Talk:Canada

This article is hereby recognized as a recipient of the FCGA Award.

Question on an Assertion re Dieppe and Stalin

The text asserts that the raid on Dieppe convinced Stalin to wait until 1944 for the Western Allies to invade Western Europe.

This is a questionable statement. Dieppe did not change Stalin's behaviour or attitude in any respect. He continued to press the Allies for an invasion of Europe sooner rather than later. At the Teheran Conference in November 1943, Stalin pushed Churchill hard for a deadline for a cross channel landing; Churchill argued for landings in Mediterranean, which to him represented "the soft underbelly" of Europe; Churchill was mindful of the failure at Dieppe, and reluctant to cross the channel.

Rather than affecting Stalin, who would have been indifferent to large numbers of British, American, or Canadian casualties, the Dieppe raid simply demonstrated to the western Allies how difficult it would be to invade a fortified coast. The meticulous attention that the Allies paid to strength in numbers, logistics, deception and secrecy all reflect the lessons learned at Dieppe.

Please remove the reference to Stalin in the article on Dieppe; it is inaccurate.

Is Canada a kingdom?

Am I right in thinking that Canada is a Kingdom de facto but not de jure? The simplest definition of kingdom is "country with a king of queen as head of state" and that certainly applies. --Camaeron (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Canada's head of state is a monarch by legal definition, which makes it a de jure monarchy. Monarchy and kingdom are synonyms for this purpose. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been a controversial issue. The Commonwealth realms are not, as far as I know, referred to as kingdoms; though, as you say, they fit the description. My instinct is to shy away from using the word.--Gazzster (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets stick to monarchy and commonwealth realm. --soulscanner (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Canada is a kingdom, but it's not called one. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The closest to a label for a Commonwealth monarchy is realm. And even that seems to be a descriptive, not official name.--Gazzster (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers! So Canada is definitely a de facto kingdom but is it really de jure to? Does anyone know if it has ever been referred to as such (preferrably in a document or something credible!). --Camaeron (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The Department of Canadian Heritage has referred to Canada as a kingdom in some of its educational material, and a number of authors have done the same; the references were dug up when this debate took place before, but I can't remember when that was, and thus where it is now. --G2bambino (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I just typed in "kingdom of canada and it doesnt even redirect here! Maybe it's worth looking into. On the other hand I found this: Name_of_Canada#Adoption_of_Dominion It lists the controversies about the name etc. Thanks anyway though! --Camaeron (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Canada is NOT a de facto kingdom. While some may argue it is due to the Queen power, these are only ceremonial. This being said, Canada is a de jure kingdom, but not de facto (if the Queen tried to inforce her rule, her powers would most likely be stripped. The monarch is more a tradition if anything). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.153.138 (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, that's true in any constitutional monarchy, Denmark, Belgium, Canada, Britain, you-name-it. Royal Powers have actually been stripped twice in Britain. See Commonwealth of England or Glorious Revolution for details. But that doesn't stop any of them from being kingdoms, de facto or otherwise. The rule is simple: if it's got a king, it's a kingdom; if it doesn't, it isn't. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In Canada? it's all very confusing (is Canada a kingdom or not). GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's only as confusing as you make it. --G2bambino (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll go by the Constitution & common usage. Besides, we don't want to give Rufus a heart attack. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The constitution doesn't say anything. Common usage... well, common usage isn't always accurate. Canada fits the dictionary definition of a kingdom, whether or not Rufus' heart likes it or not. --G2bambino (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you guys can get a consensus for using Kingdom in this article? That's good enough for me. I'm quite 'neutral' about its usage. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that dispute is long resolved, GoodDay. --G2bambino (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(Canada Has No Pants, Canada Needs No Pants)Gopher65 (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC) EDIT: G2bambino pointed out that most people won't get that reference, and will think that it's just nonsense (well, it kind of is, but it is also kinda on topic). It is a reference to an internet meme that was going around for a while "Gondor Has No Pants, Gondor Needs No Pants"; this itself is a reference to two different movie versions of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring: The 2001 Peter Jackson adaptation, and the 1978 animated film directed by Ralph Bakshi. In the Jackson version Boromir says "Gondor has no King, Gondor needs no King" in reference to Aragorn's kingship of Gondor. In the Bakshi version Aragorn wears a loincloth, so he literally "wears no pants". Hence the combination of the two into "Gondor Has No Pants, Gondor Needs No Pants". It was suppose to be a funny way of saying "Canada has no King" (which is ontopic), but I suppose most people probably didn't get such an obscure reference.Gopher65 (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that was pretty obscure! Thanks for the explanation. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Canada isn't a Kingdom unless Canada ITSELF has a Monarch. It doesn't, so it isn't. Is every country in the Commonwealth automatically a Kingdom? That would be silly. On the other hand, one of the titles of Elizabeth II is "Queen of Canada". So I think what we need here is a better definition of the word "Kingdom". In my view, that word is always associated with a Monarchy that has controls the government. There *must* be a better definition of Kingdom other than "Place that has a King." Otherwise We'll have to start calling the UK the UQ: "The United Queendom". Afterall, Britain doesn't have a King right now, so it obviously isn't a kingdom. Gopher65 (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Pure tripe. --G2bambino (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"Queendom": very droll, <grin>. Vis-a-vis your other point, several countries in the Commonwealth are republics, not kingdoms. India is the largest of these. You can easily spot the republics because their heads-of-state are called presidents. Canada doesn't have one. Bit of a giveaway that. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That Queendom bit was a joke:P. And if you read my post, you'll see that I pointed out that she is indeed called "The Queen of Canada. But my main point was (and I suppose I wasn't clear on this), what is the technical definition of the word Kingdom? Not the simple, everyday usage, but the *real* definition. Until someone defines that word, then there is no point in arguing. I have the feeling that, once a definition of that word is decided, it will be obvious whether Canada is technically considered a Kingdom or not (one way or the other). And don't edit other people's posts on talk pages without reason G2bambino. That's not polite.Gopher65 (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary, it is putting in nonsense like "(Canada Has No Pants, Canada Needs No Pants. Hahahahaha.)" that is impolite, thank you. Further, if you want to know what the definition of "kingdom" is, might I suggest you go to your local library and consult a dictionary? --G2bambino (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A kingdom in which the king controls the government is known as an "Absolute monarchy"; one in which the government controls the king is known as a "Constitutional monarchy". Canada and the UK are the latter. Basically if Canada isn't a kingdom, then neither is the UK since the Queen's place in government is practically identical in each. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

True enough. Based on this page: Canada's_name#Adoption_of_Dominion, I'd say that Canada can't be referred to as a Kingdom, since the use of the term Kingdom in the name of Canada was official rejected. But since Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy, and Monarchy is synonymous with kingdom in this context, I'd say that Canada is a technically a kingdom. But for the purposes of this article, since Canada is already referred to as a Monarchy, it would be repetitive to say that Canada is a "Monarchical Kingdom" or something like that. One or the other, not both. Which is what I *think* the original poster of this question was asking?Gopher65 (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Canada (like Australia, New Zealand etc) is a Kingdom, as its 'head of state' is a Queen regnant (thus King, when male). However, Canada's Constitution doesn't describe the country as Kingdom of Canada. Constitional monarchy is the preferred discription.GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I restored Gopher's "commentary." Apparently it wasn't inane nonsense. --G2bambino (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I added the following to the section on "Etymology" however it was deleted within an hour. Here is my explaination...Read & Agree =P "Canada was to be fashioned as a ‘dominion’ despite the wishes of many of the founders, including John A. Macdonald. In fact, the framers of the constitution had agreed upon the name the ‘Kingdom of Canada,’ however it was Whitehall which refused the pretentious title believing it might antagonize post-civil war America." (“Canadian Confederation,” Library and Archives Canada, 03 February 2008 <http://www.collectionscanada.ca/confederation/023001-2415-e.html>. AND John Farthing, Freedom Wears a Crown (Toronto, 1957)) Muckish (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because, just like I mentioned in the edit summary, your reference makes *no* mention of the "Kingdom of Canada", the title being referred as pretentious, nor of Whitehall's reasoning for refusing the title. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You have heard of the term 'forked tongue', well it was a good observation of the 'politics' in Canada. Things are called one thing but are in fact another.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 05:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I find it astonishing that so many Canadians want to make our Monarchy invisible. If I was Prime Minister it would be very visible. Why are so many Canadians ashamed we are a monarchy? We should be proud of this distinctive characteristic which takes nothing away from our Canadianism but makes us unique in North America and establishes a clear link to our extraordinary past. - Nick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.214.158 (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Confederation: Four Original Provinces!

This page states that Canada was formed with the union of three British American colonies. In fact, there were four original provinces: Canada East (which became Quebec), Canada West (which became Ontario), Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I tried to correct the error, but the page was protected. Can someone who has the power to make changes correct this or explain to me why the article states otherwise? Thank-you! 70.51.233.111 (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC) SY

There were three colonies: Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and the Province of Canada. The Province of Canada had been one colony since 1840, but that wasn't working out very well, so forming a federation with Canada West and Canada East as two separate provinces seemed like a good compromise. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

However, the province of Canada was still internally divided along East/West lines. That is why Confederation is taught to have been an amalgamation of four provinces.Mgraham1985 (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It is true that Canada West and Canada East were different regions, but they were only regions. The Province of Canada was the true province. It is similar to the present case of Newfoundland and Labrador. Newfoundland and Labrador as a whole is a province, but either Newfoundland or Labrador by itself is not a province, but a region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aapcanada (talk • contribs) 20:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Government section needs more details ?

Good day.'

As a Canadian, I have learned alot of the details concerning Canada's Government system that is not truly reflected in the current details.

In particular.

1. In the federal election each 'riding' elects a MP, that normally but not always belongs to a political party.

2. The winner of each riding, first past the post, wins the riding.

3. The party who elects the most number of ridings, normally appoints their party leader to the position of Prime Minister; this would be the case in most majority governments, where the poltiical party wins the majority of the seats.

Not quite. The party that wins the most ridings is invited by the Queen, acting through her Governor General, to form a Governments. Nick

4. Note that in the election, the people do not vote directly for the Prime MInister, except that the Prime Minister must win a seat in the general election is his or her riding.

5. The Prime Minister selects the Ministers to his government Cabinet. (Not exactly: the Governor General appoints them, on the advice of the PM). The Prime Minister and the cabinet determine government policy that must be voted for in the house. Party 'whips' exercise some level of party control to ensure that the party members vote in accordance to that of the Prime Minister. Failure to do so, may result in explusion from the Cabinet and or the Party, case example, Mr. Joe Comuzzi, who was ousted from the cabinet for not supporting same gender marriages, in accordance with the Liberal Prime Minister, and then left Liberal Party to support a Conservative motion, in the next term when the Conservative party had formed a minority government.

Just to advise that it would make the understanding clearer to know these details.

All the best !

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 05:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note: The Prime Minister doesn't have to be a member of Parliament (House of Commons). We've had members of the Senate serve as Prime Minister. In fact he/she doesn't have to be a member of either; but it helps to be. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well that is another detail that we do not know about.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 00:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

First off, the section does, I believe, say the PM is appointed by the Governor General, and so I don't think there's any confusion about him/her being popularly elected. Your other points are valid, but I wonder if this is the place to go into such detail. The articles Politics of Canada and Government of Canada go much more indepth into the workings of Ottawa. --G2bambino (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As a Canadian, I was taught many things about the system, little did the system expose the details, such as the simple truth, that you don't actually vote for the Prime Minister. These details are important, and or there should be a link to that detail. Is there ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

On paper, yes: The Governor General can ask anyone to be Prime Minister, but it's never happened that someone who's not a member of parlement has become the PM. It probably never will happen, either. To serve as Prime Minister, you need to be able to stand in the House (and to stand in the house you ordinarily need to be an MP) or you'll have a hell of a time getting anything done. Not to mention that there's a truckload of parliamentary functions and parliamentary privileges that only the Prime Minister has access to; In short, it would hobble parliament beyond function if the PM couldn't attend as an MP.--71.17.190.129 (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not true. Canada has had two PMs who were senators. --G2bambino (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Why si this website not help

this website does not work because i'm trying to find imformation about canada and I cant find anything about canada fixs this website or else —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.79.201 (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you read our article: Canada? (EhJJ)^TALK 00:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nominal gdp and rank

the 2007 estimate that was posted here is as reliable as the 2008 estimate found on the page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_future_GDP_estimates_(nominal) Both the 2007 and 2008 numbers are just estimates the most reliable one is from 2006. If the 2007 estimate was allowed then the 2008 estimate should be too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grmike (talk • contribs) 04:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Article assistance: Canadian Siberian Expeditionary Force

I've created the above article. If any editors have the time/inclination to help fill this in, it would be much appreciated.--Gregalton (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Canada or?

Is the official name just Canada or does Canada have a title, like The Commonwealth of Canada or the Republic of Canada?

71.116.23.185 (talk) 02:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The official name is just Canada. It has the official title of "Dominion of Canada", and in old texts you will find it written like that a lot, but that's not part of its legal name. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The official name is just Canada is not a legal fact. This interpretation is simply the majority concensus of the Wikipedians who have decided to weight-in on "this issue". However, a majority of people believing something to be true, does not make it true.

The tradition of the 153 or so, independent countries, on the planet is to have a long-form name (i.e., the official name, full name, formal name, legal name, etc.,), and then have un-offical short-form name(s) derived from the long-form name. In countries where the Feudal System was present, in other words Monarchies, the long-form name would be derived form its Sovereign.

e.g., Grand Duchy of Luxemburg has a Head-of-State that is a Grand Duke.

Now, the Head-of-State of Canada is Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Since, a Queen rules a Kingdom, naturally one would expect the long-form name of the Kingdom of Canada. For political reasons, this was not officially adopted.

Now, Kings and Queens not only rule Kingdoms, but they also rule realms/domaines of equal rank, known as Unions, Dominions, Commonwealths, Federations, Federated States, United Provinces, etc. Thus, the adoption of the long-form name (i.e., offical name) of the Dominion of Canada in 1867, would be entirely consistent with the times, however adopting just Canada would not. It would be total break with the established practises of the time, and thus looks to me like a revisionist-historians devise.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk)

The key point is that official documents are ambiguous about the point, and this could be debated ad infinium until some official act rules one way or the other. The Constitution mentions "a Dominion under the name of Canada", which as per User:ArmchairVexillologistDon, probably means that they intended the word Dominion to be an official part of the long form name. However, given that modern governments of Canada no longer use the title on even the most formal, legal, and ceremonial documents, it can be assumed that they do not consider the title to be official. Since there is no consensus between sources, we have no choice but to assume that the government of a country gets to pick its own name, so here we list it without a long-form name. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello ArcticGnome. No ... "legal name" is defined as the full name of a person. Now a country is not a person, however the analogy is implicit. The whole issue of Dominion of Canada (i.e., Dominion du Canada) versus Canada is an attempt to placate the French-Canadian population, at the expense of the English-Canadian population.

The French believe it is "Dominiation", whereas the English believe it is "Domininus" (Latin for "Lord").

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk)

Regardless of why it stopped using a long-form name, it did. The Dominion title is used in neither legal nor ceremonial situations anymore. We have to assume that a state is allowed to choose its own name, so we have to go with what the government is doing, hence the lack of a long-form name in articles. Nevertheless, since the Constitution still describes the country as a "Dominion by the name of Canada", I personally believe that the title itself is still legally valid, just not as part of the name of the country. This is why I think that it's silly for us (wikipedians) to remove the word Dominion from every context, even when we are clearly talking about titles rather than names. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Trollin', trollin', trollin'

Keep quiet, quiet, quiet,

Though their bait is tempting,

Keep them trollies movin' and hide!

DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The original poster was not necessarily a troll. There are many people who would legitimately wonder the answer to the original question. Or were you referring to myself or ArmchairVexillologistDon as trolls? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Original Anon seemed to quack like a troll to me. You and AVD were responding in good faith. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I would rather assume good faith. Helping newbies is important enough to be worth inadvertently feeding some trolls in the process. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The "title" of a book is it's long-forn name. The term "style and title" means the long-form name. The intent of the Fathers of Confederation was, in my opinion, to give the new country the style and title of the Dominion of Canada (i.e., Dominion du Canada) .

Note that Dominion is a Feudal Rank, and not a title (i.e., just as Kingdom is a Feudal Rank and not a title).

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk)

The article Name of Canada covers this point.

I also take issue with the argument that official documents are ambiguous on this point: the U.N. (and all the U.N. system international organisations), Canadian govt, and others all state unambiguously that Canada has one official long-form and short-form name, Canada. Don has never provided a source to support his argument that style and title must always and everywhere be the same as official long-form name (although many countries have official long-form names that include the style/title). Don's opinion on the intent of the Fathers of Confederation is his opinion, and does not in any case mean that this is the official long-form name now.--Gregalton (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello GregAlton. No ... you are wrong. There is no document that explicitly states that the long-form name (i.e., the full name, legal name, official name) of this country is just Canada.

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)

Why in the world does a country have to have different long and short form names? Is there some international law requiring all countries to have a two versions of their name? If, as you say, it "makes no sense" for a country to have the same long and short form of their names, what are the long forms of Japan, New Zealand, Barbados, Ukraine, Tuvalu, Turkmenistan, Romania, Malaysia, and Jamaica? Also, what are the short forms of Dominican Republic and United Arab Emirates? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's end this old argument and move on. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

UNTerm system: Canada - "Short name: Canada; Formal Name: Canada." An actual source as opposed to "implied" long-form names, appeals to consistency, legal convention, and a claim that a long-form name cannot be the same as a short-form name. I agree with GoodDay; this argument has so little substance that I'm happy to leave it with a source (one of many).--Gregalton (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

'ArmchairVexillologistDon has been making this argument for many years, to my certain knowledge. He has never persuaded any substantial number of people. He's entitled to his opinion but can we please not encourage him. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The legal name is the Dominion of Canada, not the Kingdom of Canada or Canada or anything else. This official name is used in the Senate and House of Commons, Buckingham Palace, and in the various provincial and territorial governments. So, I hereby proclaim that SOMEONE WITH HIGHER AUTHORITY to change the formal/legal name of Canada and trust what the government calls it... Just use common sense. If the fourteen governments of Canada call it that, why don't you??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aapcanada (talk • contribs) 20:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Being more precise

Canada (/ˈkænədə/) is a country which occupies the north end of North America, extending from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west and northward into the Arctic Ocean.

or

Canada (/ˈkænədə/) is a country occupying most of the north end of North America, extending from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west and northward into the Arctic Ocean.

or

Canada (/ˈkænədə/) is a country occupying most of the northern end of North America, extending from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west and northward into the Arctic Ocean.

I am oviously emphasizing "the end" of America in hopes of being more precise in the whereabouts of where Canada truly lies in "Northern" or "North America". Yea this is a good point or nay? Feedback Please. - Intuitionz (talk) 05:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nay; I prefer the current intro. GoodDay (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the current text as well. I don't at all like the bit about Canada being at the "end" of the continent, we're just as likely at the "beginning" of it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The current text is fine. What's all this about "the end"? It already says "Northern North America", that makes Canada sound like a negligable blip at the very tip of the continent, when it occupies a huge part, not just "the end". French Film Blurred (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Nova Scotia in the Dutch Empire

Hello everyone! There is a discussion at Talk:Dutch Empire#Request For Comment: Map, because user Red4tribe has made a map of the Dutch Empire (Image:Dutch Empire 4.png) that includes significative parts of Nova Scotia. Would you like to comment? Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

New Map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dutch_Empire_new.PNG http://www.colonialvoyage.com/ square=tradingpost (Red4tribe (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

Still OR, POV and unsourced (yours is not not a credible source). Please discuss stuff at Talk:Dutch Empire#Request For Comment: Map. This was just a request for comment, not a discussion. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.colonialvoyage.com/
http://www.colonialvoyage.com/biblioDAfrica.html (credible source) (Red4tribe (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

Geography and history section getting long

They could do with some condensing. --soulscanner (talk) 01:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Lake Winnipeg

You cant see it in the satallite picture... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.99.235 (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

NAFTA

The section on trade mentions that NAFTA added Mexico and Chile to the free trade zone that had currently existed between Canada and the US. Doesn't Chile have separate free trade agreements with the 3 existing NAFTA members, rather than being part of NAFTA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.170.20 (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Cities of Canada table

It's a really nice table and deserves to be in a prominent place, but wouldn't be more appropriate leading off the List of cities in Canada article? If each section had a table like this the article would be unreadable.--soulscanner (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aapcanada (talk • contribs) 20:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Canadian Federation

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 occupying most of northern North America, 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.

The land occupied by Canada was inhabited for millennia by various aboriginal people. Beginning in the late 15th century, British and French expeditions explored and later settled 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.

A federation now comprising 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 at the federal level. Technologically advanced and industrialized, Canada maintains a diversified economy that is heavily reliant upon its abundant natural resources and upon trade—particularly with the United States, with which Canada has had a long and complex relationship. (more...)