal gdp (2007 imf said Spains nominal gdp was 4 % higher that could have been due to error) Spain has 35 % more people so gdp per capita Canada is a lot richer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.212.64 (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there something you wish to add to the article? GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have the proof to backup all of my statements but I don't know for sure if those are the reasons why Canada was chosen to be in the G8. They do give Canada the edge economically over Spain and Brazil. China is a country that should be in the G8 the only thing that could keep it out is gdp per capita.

Could you move this disccusion to the bottom of this talk-page (where it's suppose to be), please? GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

no I think this is where it belongs, one of the hot topics when it comes to Canada is its role in the world economy and the G8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grmike (talk • contribs) 22:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Move this discussion to bottom of this talk-page, please. As it's the newist discussion. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk page discussions are arranged chronologically, oldest at the top and newest at the bottom, not by subjective assessments of how important they are relative to each other. The discussion has been moved, and anybody who attempts to move it back to the top of the page may be temporarily editblocked. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have anything about the article to say? This is not a forum for discussing politics. If this conversation is not working to add or change content in the article, I'm going to have to archive it as being off-topic. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to add the links or where to put the information.

trade imports and exports should be there somewhere in the article when it talks about Canada's economy since that and its gdp per capita are probably the main reasons why it was given G8 membership.

in 2006 forbes 2000 list of the worlds 2000 biggest companies 60 of them were Canadian 29 of them were from Spain.

Toronto stock exchange is the 7th largest in the world by market cap. Canada's 5 biggest banks have a combined market value almost as large as the biggest bank in the world.

I believe this person intended to respond to the other discussion topic that already exists on this subject. In that context, this reply wouldn't be offtopic, but rather an extension of the previous discussion. It really should go under the other topic though (Economy).Gopher65_talk 23:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

typos

Geez, this is so complicated (being protected and all) that it's no wonder these haven't been changed! Anyway, the paragraph beginning, "Efforts by Progressive Conservative (PC) government of Brian Mulroney *beganto* recognize Quebec as a "distinct society" and end western alienation" should be "began to"; and the next paragraph beginning, "In the 1990s, *Anger* in predominantly French-speaking Quebec" should have "anger" uncapitalised. Hope that helps.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.166.102 (talk) 05:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Peacekeeping

Looking at the History section:

On the international stage, the 1990s saw the rise of a major role of Canadian peacekeeping activity on behalf of the United Nations. The UN mission in Rwanda in the 1990s was led by Canadian peacekeeping official Romeo Dallaire, which was criticized by him and by others for failing to have the mandate to prevent the Rwanda genocide. Canada also took part in peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo during the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s.

This is a little peculiar, Canada I believe took a prominent role in peacekeeping since, umm, a Canadian invented it. I think there are references out there, which I can't lay my hands on, that show a significant decline in peacekeeping participation through the '90's. A little recent-ism may be creeping in here.
This paragraph is also a little skewed by the recent change of Dallaire to a "peacekeeping official" - he was actually an Army Lt-Gen., not an "official". Also the lack of mandate to prevent the genocide and criticism thereof is vague and unsourced (Shake Hands With The Devil, I'm holding it in my non-typing hand), and not particularly relevant to Canada's history as a body. And further, "also took part in Bosnia" - what about Maj-Gen Mackenzie leading forces to take control of Sarajevo airport at the height of the conflict? My point here is that the paragraph seems inaccurate and unbalanced, and possibly unnecessary. Comments? Franamax (talk) 05:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

My intention of writing this earlier was to mention that Canada took part in two major peacekeeping operations in the decade of the 1990s. I suppose you are right, I'll remove it.--R-41 (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought, that with the exception of sending General Dallaire to Rwanda, Canada ignored that entire conflict until it was already over? No soldiers, no aid, no nothing. It would be a little rich to suggest that Canada had any significant part in that conflict.Gopher65_talk 16:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

Changing the Demographics section to include the more useful metropolitan area populations. The table of municipal populatioons should be removed, if there are no objections. naturalnumber (talk) 08:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Let'er pound. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't the title be The Kingdom of Canada rather than merely Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.62.198 (talk • contribs)

No, it shouldn't. Read through the discussion archive for reasons. Mindmatrix 13:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

NAFTA userbox

Hello! For those who support NAFTA, let me know what you think about this. Use it freely. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 20:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This user supports NAFTA.

New information in history section

I apologize for not providing sources on the information I have recently been adding, but this information is widely known in Canada and it would be very easy for anyone to find sources for the material I have just added. I have added the material to give a more detailed view of important events in Canadian history which are typically mentioned in Canadian history textbooks, such as mentioning modern-day issues involving aboriginal peoples such as the controversial Oka crisis in 1990 and the shooting of Dudley George in 1995, as well as more positive issues of aboriginal affairs such as the Nisga'a Final Settlement and the government apologizing this year to aboriginal people for the oppression of aboriginals in residential schools. Furthermore, continental free trade adopted in the 1980s has been a significant and controversial event in Canada and it deserves more attention.--R-41 (talk) 06:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts in filling in the details of Canadian history since the 1980's. I really hesitate to begin condensing these additions, because I realize the amount of effort that goes into such summaries. However, the level of detail is more appropriate for the History of Canada page than this overview article on Canada (I've pasted your recent contributions onto that page). Please consider the following points when contemplating improvements to the article:

• The history section is now too long and detailed for an overview article like this. Whereas it's a good thing to revise recent history, the recent edits have overweighted events of the last 30 years. Aboriginal affairs and the National Energy policy are important, but do not warrant the space allotted, considering that much more significant topics such as the Conquest, Confederation, WWI and WWII are given much less space (a sentence or paragraph at most). They can be better summarized in one sentence, with wiki links to appropriate articles. Consider the weighting of these topics in the history books you are citing (a page count for each chapter will do) and you will get a better idea of a more appropriate weighting for an overview.
• Foreign relations topics such as 9-11 and NAFTA are indeed important, but I would argue that these events are more about current events and policy, which is why they are covered in their own Foreign Relations section. Here, they are annotated with references. I recommend removing these from the history section (or reducing them to a brief mention) and carefully editing the Foreign Relations section if you feel more detail is required. Better yet, discuss improvements to the article adressing these issues on the Talk page first.
• With regard to references, in an FA article, you need to be careful to include footnotes. The FA rating means that this article has been carefully vetted for references. You and I may be aware of pertinent references, but someone researching Canada is not and needs those references. Adding unsourced material decreases the quality standards of the article.
• Adding sub-sections is a substantial change to the format of the article. There has been considerable discussion of sub-sections within the history section, and others have successfully convinced most editors (including myself) that large numbers of subsections make the article unwieldy and more difficult to navigate. The usual way to such changes is discussion on the talk page before proceeding.

Thanks. --soulscanner (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I moved recent economic and foreign relations policy develtopments from the history section to their respective sections. I also condensed other topics as much as I could. I also moved the text it replaced to the History of Canada page, where space considerations aren't a great concern right now.

I also removed subsections. I believe wikistyle guides discourages their use as they make the guide box unwieldy. Somehow, the history section is still too long. Anyone want to take a crack at condensing it even more? --soulscanner (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

History section too long?

Is the history section too long? I'd gladly support any effort to condense it. --soulscanner (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

False Information

I know as a fact that the information under Demographics regarding the metropolitan population of major Canadian cities is false. Edmonton has nearly 1 million people, and Toronto nearly 5 Million. Edmonton has also a greater population than Toronto. I believe that the source, although supposedly is Statistics Canada, was either misinterpreted or perhaps not a valid source. I suggest checking this out, as I know this information is void. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macman175 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Toronto is the largest Canadian city. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You'll notice it doesn't say "Metro area", but "city". There's ~2.5 million in Toronto (Humber -> Rouge, Steeles -> Lake Ontario)> WilyD 18:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• several paragraphs archived to page history / courtesy blank per OTRS #2008080310009233 --Versageek 12:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sections

I think they're rather helpful. As you have written, the history section may be on the long side. --Blehfu (talk) 04:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Needs a normal map in addition to the animated gif. I wanted to look at a modern map of Canada but the gif doesn't even stop when it gets to the end. Quite aggravating. 71.36.206.189 (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Language

Why there is a separate section for language? Language should be mentioned within Demographics section. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is a notable fact about Canada, it is that the two European "founding nations" spoke different languages, both lanquages persist to the present, and large swathes of political energy have been devoted to accomodation of the two major language groups. This goes beyond simple demographics and constitutes a central fact of Canadian existence - thus it probably does deserve its own section. Franamax (talk) 06:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Language goes beyond demographics into law, language, history, and many other aspects of Canadian life. --soulscanner (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Dominion du Canada" referenced several times

The French-Canadian consolidated version,

M. Olliver, "Actes de L'Amerique du Nord Britannique et Statuts Connexes 1867-1962", Publie par Roger Duhamel, M.S.R.C., Imprimeur de la Reine et Controleur de la Paperie, Ottawa, Canada, pp. 675, (1962).

references the long-form name of the Dominion du Canada many times.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 99.241.149.152 (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Given the logical stretches that have been used in this debate before, your source, without quotes, does not prove that the form was ever used.
2. Even if "Dominion du Canada" was an official long form, there is no proof that "Dominion of Canada" was.
3. Even if it accepted that your source proves that the official long form was "Dominion of Canada" during the period 1867–1962, it does nothing to show that the form is currently used.
4. The references provided in previous iterations of this debate support the claim that "Canada" is the only official name.

-Rrius (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if you were right it would show only the name of Canada in French, not English.

The actual case of course is that this is all original research by you, and your 'results' fly in the face of clear statements by the Government of Canada. Please stop this. You are repeatedly raising a point that has been decided against you over and over again. Frankly your edits are bordering on the disruptive. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Factual Error under Foreign Relations and Military

This paragraph:

Since 2001, Canada has had troops deployed in Afghanistan as part of the U.S. stabilization force and the UN-authorized, NATO-commanded International Security Assistance Force. Canada and the U.S. continue to integrate state and provincial agencies to strengthen security long the Canada-U.S. Border through the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.[45] Canada's Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) has participated in three major relief efforts in the past two years; the two-hundred member team has been deployed in relief operations after the December 2004 tsunami in South Asia, Hurricane Katrina in September 2005 and the Kashmir earthquake in October 2005.

Hurricane Katrina hit US mainland in August 2005, not September. Your own linked source reveals that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueDragonfly310 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Good point that that may be misleading. The hurricane did indeed hit in late August but I think the intention of the statement is that DART was deployed in September, in the aftermath of Katrina. Perhaps that can be stated more clearly. Thanks, DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• That's exactly why I debated with myself about this edit before I sent it. It should be made clearer, IMO. BlueDragonfly310 (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, thanks. I've removed the month from the sentence. I think that is both accurate enough and vague enough to avoid misleading the reader. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks and cheers to you too! BlueDragonfly310 (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Precise, official name of this state?

What is the precise name of this state? For instance, Ireland is the precise legal name of the state that is known by the description Republic of Ireland. Does Canada's constitutional connection with Britain shape its official name, even if it is internationally known as Canada? 86.42.119.12 (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Canada's precise, full, total and official name is Canada. See Name of Canada. This has been definitively stated by the Government of Canada on many occasions. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No. The short-form name is Canada. The long-form name is the Dominion of Canada. Since the 1950's (under Prime Minister Louis St.Laurent), the usage of long-form name has been suppressed. It is like to have happened to appease French-Canadian separatists, and English-Canadian Republicans (primarily supporters of the Republic of Ireland). The consensus here (unfortunately) believes that just Canada is the "official long-form name", but that is not so. By-the-way, the Province of Northern Ireland is the long-form name of the 6 of the 9 Counties of the Province of Ulster choose to remain apart of the UK.ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 134.117.137.136 (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your erudite response, DJ. I had only asked the question because of the claim by yer man above on another webpage. I can see now he's not to be taken seriously. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 07:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Armchair: You seem to have a problem with us former colonies generally. You're not one of this counter-revolutionary royalist rabble still screaming about the "terror" of the French revolution? I hope so! So 'Province of Northern Ireland' is the long-from? Where I'm from the "long form" name for the occupied Six Counties is the British-occupied gerrymandered illegitimate Six County settler-colonial statelet. As for your "chose to remain" claim. Do you mean like the Irish nationalist majority in Fermanagh? Or Tyrone? Or Derry city? They "chose" to remain under British rule? Very interesting reading of history. Care to reference it? Having said all this, should you shove a gun in my face, I shall choose to retract all of the above. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 07:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I almost added a warning when I wrote my answer above saying that ArmchairVexillologistDon would probably turn up and try to claim the Dominion of Canada was the long form name. But I hoped that maybe he had decided to be adult about this. Don is of course entitled to his opinion, but included in the 'unfortunate' consensus he describes is the government of Canada, along with every encyclopedia and atlas maker. Don, your continued pushing of a point that has been disproved over and over again is disruptive. I would remind you that disruptive editing can result in a block. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello DJ Clayworth.

The short-form name is Canada, and the long-form name is the Dominion of Canada. This issue happens to be at the core of what it means to be "Canadian".

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 134.117.137.194 (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This argument, between you and the rest of the world, has been had many times. Please stop reiterating your points time after time when nobody agrees with you. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Canada?

When are Canadians going to stop having the Queen of England as their head of state? Is there any republican debate there, as there is in Australia? There isn't a word about it in this article. I'm wondering do my Irish cousins in Canada stand and sing God Save the Queen for their national anthem? Do you have the Queen of England on your coins and stamps as well? Do you use the metric system or are you still on imperial measurements? Canada seems like a more intelligent and environmentally conscious place than the United States, and the health system is the best in the world along with France's, apparently. It just seems backward and unenlightened with this English royalist cult. Will, for instance, a Catholic ever be allowed serve as Canadian head of state? 86.42.119.12 (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Canada doesn't have the Queen of the United Kingdom as Head of state. It's the Queen of Canada. PS- Is there something you wish to add/remove from the article? GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. What's the name of this 'Queen of Canada'? PS- There may be. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't anything to do with the article, so doesn't belong here. Further discussion at User talk:86.42.119.12 please. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the more appropiate article would be Monarchy of Canada. -- GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a fantasy Wikipedia the anon should go contribute to? Mabye a bitter Irishman Wikipedia. I've no idea what country or monarch it is he's talking about. --G2bambino (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

While, as an American, I disagree with the "more intelligent" thing, there is a real issue here regarding improvement to the article. I think the initial comment can be fairly interpreted as asking whether Republicanism in Canada requires better treatment in this article. As I think there is a real question here, I am removing the template. -Rrius (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that Republicanism is very far down the list of significant political issues in Canada. Now someone coming to the article looking for information about Republicanism may be surprised not to find it, but we can't fill the article with descriptions of minor issues just in case someone is interested in them. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Regrettable, but true. Canadians in general, are unaware that we're a Constitutional monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That statement, GoodDay, presupposes that if more Canadians knew they lived in a constitutional monarchy that republicanism would become a bigger issue. I doubt that's true. Regardless, if monarchism is not given a high profile in this article, why should republicansim? --G2bambino (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

One can always hope, though. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The Republic of Canada, or say the Canadian Republic?

No.

The whole British America thing would come into play to stop that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_America

The English-Canadian Provinces would just become States of the US.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 134.117.137.140 (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It also presupposes the surveys mean anything. The Mysterious Case of the Missing Australian Republicans gives reason to believe that they don't mean too much. -Rrius (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it the consensus then that republican sentiment is not significant enough to warrant treatment in the article as a minority view or to note majority support of the monarchy? -Rrius (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say indifferance to monarchy & republic would be more accurate. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole monarchist/republican thing is too detailed for this page, anyway, apart from the point that neither is a terribly prominent force in national life. --G2bambino (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say yes. For whatever reason the issue of the monarchy is not important enough to Canadians in general to warrant a mention in this article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Canada's Age?

1982 - So canada is only 26 y.o.? ChesterTheWorm (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC) ChesterTheWorm

Try 1867, Canada is 141 y.o. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The present state of Canada was founded in 1867 with the beginning of the Confederation of the several British North American colonies and the 1867 BNA Act which laid out the powers and responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments. The BNA Acts were, however, Acts of the British Parliament and, as such, could only be amended by them. The Canada Act 1982 finally laid out how Canada could amend its own Constitution, which was, as the article states, the last remaining vestige of legal dependence. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

False Advertising

Which Canadians, pray tell, "take pride in universal health care"? The health care system in Canada is broken beyond repair, with waiting list measured in years. Anyone who can afford to get health care abroad does so; while most of the middle class either gets well waiting, or dies waiting.

While it may be tactful to not mention the pathetic state of health care in the main article, it's dishonest to present it as a successful system. I suggest the rosy presentation of health care be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.129.4 (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2008

Universal health care is routinely ranked in surveys as one of the things in which Canadians take pride and the very brief mentions in this article are sourced appropriately.

If you can get appropriate Reliable sources, avoid OR and use a NPOV, you may wish to edit Health care in Canada or Medicare (Canada). Otherwise, write your opinions in your blog. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Which surveys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.129.4 (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Try some of these links. Or talking to some Canadians. [8] [9] "About 13% of Americans reported that they had experienced an unmet health care need in the year prior to the survey, compared with 11% of Canadians." "87% of Canadians are somewhat or very satisfied with their overall healthcare services" DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

So, 13% of Amricans are unsatisfied, which makes their health care system a failure, and 11-13% of the Canadians are unsatisfied, which makes them take pride in theirs. Somethings is half full or half empty, but I cannot decide what. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.246.29 (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sovereign status

I understand canada is a distinct nation.But is Canada a sovereign nation? Does the Canadian constitution acknowledge its independent status in any way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.120.65 (talk) 07:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, see for example Statute of Westminster 1931 and Constitution Act 1982 and the text of both documents. -Rrius (talk) 07:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The Dominion of Canada was founded on July 1, 1867, as a Sovereign Nation (i.e., as an independent coutry). That was the whole purpose of its founding.

Two vestiges of control, namely, (1). Reservation by the Imperial Parliament, (2). Disallowance by the Imperial Parliament, were included only as a last resort safeguard so that Republicanism, or the founding of an Alternate Royal Family, would not occur.

The Statute of Westminster 1931, removed the control of Disallowance by the Imperial Parliament.

The Canada Act 1982, removed the control of Reservation by the Imperial Parliament, added an ammending formula to the Constitution, and added an explicit Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So either we were independent in 1867, or 1982. Personally, I prefer 1867.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 134.117.137.162 (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Just for good measure, constitutional scholar Andrew Heard clearly establishes that Confederation in no way changed Canada's colonial status:

At its inception in 1867, Canada's colonial status was marked by political and legal subjugation to British Imperial supremacy in all aspects of government - legislative, judicial, and executive. The Imperial Parliament at Westminster could legislate on any matter to do with Canada and could override any local legislation, the final court of appeal for Canadian litigation lay with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, the Governor General had a substantive role as a representative of the British government, and ultimate executive power was vested in the British Monarch - who was advised only by British Ministers in its exercise. Canada's independence came about as each of these sub-ordinations was eventually removed.

Heard goes on to document the sizable body of legislation passed by the British Parliament in the latter part of the 19th century that would uphold and expand its Imperial supremacy to constrain its colonies, including the new Dominion government.

When the Dominion of Canada was created in 1867 it was granted powers of self-government to deal with all internal matters, but Britain still retained overall legislative supremacy. This imperial supremacy could be exercised through several statutory measures. In the first place, the Constitution Act of 1867 provides in s.55 that the Governor General may reserve any legislation passed by the two Houses of Parliament for "the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure", which is determined according to s.57 by the (British) Queen in Council. Secondly, s.56 provides that the Governor General must forward to "one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretary's of State" in London a copy of any federal legislation that has been assented to; within two years after the receipt of this copy, the (British) Queen in Council can disallow an Act. Thirdly, four pieces of Imperial legislation constrained the Canadian legislatures. The Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865 provided that no colonial law could validly conflict with, amend or repeal Imperial legislation which explicitly or by necessary implication applied directly to that colony; the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 as well as the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 required reservation of Dominion legislation on those topics for approval by the British Government; and, the Colonial Stock Act of 1900 provided for the dis-allowance of Dominion legislation which the British government felt would harm British stockholders of Dominion trustee securities. Most importantly, however, the British Parliament could exercise the legal right of supremacy it possessed at common law to pass any legislation on any matter affecting the colonies.

--ProfWW (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A polity that is not permitted to decide even if it is at war or not, is not a sovereign nation. Canada became a sovereign nation gradually throughout the 20th century, culminating in 1982 --JimWae (talk) 07:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello JimWae. I see that you have not "changed-your-tune" one iota .

Like it or not, there are only two ways that an independent country is formed,

(1). Victory-on-the-Battlefield,

(2). Peaceful Granting of Independence by a Mother-Country (i.e., a stronger power).

Care to explain the July 4, 1776 independence date (i.e, (1).)

versus the July 1, 1867 independence date (i.e., (2).) eh?

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 134.117.137.186 (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

July 1, 1867, does not mark the independence of Canada. --G2bambino (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does.

The Dominion of Canada was founded on July 1, 1867, as a Sovereign Nation (i.e., as an independent coutry). That was the whole purpose of its founding.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 134.117.137.241 (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you about the purpose of Canadian Confederation. The main reasons were economical and political (i.e. breaking the Canada East-Canada West deadlock). I do think that in the process the powers of the new nation were better laid out and planned for increasing independence. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

AVD, you should create a new account (with new password) & notify the Administrators. Then, the Administrators will transfer your contributions to your new account (if you wish it) & delete your old account. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

What was the purpose of founding the,

United States of America (1776),

Dominion of Canada (1867),

Commonwealth of Australia (1901),

Dominion of New Zealand (1907),

Dominion of Newfoundland (1907),

Union of South Africa (1910),

Irish Free State (Dec. 6, 1921),

Dominion of India (1947),

Dominion of Pakistan (1947)

then eh?

Just some mental exercise or something?

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 134.117.137.128 (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak well enough for Canada, but in Australia, the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 had the force of law until 1942 in the Commonwealth and as late as 1986 in the states. So until those dates Australia was independently governed, but not sovereign, because it was subject to the law of another nation. New Zealand was subject to UK law until 1947. About Canada: as a litmus test, I would ask if the Colonial Laws Validity Act was in force until the Statute of Westminster 1931? If it was, we're not talking about a nation founded as a completely sovereign.--Gazzster (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And this would appear to be the case. [10]

Hello Gazzster. It is very nice to hear for you indeed. I hope all is well "down-under" eh!

The Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 is a problem. Yes it is a thorny problem. You are most correct that it did counter-mand the Sovereignty of the Dominion of Canada from 1867 to 1889. In 1889, the Interpretation Act 1889 made a distinction between self-governing Colonies, and self-governing Dominions, the latter being exempt from the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865.

So upon the founding of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901 as a self-governing Dominion, you folkes in Australia should have been exempt from the effects of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865.

The residual powers (i.e., residue of un-defined powers) in the Dominion of Canada resided with the Federal Government and not the Provincal Governmemts. I believe that the residual powers in the Commonwealth of Australia resided not with the Federal Government but with the State Governments (e.g., the State of New South Wales, the State of Queensland, the State of Victoria, etc).

Could that of been the reason the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, still had some legal force left in 1986 in the States of the Commonwealth of Australia?

Take care eh, ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 134.117.137.174 (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And then of course Newfoundland which went colony -> dominion -> colony -> province... -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about residual powers, but I do know that Lord Carrington advised Wran, the Premier of NSW, that the Queen would, on his (Carrington's) advise, refuse the Royal Assent to a bill of the NSW Parliament. The bill, which had already passed both houses, would have required the Queen to be be advised by New South Welsh ministers alone in matters pertaining to NSW. I don't know if the Colonial Laws Validity Act was invoked, but it was an example of the British Government exercising authority over a state. This was in 1981 I believe.--Gazzster (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that Canada couldn't be described as a wholly self-governing entity until the Statue of Westminister came into effect in 1931. After all, Canada never declared war in WWI; Britain INFORMED Canada that Canada was at war, and Canada was. There was no choice in the matter. The very definition of a country includes the ability to set its own foreign policy, and the ability to independently declare war is an integral part of that. Gopher65_talk 06:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That might be the the very definition of a state but it is only one of the definitions of a country, a term which is fundamentally geographical, not political. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether we call Canada a country, a state, or a nation, it did not become sovereign until the 20th century (even though it had been self-governing to some degree since 1867). "Independence"is too vague a term for Canada - it had some independence in 1867, but not the same degree of independence the USA attained 1776-1783 --JimWae (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"Five parties have had representation in the federal parliament since 2006 elections: the Conservative Party of Canada (governing party), the Liberal Party of Canada (Official Opposition), the New Democratic Party (NDP) and Bloc Québécois."

The Green Party won no federal representation in 2006. They gained their first MP on August 30, 2008, after former Liberal MP Blair Wilson failed in his July 2008 attempt to be readmitted into the Liberal caucus. To suggest that the Green Party has "had representation in the federal parliament since 2006" is patently false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.216.165 (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the intent of the sentence is obviously that five parties have had representation in that time, not necessarily the entire time. It may not be completely clear whether it's the entire time or just a portion of the time and that could be re-written but it's not immediately obvious to me how and, with less than 2 weeks before this sentence will be completely re-written, hardly seems worth the time to figure it out. At any rate, it is less false than the previous revision http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canada&diff=235533356&oldid=235469310 Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It's also somewhat misleading, in that Wilson joined the Green Party while Parliament was not in session, and then the election was called scant days later — thus he never actually sat in Parliament as a Green MP, which would be the bottom line for saying that the Greens actually had representation in the most recent Parliament. It would be far more accurate to say that four parties were represented in Parliament, and then add a separate sentence stating that an independent MP joined the Green Party just before the election. Bearcat (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks is not enough time to modify a single sentence that presents a falsehood? You can't be serious. I'd do it myself in less than five minutes, if I had the option.68.151.216.165 (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually said the statement has some basis in fact, though somewhat misleading, and not important enough to me to consider better wording. If you have the gift of writing and time to consider it, I welcome your contribution. Please put your suggested phrasing here. Thanks, DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest the following wording: "Four parties had representatives elected to the federal parliament in the 2006 elections: the Conservative Party of Canada (governing party), the Liberal Party of Canada (Official Opposition), the New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Bloc Québécois. A sitting MP joined the Green Party of Canada a few days before the calling of the 2008 election, giving the party it's first federal representative." DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks better to me. Go for it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Why was my image removed?

I posted a photograph of a rally in support of Hezbolla in the "government and politics" section. Within a few mins it was removed. Sure, Hezbolla isn't part of Canada's government, but a rally in support of Hezbolla definitely falls under the "politics" category imho. Keverich1 (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I removed this because it seemed like you were trying to make a point with the edit. It may be reasonable to use a picture of a rally to show that Canada has freedom of expression that allows demonstrations, but of the many thousands of demonstrations that occur why was support of Hezbolla chosen? The Middle East is not a big part of Canadian politics; would an environmental demonstration have been better? Maybe you could explain a bit more about why you think this image was appropriate for an article about Canada? DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

My intention was to give to the readers a deeper and more profound understanding of Canadian politics. You see, I came across this image by chance while reading an article about Middle East, and it made very strong impression on me. I think this picture will make strong impression on others too. Most people have very specific view of Canada as calm and even boring country, but this photo could add a whole new dimension to this. I also think that this picture serves best to prove that Canada has ultimate freedom of expression. I cant imagine people in the USA marching in support of Hezbolla. Nor can I imagine leaders of an opposition party marching under Hezbollah flags in the US.Keverich1 (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, try adding it back. I won't remove it again. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It might be a relevant and useful photograph in an article on Canada-Middle East relations, but it really doesn't belong in an introductory summary of Canadian politics. I'm not suggesting that it can't be used at all, but it should really only be used in articles that actually give a context for why it's there, and a three-paragraph summary of the basic structure of Canadian governance doesn't do that. It's appropriate in articles on Islam in Canada, Canadian relations with the Middle East, that kind of thing. But here, it's just kind of contextless and unhelpful, because the article doesn't even glance on that subject at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

More to the point, such an image and caption would give undue weight to a relatively minor aspect of Canadian politics. As has been stated, information about the freedom to congregate and freedom of speech is appropriate and desirable. To demonstrate that with such a specific example, which occurs with rarity in Canada, is much less appropriate; that information belongs elsewhere in Wikipedia, not an introductory article about the country. Mindmatrix 20:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to underline and support the points of Bearcat and Mindmatrix. It is Undue weight on an overview article such as this. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

SPECIAL FEATURES OF CANADA Canada,too,has a number of uniquefeatures.East of Alaska lies the Yukon(YOO kahn) Territory of Canada.Mount logan,Canada's highest peak, is here.it is part of the Coast Mountains, which stretch south alog the Pacific almost to the United States border. East of the inteior Plains lies the Canadian Shield, a region of ancient rock covered by a thin layer of soil that covers about half of Canada, where few people live. Southeast of the shield are the St. Lawrence Lowlands, home to more than half of the country's population.While these fertile lowlands produce about one third of the country's crops, the region is also Canada's manfacturing center —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.173.106.46 (talk) 05:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Food

In Canada their are many cultural local delicious dishes such as the tourtier, sheppards pie, reindeer , buffalo, salmon, trout, cariboo, moose, corn and different kinds of meat pies. For dessert Canadians also cook pies and make tasty maple sweets ect... The majority of these kinds of dishes or foods are French-Canadian, Indian and English-Canadian. Canada is known for typical dishes and to go food at good restaurants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.153.14 (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

(Tylerfm (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC))

Languages mixed with ethnic groups

You guys have 'languages spoken' mixed up with 'ethnic groups'. Canada does not have official ethnicities... Never in its history.. please take that part off... that is a eurocentric/thirdworld way of analysing canada... that kind of mentality does not apply to this country..

You can have a section or article on % or census reports on ethnicities in this country... but you cant pick a few to being the legitimate ones...

Jurisprudent (talk) 06:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic groups?!?!

As a graduate of political science, and now a third year law student specialising in constitutional law, i believe that the 'Ethnic Groups' box should be removed as it does not represent Canada. There are hundreds of ethnic groups in canada. Interestling enough whoever put that there put aboriginals last and all the european ones first. Canada has two official languages, english and french, along side the aboriginal ones. But there is absolutely no official ethnicity or race in Canada. That is lingo used on the other side of the atlantic...

If this was an article on Iraq, Rwanda, or even European countries such as France and germany, it would be worth discussing. But there is no way that box should be left there. If you really want it there than that list should have much much more ethnicities on there... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jurisprudent (talk • contribs) 07:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find that the figures quoted are from the official Canadian census, so in that sense there is an 'official' ethnicity. It is true that ethnicity is not a matter of law, like it was in South Africa, but is based on self-identification; that is also the the case "the other side of the Atlantic". In either case the ethnicity of Canadians, even if mostly by self-identification, is useful. And the ordering is by the size of the group. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, the list you actually removed was clearly wrong and unreferenced, and didn't reflect Canada's actual ethnicities. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups

In the infobox it says "Ethnic Groups: 28% British, 23% French, 3.5% Aboriginal peoples, 47% other", while in the article, under Demographics, it says: "The largest ethnic group is English (21%), followed by French (15.8%), Scottish (15.2%), Irish (13.9%), German (10.2%), Italian (5%), Chinese (4%), Ukrainian (3.6%), and First Nations (3.5%)".

Without getting into the politics of the 'British Isles', Scottish + English here = 36.2% alone. Which is right? --taras (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi taras. Please ignore ArmchairVexillologistDon, he has his own issues with Canada.

The point is that establishing ethnicity is not an easy thing to do. As some people said below, it depends how you measure it and what question you ask, especially since people can consider themselves to have more than one ethnicity. It's probable that both are approximately right, depending on the date. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello taras. This multiple spliting of the "ethnic-numbers" is a tiresome old misleading game, to keep up the impression that French-Canada is above 20%, and English-Canada is below 80%, of what Canada really is.

The "ethnic-numbers" are meaningless. The reality is that 80% of Canada speaks English (i.e., English-Canada) and less than 20% of Canada speaks French (i.e., French-Canada).

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 134.117.137.242 (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Armchair, instead of going into a diatribe about a pet peeve of yours, you could have just answered the question. On the Canadian census forms you can check off as many nationalities as you want. So if you are 1/4 Irish, 1/16 First Nations, and 0.00000000001% English, and all the rest Brazilian, then you can check off all four, or none. Your Englishness will count toward the total number of English people by just as much as someone who is 100% English, and only checks that box.

Or you can check off "Canadian", which many people do. In short, it's a nearly meaningless statistic due to the way it is gathered. All that information tells you is how people perceive themselves — which is why it isn't totally useless. If you have someone who is 1/4 First Nations and 3/4 German and they only check off "First Nations" (or vise versa), then you learn something. Gopher65_talk 23:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gopher65.

What country are you from eh?

You sure do not know anything about Canada.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 134.117.137.18 (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hiya AVD. Why don't ya create a new account & inform the Administrators? That way, they'll delete you old account. Pressto: New account (and new password) & you're OK to go. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm from Canada, and I've both filled out (multiple) census surveys and looked at the results, so say what you will. I've also read your posts on various Canada related discussions Armchair, and your opinions are universally uninformed. I assume that you are Canadian, and I'm honestly flabbergasted as to how someone can live here and know as little about the country, its political system, and its history as you appear to.

As to the particular question that was asked, and my answer, here is the proof: 2001 Canadian Census Questionnaire. Note Question 17, which is about the "origins of the person’s ancestors": "To which ethnic or cultural group(s) did this person’s ancestors belong?". It adds: "Specify as many groups as applicable". So. I'm right, and you're wrong, and there is proof.

But I don't know why I bothered to link that, since you never accept proof in any other argument. You just go on and on and on and on, and eventually everyone else just gets sick of telling you that you're wrong, at which point you decide that you've won the argument. Gopher65_talk 03:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gopher65.

I am actually very well informed on the "proper-history" of Canada (not the "politically-correct" homogenized crap the Government peddles today).

I was born, and I live in the,

Dominion of Canada,

Province of Ontario,

County of Ottawa-Carleton,

City of Ottawa.

Well then Gopher65, whereabouts do you "hail-from" within Canada eh?

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 134.117.141.26 (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What's that got to do with anything, Don? Please discuss article content, not the personal history of other editors. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

AVD, how come ya don't create a new account & have your old one deleted (seeing as you've forgotten your password)? GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment about abuse I was about to say, when an IP impersonates a user, in this case, ArmchairVexillologistDon, there is not proof, and that is likely abuse. Any jerk can say they are ArmchairVexillologistDon, and may have. Can't any user that forgot their password have it emailed to their email address? Either way, I would strongly suggest that this IP editor quit claiming (and misleading others) that he is a registered user, or I will personally report it as abuse. PHARMBOY ( moo ) 19:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I too am growing suspicious; as my repeated suggestions continue to be ignored. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay.

Yes, this is "me". I have interacted with you for quite sometime. I am very comfortable interacting with you. I am a stubborn SOB (with a good heart). My computer (and my big screen) were stolen last month. I am plenty upset about it. In mid January 2008, my home high-speed internet account was cut off. I am stubborn, but I am also lazy. I want to keep my ArmchairVexillologistDon handle. But I don't trust Admins (except SlimVirgin).

Take care, and best wishes,

Don

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 134.117.137.182 (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have left a message on the IP users talk page. I would suggest that the next time a message is left with the "dual" signature, you report it to the vandalism desk. As for the content of the discussions, I haven't been paying any attention (from texas, not canada) and the content is irrelevant to the abuse. PHARMBOY ( moo ) 20:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Pharmboy.

I am ArmchairVexillologistDon. I was banned for a whole year after tussling with a user-name that I am not supposed to mention.

Anyways, since you have seen fit to insert yourself into "this", perhaps you can useful. Here is my diliema, stated below ...

(i). I want to keep my old handle (i.e., ArmchairVexillologistDon).

(ii). I have forgetten my password "eons ago",

(iii). My original high-speed internet account got cut off mid Jan. 2008,

(iv). My computer (and big screen) got stolen a month ago.

I only trust SlimVirgin as an Admin.

So where do I go from here in "your-opinion" eh?

Don

134.117.137.182 (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Having seen AVD's edits over the last couple of years, I have little doubt it is him. It would take a remarkable imitator to copy his writing style. Don, can you not go to Special:UserLogin and click the "E-mail new password" button? DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Howdy DoubleBlue.

It is nice to hear from you indeed. Thank you very much for the "vote-of-confidence" with regards to "me-being-me". I appreciate it alot indeed.

With regards to e-mailing me-self a new password, I can't do that. My old "Wikipedia e-mail address" was a clone of my sympatico.ca account. That got "the chop" back in mid-January 2008.

I have a yahoo.com account, but my Wikipedia user-name is not linked to it.

Am I stuck with GoodDay's Idea (i.e., making a new user-name)...?

(BTW, thank you for the suggestion GoodDay, I appreciate it indeed.)

Take care, and best wishes, DoubleBlue,

Don,

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 134.117.137.65 (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Don, I'm going to respond at User talk:ArmchairVexillologistDon. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsupported claims in government section

There are two statements in the goverment and politics section that remain unsupported by sources: in conjunction with the statement "such actions would lack democratic legitimacy coming from an unelected institution" are the elaborations "successive Canadian governments" and "have long maintained." Neither of the sources at the end of the entire sentence seem to support such assertions; at least, not the quoted sections in the footnotes. --G2bambino (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read the quotes from the references provided. They clearly support both claims. That's 1RR.

If you do not like the wording, please propose an alternative wording here that reflects the meaning of these quotes. Clearly, there are important voices in Canada that do not accept the GG's authority. I'll gladly accept a rewording, but let's use the discussion page for this. Most of all, do not remove these quotes and sources again. --soulscanner (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it could be reworded. Of course it was been maintained at least as long as King-Byng Affair. I don't know that successive governments have necessarily mentioned it though they undoubtedly have not changed the status quo, thus in a way, maintain it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The CBC Zolf piece pretty explicitly says "long-held precedent" (King-Byng) and "Since then the Liberal view" (Liberals having formed the government once or twice - and successively - since 1926). How much more sourcing is needed, the source is online for the reader to decide for themselves. Maybe some rewording. Franamax (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine, give the rewording a shot, but the Zolf quote says that it is the well known Liberal view, meaning King, Saint Laurent, Pearson, Trudeau, Chretien, and Martin governments all maintained this view. This is a complex issue that hasn't been important since the 1920's. It might be important now that we have an infant minority government, so it may be that the controversy will repeat itself. The main thing is that this view be fairly weighted. It is by no means marginal. The monarchist view might be, though. It's good to be able to discuss this civilly for a change. --soulscanner (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, how many ways can you split a hair? "...governing parties have long maintained..."? "some governing parties"? "a governing party"? If the Conservatives were denied a writ by the GG, they'd adopt the same view - they just haven't yet. (Like, say, if the GG 42-odd days ago had said "no, you're breaking your own law about fixed dates") The only problem I can see is "successive", which might imply "continuous" - which is undoubtedly true, but we got no source see, just the plain fact that it's obvious isn't enough. Other than my lame suggestions above, I got nuthin'. Franamax (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, but that would be mostly speculation and you'd have to comb through some recent legal journals to back this up; believe me, I've tried to find sources that say this. Seeing that this is a controversial issue on this page (although less controversial now that measures have been applied to assure a more convivial debate), I think we need to be very precise here. --soulscanner (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's avoid speculation and theorising; we don't know for sure what positions the governing parties maintained on the the Governor General's ability to exercise her constitutional powers. I can give an alternate wording a try, but I'm in the midst of cleaning up an article right now, and may be off tomorrow to somewhere with very poor internet connection. I'll see what I can come up with, though. PS- the 1RR applies to Canadian monarchy and Royal Family articles, Soulscanner. --G2bambino (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

{{Dubious}}? Do you seriously question these facts or are you simply requesting better cites? DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

G2, when you mention your 1RR restriction, do you mean this, where it says "all Canadian monarchy related articles (generally speaking)"? Generally speaking, you are making edits concerning the role of the monarchy in Canada. Are you narrowly interpreting "generally", or do you have some other restriction in mind? Franamax (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't offer you clarification on that; by my view, this isn't a monarchy related article. What's "dubious" - for lack of a better term - is the voracity of the claim in the article; it may not be as solid as the present wording makes out. Is there some other tag that would be appropriate? It hopefully won't be there very long, anyway. --G2bambino (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

{{Dubious}} is a statement you suspect is untrue. {{Fact}} requests a citation for the statement. I also suggest that the edit war over tags is both lame and unsightly. How about just discussing a solution? DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

and though the first part is in response to G2, the final suggestion is thrown out in general. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

"successive Canadian governments have long maintained" ->

• "many successive Canadian governments have long maintained"
• "the political party forming the government has often maintained"
• "a common theme of successive Canadian governments is that"
• "a common theme of some political parties forming the government is that"
• "the editor-cat was tortured until it howled in agony"

Successive/some/many? Government/political party/common view/judicial view? Some/many/most of the G.pp.cv.jv maintain this? Maintain/opine/hold the view/insist/are confident? How important is this precise re-wording? Franamax (talk) 04:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Is "It has long been held" too simplistic? DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

I've taken this dispute here, specifically here. This isn't a discussion about content anymore. --soulscanner (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I took it here too. I'd only notified G2b, but there it is... Franamax (talk) 04:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not editing here until this is resolved. It's futile. We could have solved this by now. --soulscanner (talk) 04:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Note

Unless I'm missing something; the Governor General of Canada is linked to the Canadian monarchy. If Canada were not a Monarchy, there'd be no Governor General. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The position would still exist, it serves a procedural purpose. If Canada were not a monarchy, the position might be renamed "president", but it wouldn't go away. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Canada, oh but to dream. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to be a killjoy, but there are probably more people dreaming of a Republic of Quebec and an elected Senate than a Republic of Canada. --soulscanner (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

We'll make it in one peace; I'm hopeful. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Geopolitical Map Requires Revision

Hello,

The geopolitical image of Canada's borders is wrong in regards to the Arctic borders. Canada has not used Sector Theory (pie wedge) to claim its borders as it has limited validation in international law. In 1986 Prime Minister Mulroney formally adopted straight baselines around the Arctic Archipelago, which greatly alters the maritime borders, for instance Canada does not claim sovereignty to the North Pole anymore.

This is a common problem as most government of Canada maps still portray sector theory maps. However, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans does explain baselines here:

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/canadasoceans-oceansducanada/marinezones-zonesmarines-eng.htm

I tried to google a straight baseline map of Canada with little luck, and unfortunately I am not Wiki savvy. I'm hoping someone might be willing to tackle this......

This ties into the whole Arctic sovereignty dispute.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.134.119 (talk) 04:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see that people like to have evidence for these things. There's an issue of the Canadian Military Journal that dealt with the Arctic... For the faults of sector theory and Canada's adoption of straight baselines (particularly the last half of p.35), see Kilaby pp 34-36.

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo6/no4/doc/north-nord-01-eng.pdf

And Charron that discusses how straight baselines were applied pp.43-44

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo6/no4/doc/north-nord-02-eng.pdf

They're both great backgrounders for understanding border issues in the North

Thank again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.134.119 (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe you are correct but I haven't a clue on how to make a map that reflects that. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice map! --soulscanner (talk) 06:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to upload a different map? I've seen many maps that show all the provinces and simply do not use a northern border. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.134.119 (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Symbolic and political executive

Most political scientists generally refer to a dual executive as made up of a symbolic and political executive. The intent of the 5 suporting references is to establish without doubt that the Crown is widely regarded as "the symbolic executive". Please do not alter the positioning or the content of the references. I'm restoring this terminology as it has been previously removed and the supporting references altered. The writing could probably be improved, but please do not remove the terminology, or express this fact in "weasel words" (e.g. "is said to be"). --soulscanner (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I won't alter or remove them, I promise. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Version 1

The very first question that pops into my mind is: why is there so much detail in the government and politics section? This is not the place to go into so much minutae about who holds what opinion on the role of whatever position; the section should be a summary.

I made an attempt at trimming the wording down from what it was a couple of days ago (and which has since been further added to!):

The Cabinet is typically regarded as the active seat of executive power; by convention and to maintain democratic principles, it execises on a day-to-day basis that authority which is constitutionally vested in the monarch, while the sovereign and her appointed representative, the Governor General, act predominantly in a ceremonial and apolitical role. Made up of ministers generally accountable to the elected House of Commons, the Cabinet is headed by the Prime Minister, who is normally the leader of the party that holds the confidence of the House of Commons. This arrangement, which stems from the principles of responsible government, ensures the stability of government, and makes the Prime Minister's Office one of the most powerful organs of the system, tasked with selecting, besides the other Cabinet members, Senators, federal court judges, heads of Crown corporations and government agencies, and the federal and provincial viceroys for appointment by the Crown.

The other detail can go elsewhere, either at Government of Canada or Monarchy of Canada, I'd say. It's excessive here. --G2bambino (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that more streamlined and brief paragraphs are desirable in this article. To be clear, you are proposing replacing the entire paragraph with the above text, correct? DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the entire second paragraph; though, perhaps not word for word as I've proposed above. It was just a try at cutting out some of the detail while still explaining the basics. --G2bambino (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty fair statement of reality. Little quibbles: exercises; "federal court" - introduces an opaque term, could use a link to something for the naive reader; "viceroy"s - same thing, huh? what's that? - especially since the GG is the "federal viceroy" and that's not made clear, and barring that issue, viceroy could link to Lt. Gov. so readers could easily explore the term. I'd like to see something in there as to how important it is that cabinet ministers be members of the house, as it does significantly affect the makeup of the cabinet. That could be supported with a million ref's from newspapers. I'm all for keeping the verbiage trimmed though. Franamax (talk) 03:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Pairing down the section is a good idea. I'd be for moving the sentence about Forsey and the Liberals to a Government of Canada page and expanding on it. It requires more space to explain it fairly. That might require a little more consensus now that others have made contributions on it.

My concern is that the symbolic nature of the Crown be very clearly emphasized. It may or may not have political power; it is unclear how many powers, if any, the GG and Queen still have. The Crown is an important concept, though. It represents the will of the Canadian people in a nonpartisan way; it does not represent the will of the Queen or GG; if it did, it would be undemocratic. I don't really get that out of the reading of this version. I think the new intro helps with it though. --soulscanner (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm still thinking about the exact changes but, in principle, I approve. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Franamax, What do you mean exactly about the importance of Cabinet ministers being MPs? I suspect you are saying that they ought to accountable to the House but it is not required. In fact, the Minister of State for Seniors is a Senator. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm referring to the huge stir when a senator is named to cabinet, since it goes so much against the grain (i.e. Fortier). Yes, it's not an automatic restriction, but the practical effect is to vastly limit the pool of cabinet ministers, for instance if a highly competent finance minister weren't re-elected, it's very very unlikely they would resume in that portfolio. Contrast this with the obviously much different US executive, and I'm not sure how the British one works (many more Lords in it I think). This is a fairly notable feature of how Canadian government works (again, in actual practice) and in fact could be regarded as somewhat perverse. I guess rather than the somewhat vague "accountable to Parliament", I'm thinking more on the lines of "usually selected from, and answerable to, the elected Parliament". Franamax (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If youI do not object feel strongly about it, I do not object to it; either phrasing is alright with me. --soulscanner (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This is quibbling, I know, but does anybody else find he sentences a little long? Could they be chopped up into something my ADT can handle without changing content? --soulscanner (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Version 2

I actually prefer that we pare it down even more.

Canada is a parliamentary democracy with a federal system of parliamentary government and strong democratic traditions. The Parliament is made up of the Crown and two houses: an elected House of Commons and an appointed Senate. Each Member of Parliament in the House of Commons is elected by simple plurality in an electoral district or riding. General elections must be called by the Prime Minister within five years of the previous election, or may be triggered by the government losing a confidence vote in the House (usually only possible during minority governments). Members of the Senate, whose seats are apportioned on a regional basis, are chosen by the Prime Minister and formally appointed by the Governor General, and serve until age 75.

Canada is also a constitutional monarchy, with The Crown acting as a symbolic or ceremonial executive. The Crown consists of Queen Elizabeth II (legal head of state) and her appointed viceroys, the Governor General (acting head of state) and provincial Lieutenant-Governors , who perform most of the monarch's ceremonial roles. . The political executive consists of the Prime Minister (head of government) and the Cabinet and carries out the day-to-day decisions of government. The Cabinet is made up of ministers usually selected from the House of Commons and headed by the Prime Minister , who is normally the leader of the party that holds the confidence of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) is one of the most powerful institutions in government , initiating most legislation for parliamentary approval and selecting, besides other Cabinet members, Senators, federal court judges, heads of Crown corporations and government agencies, and the Governor General. The Crown formally approves parliamentary legislation and the Prime Minister's appointments.