Talk:Canada/Archive 16

Archives
2003–2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 2006 7 8 9 10 2007 11 12 13 14 15 2008 16 17 18 2009 19 2010 20 2011 21 2012 22 2013 23 2015–present 24 25 26 27 Discussion of Canada's official name Canada's name Official Name 1 Future TFA paragraph Main Page

Dominion of Canada

It comes to my attention that a few other users beilieve that"Canada" is Canada's official name. I'll be straightforward... it is NOT. I am Canadian and my cousin is Paul Martin (the former PM of Canada and in my opinion the best PM yet although my opinion is biast). This is the most important role in Canadian politics. We are close and talk to each other often. I asked him about this once (after reading about your disagreements). He said that the Dominion of Canada is the official name for our great nation. I sincerely hope that you will change the article to the truth. Thank you for your time and concern.

CANADA RULES (I know this isn't really formal, but it is true and that's all that matters)

ROCK ON —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.231.58 (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds a pretty cool reference to me. Do you think Mr Martin would jot a few lines for us, or give a reference we could use?--Gazzster (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing! See if you can get your "cousin" to teach you how to spell 'biased'Homely (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

great nation ? that's too much, canada is not that great compared to other european nations like Germany —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.171.107 (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Everyone lives in the greatest nation on earth! --Gazzster (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul Martin? Canada's best PM? GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

---

This discussion ends here. This talk page is NOT a forum, but a page to discuss on how to improve this article. -- Reaper X 15:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Dominion of started to be dropped for documents in the 1950s and the Canada Act of 1982 made it officialy Canada, not the Dominion of Canada 209.53.180.129 (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Canadian French language in Canada

Which is the better article to link to in the context of the lead discussing Canada's two official languages? Canadian French is a brief article discussing dialects within Canada, while French language in Canada discusses the use of French in Canada. I strongly prefer the latter but I see it has recently been changed to the former. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

'Canadian English' yet 'French language in Canada' seems a mismatch, no? Quizimodo (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying you don't like the titles of the articles? If so, bring that there. My question remains which article is more appropriate and useful to the reader? DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Not so much that, but I am curious as to why 'Canadian French' is a shell of what it should be given the topic matter. I have since observed quite the discussion over at those articles about the titles and article content. Change the link back herein, if you wish. Quizimodo (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Those two articles should be merged IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say merge both articles into a Canadian French article title which is more consistent with naming standards across Wikipedia. Pointless having two articles when one would suffice and makes more sense. Ben W Bell talk 22:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You are both likely correct but that discussion belongs at those articles. The question here is which is best for the context here. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

the fact that the mother tongue of canadians is only 59% or whatever it was is bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.208.135 (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Population forumla

this automatically updates ONCE per day at 00:00 UTC & rounds to nearest hundred - an estimate with any more sig figs can only be either false precision or extremely temporary -- Please do not change formula without discussing on talk page

I am the guilty one. I apologize but I had trouble with the formula, so I took it out and put the population update in, hoping someone else would put the good formula back in afterwards. No attempt at being in bad faith. But I tried and tried finding all over the Wiki how to make formula and codes correctly as it seems every time I try to put a new code, it comes out bad. I'd appreciate your help referring me to a page where I could do it properly so I won't annoy you unnecessarily. Thanks. But one thing, why a population clock? It seems less accurate than the Stat Canada quarterly estimates. I believe the source of these estimates are the stats in each provinces. It seems better than using the rate of growth based on a date when anything could change a lot now from then. Ex: who would've thought Newfoundland would gain population? At the July 1st, 2007 based date, Newfoundland would still be declining in the clock now. Correct me if I am mistaken. Pieuvre (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

General information omitted

I read the Japan article very recently and this article gives very little in comparison. I know too little Canadiana to write it but if somebody can please give at least introduction articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.35.71 (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Change to Government Type in Infobox

I would like to change the Government Type in this article's Infobox to "Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy". The current description is "Parliamentary democracy and Federal constitutional monarchy". My reasons:

• This does not remove any links that are in the existing description, except for the old link to federal constitutional monarchy, which just redirects to federal monarchy which is an article that is now being revamped and may be deleted. Instead, my proposal separately links to federation and constitutional monarchy.
• It avoids the redirect that is in the current description (Parliamentary democracy redirects to Parliamentary system)
• It puts the description into one single phrase instead of two separate ones.

--thirty-seven (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the difficulty of saying (or reading) the single phrase outweighs the benefit from having more direct links. --Haemo (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The long phrase is unwieldy. --Soulscanner (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Population density?

This page lists the population density ranking as 219th, but Canada appears as #229 in List of countries by population density. (Thavron (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC))

Redundancy

I've noticed that the last paragraphs in the History and Economy section are almost identical, describing Free trade, etc. The history section is long. Can we keep the references to recent trade arrangements under the economy section and remove them from the history section? I realize that these are historically important, but I think for the sake of space they go better under the economy section. --Soulscanner (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver skyline missing

How about a classic pic of Vancouver skyline and Ship in English Bay to illustrate Canada's largest Port under economy section? Love that town. --Soulscanner (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, if you can find a free image of it. -- Reaper X 17:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I looked for one, but couldn't find the right one. There are many nice ones already on Wikipedia and on Flickr, but nothing that captures a) the skyline; b) ships in English Bay (showing it's function as Canada's busiest port); c) the mountain backdrop. That's how I think of Vancouver. There are pictures of the port, but somehow that doesn't capture it. I guess I'm asking if anyone found this. --Soulscanner (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

CANADA'S GDP

Canada's nominal gdp in 2006 was 1.275 trillion dollars not 1.089 trillion. It even says that on the page that the highlight links to. Toronto's metro population should be treated the same way Sydney, Australia, and American cities do, expanded to include at least its cma. metro Toronto has at least 5.8 million people. The golden horse shoe area around Toronto (area comparable to metro Chicago) has 8-9 million people. Also, Canada's nominal gdp should be given higher priority since it uses updated exchange rates. 2007 estimate is 1.407 trillion US dollars, 2008 is about 1.53 trillion US dollars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grmike (talk • contribs) 00:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Due to ongoing edit wars this page has been protected for a week. Please discuss the dispute and if you come to a consensus before the protection expires, drop by WP:RFPP or my talk page and request the protection be lowered back to semiprotected. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

I know no one wants to hear it again, but the statement of Canada gaining more autonomy in 1867 than it's constituent parts already had is contradicted by historians and legal scholars. It cannot be presented as a fact in the lead.The only reason this awkward statement is there is because of fatigue and despondency on the part of many good editors who have simply given up on this issue, despite their opposition. This discussion is continuing at the dominion page, and until it is resolved, the statement in the lead is remains dubious. It paints an overly rosy picture of British Imperialism to portray confederation as a magnanimous gift of the British Empire, and pushes a monarchist POV. Although this does compromise the neutrality of the lead, slapping a neutrality tag would be too provocative right now. The dubious tag should call enough attention to an issue that remains hotly contested in the dominion article. The specific part I have difficulty with is the semi-autonomous part. The reasons for this are discussed on the Dominion page and the reader has the right to know that it is debated whether confederation made Canada more independent. The fact is that there is about this. Remoe the word "semi autonomous" and the link to dominon, and w can dispense with the tag.

References:

• Talk:Dominion#Justification_for_tags
• "Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed."NPOV disputes

--soulscanner (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of this is above my head. But being the 'layman' I am, I'm gonna watch how it unfolds; see if I learn anything. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead isn't dubious because you say it is. You obviously seem content to stiu up sh*t for not what. Given that this content has been in place for months without a peep -- in your absence -- I have removed this tag. You have yet to demonstrate how the current content in the lead is incorrect, imbalanced, or dubious. Quizimodo (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediation has been opened on this article & Dominion, hopefully there's a light at the end of the tunnel. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Instead of reverting the tag, let the discussion finish, and once there is consensus, the tag can be removed and/or the wording of the article improved. Also please assume good faith and be civil. Attacking the editor, and not the content is not going to improve the situation. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In agreement with Jeff3000 - gentlemen, please don't get the article 'locked' again. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe Soulscanner has the right to insert a "dubious" tag; however, I suspect he's doing so not because he questions the formation of a federal, semi-autonomous polity in 1867, but because he doubts the link piped from those words to the article Dominion. Whatever his qualms about the use of the word "Dominion," I think the "dubious" tag is misleading as it would cause users not familiar with this debate to believe that there is some question about Canada's emergence as a federal, semi-autonomous polity, when there is not. I think things should be left alone here until the dispute at Dominion is settled; tags at the head of that article should tip anyone off about problems with the use of the term. --G2bambino (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If the wikilink is dubious, and you would like the dubious tag removed until the dispute at Dominion resolved, then the obvious choice would be to remove the wikilink and the dubious tag, until the dispute is resolved. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on whether or not the piped link is dubious - that's a whole other matter. All I'm saying is that the placement of the tag is misleading to readers who haven't a clue what's actually being questioned.

Soulscanner originally removed the link, but then decided to restore it and place the tag. Why? --G2bambino (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The nature of "semiautonomus" is being debated at the Dominion page. I'm not here to debate that topic; that can be left to the other page. The purpose of the tag and link is to state that the term is debated. It provides a link to this section, and a link to the Dominion page where the possible meanings of "semiautonomous" is clarified. --soulscanner (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I hesitate to engage you after your three days of harassment against me, but I'm so flabbergasted that I have to ask: now "semi-autonomous" is debated? I thought your issue was with the use of the word "Dominion." Frankly, I'm starting to think you're losing control of what exactly it is you're disputing. The "federal, semi-autonomous polity" statement here is followed by no less than three footnotes leading to supporting cites. I can't fathom how such a supported claim can be regarded as dubious, and thus believe you want the tag here purely to draw attention to your efforts at Dominion; that is not what the tags are intended for. --G2bambino (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Some definitions define Dominion as a semi-autonomous state. That's not what Canada was in 1867. Canada was a colony in 1867. It had Responisble government, but it was subservient to Britain in every way, not just some. The details of that are on the Dominion page. Again, please stop the personal attacks, assume good faith, and focus on content. --soulscanner (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if I disregard your comments about avoiding "personal attacks"; given your widespread, very public accusations of my being a) a conspirator, b) a vandal, c) a disruptor, and d) a POV pusher, I think I'm entitled to be very suspicious.

Still, you have not addressed what I said: the claim of federal, semi-autonomous polity is supported by three sources. How can it therefore be dubious? Either demonstrate the sources to be wrong, beyond your own personal claims, or leave it alone. --G2bambino (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

We can discuss it and resolve relevant content issues the dominion page later on. I've applied for mediation at that page to move things forward since they've been stuck for so long. This discussion is about whether we can indicate that there is a disagreement of the wording. There has been for months. Until it's resolved, there needs to be a tag. Again, please assume good faith. We both embarrassed ourselves by hurling around accusations like that yesterday. I'm not going to get sucked in to a mudslinging match this time. --soulscanner (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In agreement (again): Remove the tag, until 'Dominion' dispute is resolved. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes: as I've stated, the placement of these tags on notions which may be disagreeable to said editor(s) signifies more an unwillingness or inability to compel rationally on relevant talk pages. Soulscanner began the original dispute on this page; it was quelled when said editor left. Soulscanner then began a new dispute on the 'Dominion' page (where it should be resolved before spreading the dickery), and has since renewed it here -- this is clearly disruptive and will be dealt with in kind. Quizimodo (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Any reader wishing to understand the reaso

Ya wanna run that by me again? GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Image of the Queen

Work it out here, please. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no fair use rationale for the image placed here for this page. I don't know how to write one, and I don't have the time to figure it out. I'm just enforcing the rules. It will be deleted by a bot anyways. It's happened to a whole bunch of images I put on pages, and it was too complicated to figure out all the rules. I know that you have to prove that there is no free image available to use a copywrited image like that; that rule made me give up on putting pictures up that are not creative commons. I know on this page, there is already a fine picture of the queen on the picture of currencies, so you might have trouble proving that there is no other picture available when another image of her already on the page. --soulscanner (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If you were so concerned about the image being used on pages for which there's no fair use rationale given, why then did you not delete it from Canadian and American politics compared, Style of the Canadian sovereign, Government of Canada, Monarchism in Canada, Debate on the monarchy in Canada, and List of Canadian monarchs? Further, all you had to do was this to quell your concerns. --G2bambino (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Soulscanner, if the Queen image is in violation?, then let the 'Bot' remove it. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't edit those pages. I also noticed that there were fair use rationales for some of those. They probably didn't have other pictures of the Queen, though. Feel free to remove them though. --soulscanner (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Until the Queen next goes out in public wearing her Queen of Canada attire, I don't see how we could get a free image; that seems to make it fair use. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There was already discussion about the fair use of the image. It was decided that the image would remain and could be used with fair use rationale. I've since added this article to the list of those for which this image is used under fair use criteria. --G2bambino (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Then put the rationale there. We can then discuss if we have a consensus for putting it up. The normal procedure here is to ask to put up a picture. If so meone objects, they usually do not go up. There is not a lot of room on this page, and there is also already a picture of the Queen here. You can look to the past and see that this is the common way to do things here. Even if it were not fair use, I'd object on the grounds that the picture is too big and that there is already one here. --soulscanner (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that as it's been there for some time uncontested, you need to gain a consensus to take it out. Your objections are noted. --G2bambino (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You put it up this morning. There needs to be a consensus for putting it there. --soulscanner (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I see now that it hasn't been there for some time, but I most certainly did not put it up originally, unless you think I'm User:Batfinkw. I have no issue with it being there, GoodDay doesn't seem to mind it there, and obviously nor does Batfinkw; why, then, are you alone allowed to remove it? I'm not going to support the inclusion of the image to my death, but I do question what appear to be ownership issues on your part. --G2bambino (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone took it down, probably because it violated fair use; it may have been a wikibot enforcing policy. You shouldn't knowingly violate these policies by putting up pictures that are not fair use. There's already 2 pictures of the Queen here. There's one where she's signing the constitution with Pierre Trudeau. I don't think you'll be able to show that it's necessary to illustrate here role. It's a smaller picture, does not violate Wiki policies, and illustrates her role nicely. I think that's sufficient. --soulscanner (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There's one picture of the Queen here. Putting the second one up doesn't violate any policies. This is only a matter of whether it's worth while or not to have it. --G2bambino (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Bottom of history section, and in economy section. Two pictures. Putting up that picture does violate wiki policies. The picture is not fair use for this page. You'll need to justify it. If you put that picture up, you are violating wiki policies. You should check the reasons why it was deleted. --soulscanner (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, jeez... you're counting the currency image? Ugh. I'm not going to justify anything; as I said, I have no problem with it being there - it does not violate any policies - but neither am I particularly passionate about keeping it up, either.

I wonder, though: could you anonymous be Soulscanner posting while logged out? You two sould awfully alike in your arguments; edit histories are almost identical too... Just a thought. --G2bambino (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It does violate policies if there is no fair use rationale for this page.

* If you link to the File:Queen of canada wob.jpg picture site, you will see it clearly spelled out:

This media was proposed for deletion as a replaceable non-free content. The result was to Keep the image, as no adequate free-licensed image exists or can be created to fulfill the limited role performed by this image at the time deletion was considered. However, this image may be replaceable by free images in other contexts, and in such cases the free image must take precedence. A discussion of this decision may exist on the image talk page.

We have a free image of the Queen from Creative Commons here signing the constitution; I think that represent an adequate alternative for this image most of the pages this picture appears. I don't have the time to pursue that issue anyplace than here, though.

*Also, you now know the policy. If you check the discussion page, you'll notice that the policy has been explained to the now non-existent gbambino . Do you know this editor? Seems to share your interest in the Queen. Maybe if you can find this editor, they'll explain it to you better than I and help set up a fair use rationale for this page. Seems to have done a good job for the other pages. --soulscanner (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In future when/if an image of King Charles III (assuming that'll be his name) is put in place of the Queen, then we'll really have a problem. Charles' ears will cover the entire article. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That's getting awfully close to libel against living persons. Watch out, the wikipolice have ears in every talk page... --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Prince Charles has big ears". Sue me. --soulscanner (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait a sec, the big ears joke was my joke. And no it's not libel. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is either, but I've seen users get in trouble for less. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It would make for a good news coverage, Canadian republican faces libel charges from Canadian Royal Family. Anyways, I get what ya mean. If you or anybody wants to strike it out? I wouldn't mind. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Now, back to the main topic. Is there going to be an end to this constant re-add/remove struggle, over the Queen image? It's getting quite annoying. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

More than annoying. The article has now been fully protected as a result. -- Reaper X 21:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it involves the neutrality tags and a request mediation I made regarding the issue. See above. --soulscanner (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, it's rather sad if we can't make a joke, isn't it? I thought it was funny. I confess to being baffled with this image of the Queen thing. 'She's on the Canada page and she's not wearing the Canadian insignia'; 'She's on the Australian page but the picture wasn't taken in Australia.' Jeez, she's the same bloody person.--Gazzster (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what's a joker to do? Arctic Gnome is correct though about the libel stuff. As for the Queen image? I'd prefer it be kept & shrunken (as it cramps up the content). As for the tag? I'm not sure of the rules on those. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As I've been asked to comment here's my take: the current image (the free one of the Queen signing the bill), is better suited for the article on Canada, than the non-free image of the Queen in her regalia; there is a separate (and completely appropriate) subarticle on the monarchy and governance of Canada, where the non-free image makes better sense, but here, the free image serves not only to show the Queen (though somewhat blurry) signing a critical bill as per discussed in the text. Again, the "Canada" article should be overviewing the country, and thus using the non-free image of just the Queen would shift too much of the focus to the person, and away from the country. (Mind you, if you did want that non-free image, it appears to have an appropriate fair-use rationale (though technically, each should be split, one article rationale per section), so it's ok to use for that purposes, and as noted, it is very unlikely that a free replacement of the non-free image of the Queen in regalia will be possible). --MASEM 22:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of languages that are noticed

Punjabi should be writtin there as it is the 5th most spoken language there

Exactly, 5th. --142.151.185.13 (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

History section too long again

I've noticed that the bottom of the history section has grown and mentions FTA and NAFTA twice. Can this be shortened? --soulscanner (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Condensed history section, which was just too long. In the interest of space, I moved mention of NAFTA and trade agreements to the Economics section. This avoids repetition.--soulscanner (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding neutrality tag to contraversial wording

{{editprotected}}
Please add the following tag behing the footnotes following federal dominion in the lead of the article:

.

The word "dominion" is a source of enormous conflict, and appears to be the reason the page has been blocked (now and in October) for edit warring. A clear majority of editors have weighed in that the word dominion should not be used (see archived discussions below) for various reasons (i.e. the meaning of the word is unclear, its meaning has changed, dominion status did not exist in 1867, term is contentious, the term is antiquated, the term is poorly understood, etc.) and other, less contentious words are more appropriate (i.e federation, federal state). The dominion page is currently the preferred venue for resolving this issue to avoid monopolizing the discussion page here. A mediation request has been made over this issue. The words are really the only source of conflict here and should be identified as such. Until this dispute is resolved or the wording changed, a tag be placed on the wording in question.

• Sources contradicting statement in Question: See Dominion article, Confederation section

• Archived discussions:

Poll 1; Poll 2

--soulscanner (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC).

This request should be denied: if anything, this is proof-positive of this editor's indiscriminate addition of tags and ongoing disruption. The term may be contentious among a clutch of Wikipedians, particularly the instigating editor, but this debate is an artificial one of the offending editor's making: definitions for 'dominion' are readily available, and this title was conferred onto Canada in the document which gave rise to it. A number of references as placed also confirm the validity of this assertion. In addition, the polls indicated yielded results that were not in the above editor's favour. As well, Canada is already noted as a 'federal state' in the next paragraph. I would support reversion to the prior, long-standing wording {'federal semi-autonomous polity' with link) or similar (federal colonial state). Throughout, this editor has been unable to compel through salient sourcing, and shouldn't be allowed to cut corners now. Quizimodo (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"The term may be contentious among a clutch of Wikipedians" - Quizimodo ... I'm glad you acknowledge that. If you know that, why would you persistently remove the tag? This request is not about adding or changing content, but about identifying the contentious issue on this page among editors of good faith. --soulscanner (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Should I be surprised that you fixate on one notion in my commentary while glazing over others? The debate is an artificial one. And please spare me your insinuations of good faith, which you have demonstrated little of. Quizimodo (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I won't discuss content here. That can be discussed at the Dominion page. The fact that there is a legitimate, long standing debate is the only issue of interest here. You acknowledge that there is a debate on the issue "clutch" of editors. I've provided links to identify those editors. Are all these editors (the majority here) who disagree with you on this point acting in bad faith? Or is your opinion of them the same as expressed here? --soulscanner (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you won't discuss content here, there's nothing else to discuss: this is, after all, the talk page for the 'Canada' article. You append a dubious tag on this article, and so its merits or lack thereof should be discussed here. And, as before, you fixate on particular notions and make claims unsupported by fact or sources: where is this majority you speak of? And the legitimacy of this debate is questionable, since it is one which has been manufactured by you and compatriots. I maintain that you are acting in bad faith and have been since the get-go, and other editors may be or are mere casualties of circumstance. And, frankly, I don't have time for this. End note. Quizimodo (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"I maintain that you are acting in bad faith and have been since the get-go" - Quizimodo So your reason for denying that there is a legitimate conflict is based on an assumption of that I'm acting in bad faith. I do not think that constitutes a valid reason for continuous edit warring and removing neutrality tags. In the case of neutrality tags, it is up to the editor who is being questioned to satisfy the questions being asked. No one has done that yet. Indeed, on the Dominion page, there are legitimate, albeit disputed, references from constitutional scholars and historians posted that contradict the claim made here. Some editors feel otherwise, but have not provided references that contradict these. That's a legitimate debate. --soulscanner (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That is one reason among many. And, yes, you have NOT satisfactorily answered questions posed to you, nor have you provided reputable citations which justify the 'dubious' tag; therefore, they don't belong. The only valid line of argumentation one can have when deprecating that 'Canada' became a federal dominion upon Confederation in the lead (regardless of what that term means or what you believe it to mean) is to assert that this is not at all indicated in the constitution, which as we all know is false. Quizimodo (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Let it be said, these arguments are all in the archives I posted. They have never been resolved. The references provided indicate words like federation and federal state, which more accurate and more contemporary descriptions, and are prefered by a majority of editors here. Dominion is a vague, antiquated, ambiguous, and poorly understood term. Federation and federal state are more clear, describe the function of Confederation, explain what the federal government is (the contemporary usage for Dominion government), and does not have colonial overtones. I have no trouble with using the word in a historical context, as in the etymology section below, but in an introduction to Canada, contemporary usage should be the norm. No one knows what a Dominion is except historians; it is not a widely used term. This is an overview of contemporary Canada, not Canada in 1900. It is misleading in this context, because it implies that Canada was more independent than it really was in 1867. You cn certainly make arguments for using this antiquated term, but you cannot deny the legitimacy of counter arguements. Until this is resolved, there should be a tag on this usage. --soulscanner (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible for me to get a briefing (of few words) on what's being disputed? If not?, would it be possible to have a consensus review on what should be in the article? GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of the tag right now. The broader issue is whether domionion is an appropriate word to include in the lead. --soulscanner (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I clarified the request a bit. Sorry if it was unclear. --soulscanner (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The word "Dominion" isn't in the lead. Given that you're fighting against a non-existent situation, I can only find myself siding with Quizimodo that you're re-creating a pointless argument. Perhaps you could, for once, explain yourself more clearly? --G2bambino (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC) I see now that Quizimodo has returned the word to the lead. However, you've been trying to place the "dubious" tag there long before this change was made, meaning, therefore, that your concern could not have been over the use of the word "dominion" there. So, my initial points remain: you were fighting against what was then a non-existent situation, which is the epitome of a pointless argument. Perhaps you could, for once, explain yourself more clearly? --G2bambino (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I made this edition given this editor's inability to compromise and yield regarding the existing text, arrived at and implemented months ago in his absence. Since he has failed to relent, why should I or others? Quizimodo (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Dominion referred to a semi-autonomous colony of Britain between 1907 and 1948. Canada did not have Dominion status in 1867. It was far from semi-autonomous because Britain had final say in everything. --soulscanner (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You appear to not know the meaning of "semi-autonomous." --G2bambino (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Soulscanner argues Canada was never a Dominon? GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Go to Dominion

Can we concentrate on straigtening things out at Dominion? Whatever the result there? can be applied here. Besides having the same argument on 'two seperate' articles? is giving me a brain cramp. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what I proposed; until the issue is settled, though, there should be a marker indicating that the term dominion is disputed. --soulscanner (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The very fact that the Tag is being disputed? sorta signifies Dominion isn't settled. Go ahead add, will it help? who knows? will it hurt? nah! GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I carried out the editprotected, adding a {{disputed-inline}} after the text "federal dominion" and its refs. I honestly don't care about the "dominion" issue (even as a Canadian! :p), but there is a dispute, so deal with it - someone can remove the tag when the protection is lifted and a version settled upon. Nihiltres^{t.l} 16:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Could someone summarize this

Clearly, concisely, and with a minimum of name-calling. Simply summarize the arguments for why Canada should, and should not be called a dominion for me. I see a lot of reliable sources in the article which state, and recall learning about this in school, that Canada was formed as a Federal Dominion. Where is the dispute? I hate to see an FA-class article get protected, and tagged like this when it seems totally opaque to me what the problem is. --Haemo (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish this was easy to sum up; though I've been involved in this debate - though less so recently - I'm still not sure what the instigator's actual issues are. Initially it was with the use of the word "dominion" in the lead to describe what Canada became in 1867 (despite cited text from the Constitution Act, 1867), yet the offending word was removed long ago. After some months the same user has now decided to take issue with a piped link from the prhase "semi-autonomous polity within the British Empire" to the article Dominion. He may have peripheral issues with the idea of semi-autonomy and the application of the word "dominion" in any context, but I'm really not quite sure. --G2bambino (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I know summarizing is hard compared to name calling (i.e. "instigator", "his issues", etc.), but that doesn't mean you shouldn't honor the request. It's not about me, it's about references. See below for my "issues". --soulscanner (talk) 07:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems you don't know what "instigator" means, either. --G2bambino (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

An instigator is someone who picks a fight. It's not complimentary or neutral. --soulscanner (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No, an instigator is someone who starts something. One can instigate a fight, but one can also instigate a movement to help the homeless. It seems clear your interpretation of things is clouded by a constant paranoia of collusion and attack. --G2bambino (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Or it could be that you did not choose your words sufficiently carefully, if you had intended your comment to be neutral: Usage: Commonly used with reference to evil actions; as, to instigate one to a crime. Soulscanner is right that it is not generally neutral and does not read as such in your text above.--Gregalton (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose one is free to interpret a word as they choose. --G2bambino (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Still, no one has provided a rationale for using the word dominion. That is what the editor asked for. Although the above is toned down (somewhat) from what was written before, it still reads like a personal attack. That is what the original editor specifically did not want.

Do you have any rationale for using the word dominion in the lead? If not, I think there might be a pretty good consensus that the word dominion should go. I don't think anyone is interested in reading more about this being some perplexing personal issue of mine. --soulscanner (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead did not use the word "dominion" until Quizimodo recently replaced it. I was satisfied with the previous version, which was a compromise settled on at the end of a months-long debate you yourself started. However, to confuse matters even more, you last challenged not the word "dominion" (as it wasn't there) but "semi-autonomous polity of the British Empire," for which you provided no rationale. With such confusing challenges, one can only wonder if there is some personal issue behind your actions. --G2bambino (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've given my rationale below. Assume good faith, and please give yours. --soulscanner (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I can be forgiven for letting my AGF fail slightly with you, given your attacks, attempts to suppress me, and what-not. --G2bambino (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're not going to respect me, at least respect the spirit of Wikipdia and respect requests and efforts made by other editors who are trying to break an impasse. It's not about personal vendettas, it's about WP:POV. I put out a request for mediation, and you rejected it. You decided to edit war, and make a spurious 3RR claim to get me blocked instead. If you feel the atmosphere is so poisoned, the request for mediation is still open(Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Dominion).--soulscanner (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You see, there you go again with your chronologically incorrect claims of conspiracy. I don't want to participate in a mediated debate with you any more than I want to get into an unmediated one for precisely that reason: you're too erratic and unpredictable, making unclear arguments and quickly exploding into widespread calls to arms against someone for completely unfounded reasons, and only acknowledging your error after an extensive explanation of what actually happened. I'm not going to correct your error above, again, but I will say that I'm going to leave the Dominion dispute, generally, for others. My main concern now is this article, and the restoration of the compromise phrase that was here previously. --G2bambino (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue here pertains directly to the dominion dispute. Again, you have not given th requested explanation for why the disputed term should be used. You simply state that I'm the problem, assuming bad faith. --soulscanner (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is about whether the intro can include that in a meaningful way. A few months ago, the bulk of the editors agreed after long debate NOT to include that word in the intro --JimWae (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have to give an explanation for why the disputed term should be used, I don't want it used in the lead anymore. That you fail to understand this, despite numerous repetitions, does seem to point towards you being a fairly big part of the problem. "Semi-autonomous polity of the British Empire" is long-winded, but it is, unfortunately, the safest way to describe what the country became in 1867. Replace "Dominion" with that phrase again and the dispute here ends. --G2bambino (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please make your case for the replacement then instead of ranting about me. I've made the case for a suitable replacement, and everyone seems to understand my points; I'll be happy to clarify more. Your replacement is as problematic as the current wording; it is at best imprecise, and wide open to misinterpretation. in addition, it is more awkward than the current wording, and not backed up by any sources (certainly not the ones cited). --soulscanner (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you do drive one to ranting. If you have issues with the replacement, then that's too bad. You had ample opportunity to be involved in its formation earlier, and decided to excuse yourself. In an issue such as this, where your edit to the status quo is challenged, it is on you to explain why it should be changed. I have not, as of yet, seen any valid argument against "semi-autonomous polity of the British Empire," and, if you think that's vague, then you certainly can't support your own proposal of "a federation." If you want sources, then why don't you start with a very reliable one? --G2bambino (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You should read what I've posted; it's all there. If you cannot acknowledge references, that's your problem. There is nothing to indicate that Canada was "semi-autonomous" in 1867. Please provide links and sources. There are plenty of quotes from scholarly sources that say otherwise that you simply and outrightly refuse to recognize here. I addressed them directly to you. There is lots to indicate that Canada was completely subject to Britain, and by no means recognized as a "self-governing dominion" or "semi-autonomous polity". You will also note that silverchemist clearly cites sections 129 and 132 of the BNA act as backing up this claim, and your total failure to mention any new power that was accorded the Canadian government in 1867. You didn't do it there, and you're not doing it here. It is your failure to acknowledge referenced sources and attack me personally that made me apply for mediation. The debate needed to be scrutinized more closely. You are now continuing the behaviour here. How many more sources will I have to post? --soulscanner (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That's right, and yet Soulscanner started the debate up again here despite the fact that the word wasn't used in the intro. Quizimodo only added to the confusion, I think, by restoring "dominion" just a couple of days ago. --G2bambino (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Summary against using "Dominion" or "semi-autonomous" in the lead

The nature of Canada's evolution towards autonomy and the relationship to the word "Dominion" is complex, and you have to navigate some obscure passages of Canadian history to understand it's various meanings. That's why we are discussing these issues at the Dominion article, with the aim of resolving things there and then bringing them back here to remove the disputed tag. The two relevant articles with relevant references are Dominion and Canada's name. There are several problem with the word Dominion.

• 1. As a descriptive term, it is vague, ambiguous, and misleading. This is because the word no longer has the meaning it had in 1867.

• a) In 1867 (and for a good while afterwards), the word dominion referred to any overseas possessions of the British monarch. It was synonymous with colony. It's misleading to say that Canada became a dominion in this sense, because the provinces were already dominions (i.e. colonies). The Father's of Confederation chose Dominion to refer to Canada because they wanted to stay colonial and British[1], and not go for American-style indepenedence. What Confederation added to the equation was a federal level of government. No new autonomy was added, though, and Canada remained a total colony. I've provided clear excerpts from historians and constitutional scholars at the Dominion page backing this up [2].
• b) Between roughly 1907 (some scholars say 1919[3]) and 1948, the term referred to semi-autonomous states (not quite colonies, not quite independent states) that exercised some autonomy from within the British Empire, especially in foreign affairs. This degree of autonomy continues to be referred to by historians as "dominion status". This is somewhat different than the 1867 definition. It is also the main subject at the article dominion. That is why applying words like "dominion" and "semi-autonomous polity" to the Canada of 1867 may mislead readers into thinking that Canada had gained more autonomy in 1867 than it really had.
• c) After 1948, when the Empire had been renamed the Commonwealth, "dominion" was used by Commonwealth agencies to refer to independent countries that kept the Queen as a symbolic head of state. That is WAY different than the 1867 meaning. If someone thinks that "Canada became a federal dominion" means Canada became more independent in 1867 (because they assume the modern as opposed to historical definition of the term), the reader would be greatly misled.

It is more accurate and clear to refer to Canada as a federation or country. The federal principle has outlasted the colonial and monarchical principle that "dominion" implied. The current political dialog in Canada revolves around the type of federalism we want, not the type of monarchy. Perhaps it still has some standing as a descriptor within the limited context of Commonwealth and Monarchical titles. If so, this might warrant a sentence in the etymology section, with the monarchical and Commonwealth context clearly indicated.

• 2. As a title, it is antiquated. Dominion is no longer used to name Canada by the government and all international agencies other than the Commonealth. This is in contrast with the title American states (e.g. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia; Republic of Texas, California) whose governments use these titles on drive licenses, laws passed by legislatures, etc. It's important to note that these titles don't act as legal descriptors: Mass and Pen are not commonwealths and not referred to as the commonwealths. They are states. Puerto Rico is a U.S. Commonwealth, with limited voting rights and no obligation to pay federal taxes. It is like referring to California as a Republic, Massachusetts as a Commonwealth, and Virginia as a Dominion. All these words appear in the founding documents of these states and they have kind of a nice ring to them, but it is more accurate and clear to refer to them as States. Similarly, it is more accurate and clear to refer to Canada as a federation or country. The federal principle has outlasted the colonial and monarchical principle that "dominion" implied. The current political dialog in Canada revolves around the type of federalism we want, not the type of monarchy. The consensus not to use Dominion as Canada's name is documented here and explained fully at this article. --soulscanner (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• 3. References given specifically identify the federal principle as the a key one. Only one mentions dominion in the descriptive sense. The common thread here is that of a federation. Note also that the site describing Canada as a dominion is a Commonwealth site, so that we're talking about a very particular context where the modern meaning and history of the word would be understood. Outside the context of the Commonwealth, it would be highly unusual to describe Canada as such.

• federal state
• federal Dominion
• federation.

Note that I have no trouble using dominion in the proper historical context. For example, in the Etymology section, the evolution of the usage of the word is dominion is fine because it is fully explained. In the lead, you don't have space to explain all the caveats. That's it in a nutshell. For a longer list, please see previous post in discussion archives--soulscanner (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

---

I'm glad someone has explained the issue. In the heat of discussion it is easy to forget what the discussion is about.--Gazzster (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In #2 above Massachusetts was not a good example. Massachusetts and Pennsylvania and Virginia for that fact, officially refer to themselves as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Commonwealth of Virginia. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 14:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is a good example, but it confuses two separate issues (which is part of the problem with this whole Dominion matter):

1. Official name: one part of the above discussion is whether or not 'Dominion of Canada' is the official long-form name. Some of the discussion above is about this issue, with different points of view and references. Commonwealth of Mass. is clearly the official long-form name, not the case for Canada (according to most sources).
2. Form of government/substantive: #2 above addresses this point. Massachussets is styled a commonwealth, but it is in substantive terms a state (i.e. one of the 50 states of the United States). The discussion above is that Canada was styled a Dominion by the constitution act, but that this does not tell you much substantively - the term itself was a fudge and had different practical, legal, symbolic and other connotations over the years (at inception it was a new term in a formal sense). So saying that Canada was formed as a Dominion does not tell you much, except that it was styled a Dominion.
3. And for clarity, the issue of styled and officially named are entirely separate issues. Canada was styled a Dominion, and named Canada tout court. Many other cases like Mass. are 'styled' in a certain way, and the style forms part of the official long-form name (like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is styled democratic and officially referred to in this way, even though it has little substantive meaning). Some (few) sources refer to Canada as "titled" a Dominion, but the meaning of "titled" in this context is not clear - it could mean simply styled; it could mean "titled" in the same way a Dukedom (Duchy) has a different status than an earldom (and in this sense, "Dominion" tells you nothing much about the substance in current terms, largely symbolic); or it could mean that at one point the title was considered part of the official long-form name, although this directly contradicts current reference sources.

So, I believe Soulscanner is arguing that it may make sense to say that the Commonwealth of Mass is a state; but that in the case of Canada, it is not part of the official name, and not a substantive description, and should be addressed in the text further down. (I agree with his argument in this sense). Some other country pages seem to follow this approach, the term is used when it is either part of the official name or meaningfully descriptive - the argument here is that it is not substantively descriptive.--Gregalton (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet it is part of the official name of Canada, and has been cited as such.

I'm still not clear on Soulscanner's argument about the semi-autonomous nature of Canada post 1867, either. --G2bambino (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I had indeed muddled the two issues. I've reorganized the above explanation into a) discussing dominion as a descriptor b) discussing dominion as a title. I hope that makes for an easier read.
• My arguement against using dominion as a descriptor (e.g. federal dominion) is that you do not know which of the following definitions you're using:

1. pre -1907: colony; possession of Britain
2. 1907-1919: colony with responsible government; self-governing colony[4]
3. 1919-1939: neither colony nor independent country, with some say in foreign affairs [5]
4. post 1939: independent country using British monarch as symbolic head of state

• Canadian Government sources, international organizations and treaties (NATO, NAFTA, the WTO, the UN, etc) just use "Canada". This outweighs the use by the Commonwealth and monarchist organizations of dominion. I think it might be good to include in the etymology section a short sentence mentioning organizations and one or two significant figures who still use the title and descriptor.--soulscanner (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Use federation instead of dominion

If there is no compelling rationale for using dominion to describe what Canada became in 1867, perhaps the word "federation" is more appropriate. There's no doubt that Canada was this: powers were and still are divided between a federal level of government and constituent provinces. All given sources make reference to it. This word should link to Canadian federalism, where the evolution of the federalist principle from 1867 - present is described. I think there is little doubt about what federalism means. --soulscanner (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Borders

I removed the following from the intro for being too detailed, intending to put it in the section where we discuss maritime borders, but I can't find it. Isn't there a maritimie border with Greenland too?

It also shares a maritime border with France with the Territorial Collectivity of St. Pierre and Miquelon located off the coast of Newfoundland.

DJ Clayworth (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the Geography of Canada?--soulscanner (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Who appoints the judges?

Is it the Queen, the Governor General or the Prime Minister? Let's haggle, people. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The PM chooses, the Queen and GG appoint the PM's choices. --soulscanner (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet, that is exactly what you kept changing into just "the PM chooses." That's a lazy, inaccurate, journalistic approach to editing, not an encyclopaedic one. You've since added "all choices are formally appointed by the Governor General or Monarch," which is a step in the right direction, but still skirts the point. The PMO still technically chooses nominees and advises the viceroy or sovereign to appoint them, but neither of those is 100% bound to accept that advice; an important part of the governmental system we have. Details shouldn't be glossed over for the sake of common appearances.

Working off of what you last put in there, I'd suggest:

The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) is one of the most powerful organs of the government, consisting of the Prime Minister and his closest political advisers, and is responsible for choosing Senators, federal court judges, heads of Crown corporations, government agencies, and the federal and provincial viceroys; all choices are formally appointed by the Governor General or monarch, though they retain the ability to refuse to do so.

Congrats, Soulscanner, on getting the page locked, again, by the way. --G2bambino (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

All my fault, right? Anyhow ...

My last edit corrects this. Is it okay with you? --soulscanner (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You were clearly and pointedly asked to take your issues here, and did not. You also have been around long enough to know the responsibility of defending your edit lies with you when it is challenged. Regardless, we're here now, and I've made my proposal above. --G2bambino (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We agree that the PM chooses; we agree that the GG and Queen appoint. We disagree that the GG and Queen may refuse. They wouldn't dare. See King-Byng Affair. --soulscanner (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Do you accept or not accept my proposal? --G2bambino (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternately, it could be put this way: The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) is one of the most powerful organs of the government, consisting of the Prime Minister and his closest political advisers, and is responsible for choosing names to put forward to the Governor General for appointment as Senators, federal court judges, heads of Crown corporations, government agencies, and provincial viceroys, as well as to the monarch for appointment as Governor General. --G2bambino (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the PM chooses. It's the PM's choice, not that of the GG or Queen. The PM exercises power. The GG and Queen formally appoint the PM's choices; they have no power in the matter. This needs to be clear. --soulscanner (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You will, then, have to provide a source that proves the constitution to be wrong. --G2bambino (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We agree. The PM chooses; the Queen/GG appoint the PM's choices. Don't see in the constitution where the GG or Queen have the power to turn down the PM's choices. Please provide reference. --soulscanner (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Simple: III.9: "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen." Note: not the PM. III.10: "The Provisions of this Act referring to the Governor General extend and apply to the Governor General for the Time being of Canada, or other Chief Executive Officer or Administrator for the Time being carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the Name of the Queen, by whatever Title he is designated." Note: not the PM.

Yes, the PMO chooses names, and the Queen or GG have always made the recommended appointment - as far as we know - but that does not preclude the fact that they retain ultimate executive authority out of the PM's hands. That is the important part here, and a point you can't prove false. So, which of the two proposals do you prefer? --G2bambino (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The Queen and GG are both bound by constitutional convention. The fact that they have always carried out the Cabinets wishes binds them to do so in the future; they are both bound by the unwritten part of Canada's constitution to do the PM's and Parliament's bidding. They have no discretionary powers. AS the given references state, real power lies in the Cabinet. In effect, the Monarchy has abdicated any real political power by never using it. That is the nature of Westminster

1. The Statute of Westiminster is clear: "3. It is hereby declared and enacted that the Parliament of a Dominion has full power to make laws having extra-territorial operation.
2. The 1982 Constitution Act is clear: "(1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect. So the Queen is bound by precedent; it is the Supreme Court that would censure her should she overstep her constitutional bounds.

I think you don't understand the difference between a Constitutional and absolute monarchy. In a constitutional monarchy, the Monarch is bound by precedent and always defers to parliament; the monarch has no discretionary political powers. This has changed since 1867. --soulscanner (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

--soulscanner (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC) The GG and Queen can refuse recommendations — see the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis and the King-Byng Affair for similar examples where the Queen's power has been exerted against the wishes of the Prime Minister. It can happen — will it? Nah. But it has, and legally can. --Haemo (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

To put it another way, the Constitutional Authority to appoint judges is vested in the Queen, via the GG. However, a Constitutional Convention implies that the PM puts forward the names, and the GG approves them. The formal authority to refuse is still there. --Haemo (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. --G2bambino (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

They can try, but they'll be violating the constitution. The Queen and Governor general are constitutionally subservient to convention, principles of democracy and the rule of law; they cannot act against it. That's the "constitutional" part of "constitutional monarchy". The monarch's serve a ceremonial role, not an executive one. If they illegally exceed that, they'll be spanked by the Supreme Court, whose job it is to uphold constitutional convention.

Real executive power rests in Cabinet:

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. [6]

"... true executive power lies in the Cabinet" ... should put it right in the article. Sourced legal opinion is pretty clear on it. So is the Balfour Declaration of 1926, which specifically said that the King should never be advised to override Dominion legislatures:

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.[7]

In other words, the King will never have cause to kill federal legislation because no one will ever tell him to do so. This was put forward formally, in writing, what had been practiced for decades. It was all neatly settled a very long time ago, and tidied up by the Statute of Westminster in 1931. I thought there would be enough common sense here to realize that the Constitution has changed since 1867 through precedence and convention. The Queen and GG are merely symbolic figureheads, bound to obey democratic conventions. Basically, Monarchs are so meek in their exercise of colonial vestigial power that we just never bothered to get rid of them. --soulscanner (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop this annoyance. Executive power lies in the cabinet because convention dictates that the monarch and/or viceroy always follow the advice of their ministers, who are responsible to parliament. However, the constitution still makes perfectly clear that executive power belongs to the sovereign, and only the sovereign; the PM is mentioned only once in the constitution, post 1982, and the PMO is certainly never mentioned at all. This also, despite your incorrect interpretation of your source, has nothing to do with legislation. --G2bambino (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You said before that the monarch or GG could refuse legislation

a) "all choices are formally appointed by the Governor General or monarch, though they retain the ability to refuse to do so".

I objected saying that they do not have that ability. Now you say

b) "the monarch and/or viceroy always follow the advice of their ministers".

I agree with the second assertion. It's because they do not have the constitutional authority to do so. They are bound by constitutional convention, the Balfour Declaration, and the Stature of Westminster. It means that the PM chooses, and the GG obeys, according to the rule of law. Real power lies in Cabinet. The GG and Queen are symbolic figureheads. --soulscanner (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Twist this all you want, but you are still taking the amateur journalist point of view on this constitutional matter. I didn't comment once on the monarch's or viceroy's ability to refuse legislation, so drop that red herring. I stated the Queen and GG have the ability, the power, per the constitution of the country, to dismiss their ministers' advice, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball through which we predict the future. You did catch my error in my last statement; I should have said: the monarch and/or viceroy will always follow the advice of their ministers unless said advice is unconsitutional or threatens the stability of the government. As Haemo pointed out, there are precedents already set for this. Your republicanesque wishes for a powerless figurehead monarch are irrelevant here. --G2bambino (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You can use Wikipedia to push monarchist WP:POV all you want. The above legal opinion is pretty clear on where real executive power rests. I'm not republican at all, and I'm not a monarchist either. I think the Queen is fine as a figurehead and she doesn't interfere in politics. However, Monarchist POV is too marginal in Canada to mention these days. When the Conservatie PM refuses to invite the Queen to Quebec City to appease Quebec nationalists, it shows how truly marginal they have become. Australian precedents, frankly, don't affect Canada. The Queen presides separately over her "Realms", and authority in Canada lies in the Canadian constitution, which was patriated in 1982; the Queen signed off her rights willingly, right on the dotted line where the PM wanted her to. The King-Byng precedent cited brought forth the quote from the Balfour declaration that says the King should never disallow legislation in the Dominions. MacKenzie King was livid at the interference, Byng was sent packing, the Balfour Declaration was explicit about this never happening again. This is just a question of historical fact.; precedent has made the monarch purely symbolic. Until you can cite some other precedent that has not been superceded by constitutional convention and explicit statutes, there is no evidence here that the Queen or GG can veto any decision of the PM. It is not up to them to decide what is constitutional; that is the realm of the Supreme Court. If again you cannot accept clear quotes from legal sources, I can't hep you. --soulscanner (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. I said republicanesque; you go through all the same useless hoops to make the same argument. So, you sound like a republican, though you may not be one.

As for cites: if, again, you cannot accept clear excerpts of the constitution of Canada, I can't help you. --G2bambino (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I accept the 1867 excerpt. It was perfectly valid in 1867. I maintain that the Constitution has changed since then. Again, if you cannot accept the principle of Constitutional precedent, the Statute of Westminster, and the Constitution Act of 1982, I cannot help you.

As for constitutional monarchy, I think it has served us well. No need for a republic. Too bad you forget about the constitutional part. --soulscanner (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

---

From the department of justice:

"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."

"Most laws in Canada are first examined and discussed by the Cabinet, then presented for debate and approval by members of the House of Commons and the Senate. Before a bill becomes a law, the Queen or her representative, the Governor General, must also approve or “assent to” it. This requirement of royal assent does not mean that the Queen is politically powerful; by constitutional convention, the Monarch always follows the advice of the government."[8]--soulscanner (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets be clear. This is about whether the Queen or GG can use the power of disallowance to block House legislation or decisions of the PMO. The Balfour Declaration says the Queen can't. Two legal opinions above say they cannot. Where's a referenced opinion saying they can, or be willing to? --soulscanner (talk) 05:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Constitutional conventions are not legally binding. The only power they has is tradition. If you want a reference, Dyck's Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches (4 ed.) specifically states that "the governor [can] appoint superior, district, and county judges." The question you are asking is can the GG or Queen veto decisions made by Parliament. The short answer is, yes, they can — constitutional conventions are merely longstanding traditions which hold no formal legal weight, so the GG can legally refuse an appointment, refuse to dissolve Parliament, or refuse to sign a bill. The question which you are answering is willthey do that — and the answer is no. In Canada, the GG has the legal authority to appoint judges — that includes not approving judges if they don't wish to. However, constitutional convention has regulated their role to a rubber-stamp — they retain the legal ability to veto decisions, but do not exercise this power due to tradition. The answer to the question is "yes, but with provisions". We should discuss those provisions, because they are part of the fundamental character of Constitutional Law in Canada. --Haemo (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

To be more precise, you don't seem to understand what your source above says. The statement "by constitutional convention, the Monarch always follows the advice of the government" indicates that yes, she can block House legislation if she wants. However, she does not exercise this power because of a tradition in Canadian politics. --Haemo (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Conventions do hold legal weight. The unwritten portion of our constitution is constantly upheld by the Supreme Court. I understand full well what is going on; it's just face-saving, Victorian doublespeak typical of the declining British Empire. Constitutional convention IS binding on the monarch and GG ; that is the difference between an absolute and constitutional monarchy. The Sovereign cannot exceed her role as defined by precedent and convention. It is the courts and not the executive that decide when the Monarch oversteps its bounds. That is the way our new constitution is deliberately framed. Be it said, most modern legal scholars would disagree with your take. The Balfour declaration is pretty clear that the Queen should be banned from using her powers of disallowance. I guess she could do what she wanted, ultimately, but she would likely be ignored and overruled by the Supreme Court as violating the founding principle of democracy on which our constitution rests. So be it. The monarch cannot act as arbitor as to what is constitutional. Her powers are not absolute. The constraints of convention are very real. --soulscanner (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Your tactics never change, Soulscanner. For, I think, the third time: this is not about he monarch or Governor General refusing Royal Assent to legislation. That is a completely different matter; appointments are made by Order-in-Council, they are not laws. So let that straw man burn.

Good. So you agree that the GG and Queen have no authority to veto Parliament. It would violate democratic principles. Similarly, they cannot veto the PM's appointments. That too would violate principles of democracy. We are talking about democracy and the rule of law here. That trumps the monarchical principle in Canada. --soulscanner (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As interesting as the debate may be, we're losing sight of the real focus: how to word the paragraph in question. Thus, I will ask, again: what is it you particularly find wrong with either of my proposals above? Please be precise.

I'll comment on the proposals below. --G2bambino (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone brought up the Byng-King Affair: If the Liberals & the NDP had tried in 2006, what the Liberals & Progressives did in 1925-26 (form a coalition government), they'd been accused of ignoring the peoples choice. The people in 1925, choose the Conservatives to be the minority government. Mackenzie King was being undemocratic, not Lord Byng (just wanted to make note of that). GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Drafting

Anyways, this is silly, since we all agree — so let's just work on some wording instead of bickering.

The monarch is represented by the Governor General, who exercises almost all of the duties of the Queen. Michaëlle Jean has served as Governor General since September 27, 2005. In practice, the only body to direct the use of the executive powers is the Cabinet, a committee of the appointed Privy Council made up of Ministers of the Crown; all are responsible to the elected House of Commons. The Cabinet is headed by the Prime Minister, who acts as head of government; to ensure the stability of government, the Governor General appoints the current leader of the political party that obtains the confidence of a plurality in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) is one of the most powerful organs of the government, consisting of the Prime Minister and his closest political advisers, and responsible for selecting senators, judges in federal courts, heads of Crown corporations and government agencies, and even the Governor General; formally, this authority is vested with the current Governor General, but by constitutional convention she defers to the Prime Minister. The leader of the party with the second most seats usually becomes the Leader of the Opposition and is part of an adversarial Parliamentary system that keeps the government in check. The Prime Minister chooses the Cabinet, and by convention, the Governor General respects the Prime Minister's choices. Stephen Harper, leader of the Conservative Party has been her Prime Minister since February 6, 2006.

This is just a draft, so feel free to give it your own shot or twist. --Haemo (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right; we can go on about semantics all we want; it's mostly theoretical, because "can't" and "won't" both add up to a benign figurehead. The draft looks good. Changes

1. Put GG formal responsibilities in passing laws and making appointments up front so they do not need to be repeated
2. condensed the first statement on executive power to be more bold and straightforward,
3. wikified executive power,
4. added a verifiable scholarly reference that backs up your language and mine
5. crossed out "ensuring" stability; there are many reasons for this convention, including upholding democratic principle, simple convention, ensuring stability, respecting "peace order and good government", etc. Keep it short and to the point.
6. I think the GG formally asks the leader of party with plurality to select cabinet and form government; same with official Opposition

Seems pretty air tight to me. I'm all set. --soulscanner (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The monarch is represented by the Governor General, who exercises almost all of the duties of the Queen. Michaëlle Jean has served as Governor General since September 27, 2005. Formally, she has the authority to sign all bills into law and make all political appointments, but always defers to the advice of the elected government and constitutional convention. In practice true executive power lies in the Cabinet, a committee of the Privy Council made up of Ministers of the Crown; all are responsible to the elected House of Commons. The Cabinet is headed by the Prime Minister, who acts as head of government; by convention, the Governor General formally asks the current leader of the political party that obtains the confidence of a plurality in the House of Commons to choose his Cabinet and form the government. The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) is one of the most powerful organs of the government, consisting of the Prime Minister and his closest political advisers, and responsible for selecting senators, judges in federal courts, heads of Crown corporations and government agencies, and even the Governor General. The leader of the party with the second most seats usually becomes the Leader of the Opposition and is part of an adversarial Parliamentary system that keeps the government in check. Stephen Harper, leader of the Conservative Party has been Prime Minister since February 6, 2006, and Stephane Dion, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, has been Leader of the Opposition since December 2, 2006.

---

\

I find Soulscanner's version too wordy. It doesn't give much more information than Haemo's does in a more concise manner. But, his states the Governor General is empowered to appoint a Governor General, which isn't the case. I've made some alterations that I hope are acceptable.

The monarch is represented by the Governor General, who exercises almost all of the duties of the Queen. Michaëlle Jean has served as Governor General since September 27, 2005. In practice, the only body to direct the use of the executive powers is the Cabinet, a committee of the appointed Privy Council made up of Ministers of the Crown; all are responsible to the elected House of Commons. By constitutional convention, the monarch and viceroy must follow the advice of the Cabinet, except for in constitutional crisis situations, meaning the Cabinet is responsible for the selection of senators, federal court judges, heads of Crown corporations and government agencies, the federal and provincial viceroys, etc., as well as declaring war, accepting treaties, and the like, all made by Order-in-Council. However, the Cabinet is headed by the Prime Minister, who acts as head of government; to ensure the stability of government, the Governor General appoints the current leader of the political party that obtains the confidence of a plurality in the House of Commons. Thus, the Prime Minister's Office (PMO), consisting of the Prime Minister and his closest advisers, is one of the most powerful organs of the government. The leader of the party with the second most seats usually becomes the Leader of the Opposition and is part of an adversarial Parliamentary system that keeps the government in check. The Prime Minister chooses the Cabinet, and by convention, the Governor General respects the Prime Minister's choices. Stephen Harper, leader of the Conservative Party has been her Prime Minister since February 6, 2006.

Of course, my other two proposals above still stand as well. --G2bambino (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with G2bambino. The Queen is the Head of State & 'chief executive officer', the Governor General performs those duties (including making appointments) in the Queen's absents, the PM merely nominates people for appointments. Believe me, if PM Harper wanted Osama bin Laden on the Supreme Court of Canada, the GG would veto that appointment & if she didn't? the Queen could & would. By the way I am a republican. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what all the fire and brimstone is about, but a few short comments on this version:

1. I think the formulation "By constitutional convention, the monarch and viceroy must follow the advice of the Cabinet, except for in constitutional crisis situations," is not entirely on the button. Rather, the monarch and viceroy must follow the advice of cabinet; failure to do so would constitute or cause a constitutional crisis. (And grey area would be where cabinet / privy council could not agree or come to a decision; it is not excluded, for example, that Privy Council members not in cabinet could make separate decisions - that would be a crisis).
2. The emphasis on PMO is a little overly modern, and there should be more mention of PCO. Something along the lines of "Privy Council Office is the main executive agency of the Cabinet and hence the government; in practice, the Prime Minister's Office has considerable power and may effectively be responsible for many political decisions and appointments of Cabinet."

In general, the emphasis on the powers of the PM and PMO are overstated - most of these decisions are formally Privy Council, and the extent to which that power is concentrated in PMO/PM's hands has varied considerably over time.--Gregalton (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Per 1) I don't think that's actually the case. In the situations of both 1926 in Canada and 1975 in Australia, it was the PM who caused the constitutional crisis, and the GG had to deal with it.

Per 2) Technically, I think you're right. The PCO is already mentioned, but perhaps words need to be shifted around. --G2bambino (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. In 1867, the PM had less power. Since 1980, the PMO had more and more. As for the King Byng Crisis, it resulted in the GG being recalled. That is the precedent. It also resulted in the Balfour Declaration and Statute of Westminster assuring Canada's independence. The Australian incident is irrelevant to Canada. It does not affect the precedents set in Canada, which are substantially different than Australias. --soulscanner (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah - on 1), you are saying that where the PM proposes something unconstitutional, the GG may decline? I had understood the conversation earlier to be about something else. At any rate, I would still say that the "failure to follow the advice of cabinet" constitutes a crisis - no matter whose fault it may or may not be. E.g. if a GG fails to follow advice, whether justified or not, there is a constitutional crisis. (So perhaps my tag line of causality was not accurate).

Yes, on PCO, my understanding is that the PCO and the Governor-General-in-Council are the two parts with formal power here; PMO may have concentrated that power in practice (not to say usurped), but not much can be done without PCO/GGiC signing off. The current state of affairs of concentration of power in PMO's office is by no means certain to remain in long term or be formalised.--Gregalton (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Formal power is not real power. It is strictly ceremonial. It is useless to speculate what would happen if they didn't sign off, because they won't. They do not have the discretion to act outside the precedents that bind them. If the PM does something unconstitutional, it would be the Supreme Court and not the GG or QUeen that would intervene. It's not their call. They cannot turn down Parliament or the PM. --soulscanner (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so I think this is a good compromise:

The monarch is represented by the Governor General, who exercises almost all of the duties of the Queen. Michaëlle Jean has served as Governor General since September 27, 2005. Formally, she has the authority to sign bills into law and make political appointments, but defers to the advice of the elected government by constitutional convention — violations of convention may result in a constitutional crisis. In practice true executive power lies in the Cabinet, a committee of the Privy Council made up of Ministers of the Crown; all are responsible to the elected House of Commons. The Cabinet is headed by the Prime Minister, who acts as head of government; by convention, the Governor General asks the current leader of the political party that obtains the confidence of a plurality in the House of Commons to select a Cabinet and form the government. The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) is one of the most powerful organs of the government, consisting of the Prime Minister and his closest political advisers, and responsible for selecting senators, judges in federal courts, heads of Crown corporations and government agencies, and even the Governor General. The leader of the party with the second most seats usually becomes the Leader of the Opposition and is part of an adversarial Parliamentary system that keeps the government in check. Stephen Harper, leader of the Conservative Party has been Prime Minister since February 6, 2006, and Stephane Dion, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, has been Leader of the Opposition since December 2, 2006.

Acceptable to everyone? Because if it is, I'll unprotect the article and add it. --Haemo (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I like it. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's close, but not quite there. I'd alter it slightly to read:

The monarch is represented by the Governor General, who exercises almost all of the duties of the sovereign; Michaëlle Jean has served as Governor General since September 27, 2005. The viceroy appoints members to the Queen's Privy Council (QPC), a body responsible for advising the monarch or Governor General in the implementation of their executive powers. However, the Cabinet – a committe of the QPC made up of Ministers of the Crown who are generally responsible to the elected House of Commons – is the main body charged with the task of directing executive authority. One Cabinet member is appointed by the Governor General as Prime Minister, who acts as head of government; by convention, this is usually the current leader of the political party that obtains the confidence of a plurality in the House of Commonss. As the viceroy or monarch have the authority to sign bills into law, issue Orders-in-Council, and make gubernatorial appointments, but, by constitutional convention, both defer, save for in a constitutional crisis situation, to the advice of their ministers, the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) is one of the most powerful organs of the government, consisting of the Prime Minister and his closest political advisers, and is responsible for selecting the other members of the Cabinet, Senators, federal court judges, heads of Crown corporations and government agencies, and the provincial and federal viceroys for appointment. The leader of the party with the second most seats usually becomes the Leader of the Opposition and is part of an adversarial Parliamentary system that keeps the government in check. Stephen Harper, leader of the Conservative Party has been Prime Minister since February 6, 2006, and Stephane Dion, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, has been Leader of the Opposition since December 2, 2006.

That removes some repetition from Haemo's proposal, and, I hope, outlines the whole affair in a certain cyclical order, from the Crown to the PM and back again. --G2bambino (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Can I suggest ommitting the phrase 'in a constitutional crisis situation' though? It's not incorrect, of course. Only in a constitutional crisis a viceroy could act on the advice of the head of government, and his or her first instinct would be to do that. Tho,as you say, there are times when it would not be proper to do so.--Gazzster (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the moment when it would be improper to do so is the whole point of including that particular caveat. Any idea how to otherwise word it? --G2bambino (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

How about: 'In some circumstances the Governor-General may use his discretionary powers. See Constitutional crisis.'--Gazzster (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. then, does this work? The viceroy and monarch have the authority to sign bills into law, issue Orders-in-Council, and make gubernatorial appointments, and do retain discretionary powers for constitutional crisis situations; however, by constitutional convention, both defer to the advice of their ministers, making the Prime Minister's Office (PMO), consisting of the Prime Minister and his closest political advisers, one of the most powerful organs of the government, responsible for selecting the other members of the Cabinet, Senators, federal court judges, heads of Crown corporations and government agencies, and the provincial and federal viceroys for appointment. --G2bambino (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds cool.--Gazzster (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere near acceptable. See below. --soulscanner (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• I like the Haemo (talk) version as compromise. I don't think the constitutional crisis is neccessary to mention; obviously, if a ceremonial figurehead exercised political power, there would be trouble. Put in in and unblock the page. --soulscanner (talk) 10:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Groovy, whatever gets the traffic going. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I repeat that I think PCO deserves more mention in this context: PCO serves the privy council and cabinet as its executive body. PMO has very little formal authority, and has historically had much less influence than is currently the case. In addition, as far as I am aware (and here I admit to ignorance on details) the advice - when formally constituted - is transmitted by PCO/GGiC. The range of powers under this might also be broadened to include things like providing authority to sign treaties, etc., etc - since there is a whole of government activity where the PMO does not get involved, but GGiC and GG approval is needed.

That said, the issue is coming up because this para is blending together the formal/symbolic with the practical. Perhaps a logical split along these lines might be instructive and readable? e.g. one para, Queen/Viceroy formally makes most decisions on basis of recommendations of Privy Council acting through Privy Council Office / GGiC (more detail). Failure to follow advice would constitute constitutional crisis. Next para: In practice, most powers are exercised by Cabinet and PCO. Considerable influence at present is concentrated in PMO.

Just a thought. It is a tricky topic to express briefly and accurately.--Gregalton (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is what I was trying to do. Once paragraph summarizing the cermonial functions of the Monarch and GG, and another summarizing the real political executive functions of the government. Try the reference below. It is clear, simple, short, easy-to-understand and written by a legal scholar in literate style. --soulscanner (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

References

There are a lot of personal POV's above, but no scholarly sources. It would behoove the editors to back their POV's up with some evidence. Everyone has avoidd commenting on the sources, which are clear.

• Here's an example that no one seems to be commenting on:

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 [9].

A few highlites:

1. "executive powers exercised in accordance with constitutional conventions" - i.e. no discretionary powers; precedent binds GG and Queen
2. "executive powers ... exercised in accordance with the wishes of the leadership of that government" - i.e. PM gives the orders; GG and Queen push the pencil
3. "true executive power lies in the Cabinet" ... self explanatory
4. No mention here of the PCO.

• Here's a second example from the department of justice::

"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."

"Most laws in Canada are first examined and discussed by the Cabinet, then presented for debate and approval by members of the House of Commons and the Senate. Before a bill becomes a law, the Queen or her representative, the Governor General, must also approve or “assent to” it. This requirement of royal assent does not mean that the Queen is politically powerful; by constitutional convention, the Monarch always follows the advice of the government."[10]--soulscanner (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets be clear. This is about whether the Queen or GG can use the power of disallowance to block House legislation or decisions of the PMO. The Balfour Declaration says the Queen can't. Two legal opinions above say they cannot. Can someone find a modern (i.e. post Constitution Act, 1982) scholarly legal opinion that contradicts the above simple summary? I don't know why people are wracking their brains formulating their own legal opinions; our opinions don't matter on Wikipedia, and would constitute original research. --soulscanner (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, let's be clear: legislation plays absolutely no part in this discussion! It is about the reserve powers of the monarch to dismiss her ministers' advice, which has only to do with the Cabinet and not parliament. As Pieuvre points out, conventions are not unbreakable, but even then, precedent has been set for the monarch or viceroy to do exactly what we're talking about. Beyond that, plus the irrefutable evidence of the Constitution Act, 1867, are scholarly sources. "In very exceptional circumstances, the Governor General could refuse a request for a fresh election."[11] "A Prime Minister who resigns has no right to advise the Governor as to a successor unless asked; even then, the advice need not be followed."[12] "The Governor General and the Lieutenant-Governors have the right to be consulted by their Ministers, and the right to encourage or warn them. But they almost invariably must act on their Ministers’ advice, though there may be very rare occasions when they must, or may, act without advice or even against the advice of the Ministers in office."[13] "in Canada, the head of state can, in exceptional circumstances, protect Parliament and the people against a Prime Minister and Ministers who may forget that “minister” means “servant,” and may try to make themselves masters. For example, the head of state could refuse to let a Cabinet dissolve a newly elected House of Commons before it could even meet, or could refuse to let Ministers bludgeon the people into submission by a continuous series of general elections. The American head of state cannot restrain the American head of government because they are the same person."[14] "It was always the Governor General’s duty to keep a Parliament alive. This would be especially true for a Parliament that has only been in existence for two years of a five-year mandate... the Governor General must take all steps necessary to thwart the will of a ruthless prime minister prematurely calling for the death of a Parliament."[15] So can we please stop pretending the chief executive plays absolutely zero role in government? --G2bambino (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think legislation figures into any conversation about the small amount of real power the GG has. I'll stick to commenting on the references just for focus. I have no objection to these quotes. They confirm that the GG and sovereign have extremely limited political power and can only use it very rarely.

1. In very exceptional circumstances, the Governor General could refuse a request for a fresh election.
2. But they almost invariably must act on their Ministers’ advice, though there may be very rare occasions when they must, or may, act without advice or even against the advice of the Ministers in office.
3. the head of state can, in exceptional circumstances, protect Parliament and the people against a Prime Minister and Ministers who may forget that “minister” means “servant ...

Provided the strong qualifiers are used, there's no problem with pointing out that in very exceptional circumstances the GG or Monarch can use their ceremonial powers politically to avert a political crisis. It's the same as saying that the vast amount of real power lies in Cabinet, according to the democratic principle. I think it's a good thing. It's a check and balance on the executive, and we could use as much of that as we can get (albeit not necessarily from the GG). --soulscanner (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you now see there's no problem with pointing out the existence of the reserve powers to be used in exceptional circumstances, seeing as that's exactly what you've been refusing to acknowledge all along. Now, could we please decide on a way to construct the paragraph? --G2bambino (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I could certainly show that unwritten constitutional conventions can be broken. The Supreme Court of Canada did declare in 1982 that such constitutional conventions, even if hardened and honoured on over the course of time, cannot "crystallize" into laws. (Patriation Reference) In recent times, those conventions were broken a few times. In 1989, the Senate defeated a bill regulating abortion and three bills establishing free trade with the USA (against the convention that the Senate must pass all bills approved by the House). In 1968, the minority government unexpectly lost a money vote, but the election wasn't called (against the convention requiring the PM to report the GG to call an election if the PM loses a money vote). In 1961, the Lieutenant-Governor of Saskatchewan used his reserve power to defer a bill (not granting the royal assent) to the GG. [16] I have to mention that in 2002Since you asked for more "modern" proofs (I consider after WWII as "modern"), those proofs happened after the Westminster and the King-Byng Affair. So precedents do not necessarily bind the GG and the Queen or anyone else including the PM. I'll going to have to disagree that the Queen and the GG have no reserve powers at this moment. [17] (This comes from the Wiki itself from the Monarchy of Canada article). We cannot say they will not use them again in the future. We're no seers. Now to the point where you wrote "true executive power lies in the Cabinet". I don't understand. Do you mean "de-facto"? As far as I am concerned, the power of the state is vested in the Queen/GG with the PM giving advices how to exercise them. Please prove me wrong. The small kinks of Canadian politics are sometimes confusing for all of us, so I may overlooked something. Pieuvre (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree this shouldn't be overstated and finding the right balance is difficult. But:

1. PMO does not formally make decisions. Privy Council/GGiC (acting through PCO), both of which are controlled by the govt, does. In practice this may be exercised by the PMO but this is a matter of internal government organisation.
2. Precedent is great but, as in the legal system, rarely covers all potential eventualities. And can change (as it has done in past).
3. Reliance on the Supreme Court as the ultimate authority is one thing, but in practice a) there has to be a court case/request from the govt, and b) things may happen too quickly and new precedents be established.

As for text, I would suggest a) executive power is exercised by the Cabinet; b) symbolically vested in the monarch/viceroy; c) the monarch/viceroy formally approves actions of executive power based on advice of Cabinet; d) any failure to follow that advice (assent) would constitute or provoke a constitutional crisis. One cannot know with certainty the outcome of a constitutional crisis.

One of the texts above notes that the "bulk of" the GG's powers are exercised in accordance with wishes of the government. This leaves a pretty big opening. I don't think any of this proves that there are (theoretically) no reserve powers, nor that real executive power is not exercised by the government. Constitutional monarchies by their nature, however, evolve over time, retain certain contradictory features and have certain gaps that cannot be explained in advance.--Gregalton (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to the wording of "bulk". I think the quotes are fine. I'd say the opening is small, but if you're willing to use the wording of this entire passage more or less verbatim, I won't object. We can both use our imaginations as to what "bulk" means, as long as the "always" stays. After all, it is a valid source, and the stress here is not mine. --soulscanner (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "always" is incorrect. --G2bambino (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• To Pieuvre's points: I don't want to go into long debates about what we both think personally about this. That would qualify as original research on both our parts. I'll say that in the case of the patriation of the Constitution, it was the elected federal government that broke with convention, not appointed officials. The democratic principle allowed for this, and it was the supreme court (not the Queen) that had the final say. Indeed, the new Constitution made the Constitution and not the word of the Monarch the Supreme Law of the land.

Anyways, we an pontificate all we want. Lets stick to sources. They explain the ceremonial and political relationships between the GG and the real power in Cabinet. Lets focus on the simple wording of legal scholars, and see if someone come up with some simple language from modern scholarly sources that contradict the wording in these quotes. I'm not so sure what's hard to understand about "true executive power" especially when it's followed by a clear statement that the Queen and GG are NOT politically powerful. Yes, I'd say "real" and "true" mean de facto. In plain English, de facto means "real" and "true". I'd like to see some scholarly sources that directly support other wording that contradicts this.

1. This requirement of royal assent does not mean that the Queen is politically powerful; by constitutional convention, the Monarch always follows the advice of the government."[18]
2. "executive powers exercised in accordance with constitutional conventions" - i.e. no discretionary powers; precedent binds GG and Queen
3. "executive powers ... exercised in accordance with the wishes of the leadership of that government" - i.e. PM gives the orders; GG and Queen push the pencil
4. "true executive power lies in the Cabinet" ... [19]

Are you against putting these quotes in verbatim? If so why? They come form perfectly good references, they don't require complex legal arguments, the wording is straightforward, and there's no reason this wording, no matter how one interprets it, can't go in the text. --soulscanner (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate to keep repeating this but your version that "PM gives the orders" is overstating it. The line that true executive power lies in the Cabinet is accurate. The exact balance of power within the government/cabinet may vary, and PM is indeed "first among equals", but this is not a presidential system.--Gregalton (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If I may jump in here, I just don't believe that's true.The PM, as long as he has the support of caucus, can remake the cabinet at will. The PM -- and PMO -- does give the orders, regardless of what documents or tradition may have to say about it. (I'll try to continue to follow this debate)Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think what you're saying entirely contradicts: "as long as he has the support of caucus" is a very significant qualifier. How the PM retains that support is also significant. The documents and tradition are also important in cases where that support may not be guaranteed. PMO's power is entirely dependent on power of PM, which is largely based on personal/political/informal support within caucus. It's also different now from historically, and I don't think one can say the current concentration of that (effective) power in PMO is the last word.--Gregalton (talk) 07:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Soulscanner: I wasn't even trying to make a personal point. You brought up the comment and I brought out sources to explain them out. I did provide a couple scholarly works, didn't I? I'm not contesting the general points of the relationship between the PM and the Queen, but I do contest a couple key words. The wordings make it sound that the Queen "must not" refuse an advice from the PM, which is not true. Traditions do make the Queen follow the advices of the PM, but there is no legal barrier for her not to follow them in extreme cases. That's why I brought up a "modern" court ruling that constitutional conventions, which the functions of the Queen are based on, cannot crystallize into laws. So saying "no discretionary powers" and "precedents bind the Queen" is misleading, unless you have something to prove me wrong. Now I'm fine with Gregalton's suggestion. I'll quote it out.

As for text, I would suggest a) executive power is exercised by the Cabinet; b) symbolically vested in the monarch/viceroy; c) the monarch/viceroy formally approves actions of executive power based on advice of Cabinet; d) any failure to follow that advice (assent) would constitute or provoke a constitutional crisis. One cannot know with certainty the outcome of a constitutional crisis.

The letter D will clearly points out that the Queen is not necessarily required to follow every advice of the PM. We can clarify by putting the word "reserve power" and wikify it so the readers could click on it to see what it means. Pieuvre (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any quotes from sources from anything posted; please repost the relevant quote. --soulscanner (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Protected

The page is now protected for 5 days days. During this time, please try and find common ground and arrive to a version that all can live with. If you cannot, this is a good time to pursue dispute resolution such as third opinions or requests for comments. If you are ready to resume editing or to contest the protection, place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the issue? I get tho confused, dears.--Gazzster (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, what's the issue? There is no link to a mediation page. Please elaborate on the issue. DocVM (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The offer was to discuss issue of Canada's autonomy vis a vis Britain and the Monarchy on the Dominion page; that has spilled back here. The mediation page for that is here(Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Dominion). --soulscanner (talk) 11:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality and accuracy of Article compromised

The Article says categorically, without modification:

"The monarch is vested with all executive authority"

The cited article says:

"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. The Cabinet, at the federal level, consists of the Prime Minister and Ministers who are answerable to Parliament for government activities."[20]

This is not the same; the above statement needs to be modified, as it exaggerates the real powers of the Queen to such an extent that it seriously compromises the accuracy and POV of the article. Specifcally, we need the following ideas expressed:

• real executive power rests with the Cabinet
• Queen's executive power "is only a constitutional convention"; it is ceremonial. --soulscanner (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a serious disagreement here about how much power is really invested in the Monarch. Let's resolve this before making anymore edits on the subject. --soulscanner (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC) This section has seriously problems, promoting a slanted view of the role of the monarchy in Canadian government, reflecting a marginal monarchist view of government. The role of the monarch and Governor general are largely ceremonial, yet they are depicted here as having real, absolute power. Without serious rehauling that makes direct references with real quotes, the neutrality of the section is compromised. Please keep the neutrality tag here until this issue is resolved. --soulscanner (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you not see that your imagined contradiction is just that: imagined? What real difference is there between The monarch is vested with all executive authority and the executive power in Canada is vested in the Queen? None. So, your cite actually supports what the article presently says. Your source is incorrect, however, in terms of the executive power being conventional; how much executive authority is vested in the monarch is not dictated by any convention or ceremony, it is spelled out clearly in section III.9 of the Constitution Act, 1867, making it a constitutional statute law, not a convention.

There is nothing wrong with the present wording, save for some needed condensing; it's disingenuous to pull out just one sentence and then say the entire section is flawed. I suggest you take into consideration the further elaboration in the section that covers just how executive authority is exercised in Canada before coming back here again to complain. Oh, and do follow your own advice about not editing until there's a resolution; namely one on just whether or not there's anything to dispute first. --G2bambino (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Add "real executive power lies in the Cabinet", and we have an accurate depiction of what's in the reference. --soulscanner (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes. --G2bambino (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Then let's have a short, clear statement that expresses the same idea. Let's address the issue of where real power lies in governemnt; whose opinion matters more: the Cabinet, or the Monarch? --soulscanner (talk) 07:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The reference article is the government of Canada. Is someone claiming that what they say is wrong? DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If we read a few lines down (Government and Politics): however, the Cabinet – a committe of the QPC made up of Ministers of the Crown who are generally responsible to the elected House of Commons – is the main body charged with the task of directing executive authority. So the reference to the Sovereign's executive authority is explained.--Gazzster (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly; hence, my comments above about not just pulling one particular sentence out of context. --G2bambino (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Why can't we add "real executive power lies in the Cabinet", as is clearly stated in the reference? --soulscanner (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it is poor form in the English language to repeat one's self unnecessarily. --G2bambino (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not said anywhere that real power lies in Cabinet. --soulscanner (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Gazzster found where it does. Why can't you? --G2bambino (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We need a clear statement that the role of the GG and Monarch are largely ceremonial, and that real political power lies kn Cabinet and the PMO. Right now, it is convoluted, and the formal role of the Monarch is overemphasized. We need to discuss this more, and use quotes from articles to back up all claims. --soulscanner (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't need a clear statement of your POV. The situation of government in this country is convoluted; welcome to Canada. If this complexity offends your sensibilities, then there's simply nothing that can be done about it besides a constitutonal revision; you should contact Ottawa on that matter. As for here, you've now made a messy, stylistically poor and repetetive section in order to fight a battle that just doesn't exist; there is no "overemphasis" of the monarch's executive power, nor is there a denial of the Cabinet's role in the exercise of it. --G2bambino (talk) 07:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Various sources here manage to sum it up in three or four unconvoluted sentences. If they can do it, so can we. Let's just make sure we represent what is said in these sources with the same clarity. If your contension is with the facts presented in the sources, please find other sources contradicting them. Again, the fact that real power lies in Cabinet is not a difficult thing to say. --soulscanner (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You have placed a tag that challenges the factual accuracy of the section. This was for the apparent reason that the section "overemphasised" the power of the monarch.

You were challenged on this claim when it was pointed out that I and other users don't see any overemphasis, missing, or inaccurate information, only you appear to.

You are now claiming that the section is simply confusing in it's description of the distribution of powers.

These two complaints are not the same. One challenges NPOV and accuracy, the other points out a stylistic flaw. The latter may be valid, but the former is not.

Therefore, your accuracy tag is misplaced. The challenge is to now construct a paragraph that sums up the complexity of the governance system of Canada in a brief form with all the information we have in hand; note: that means not pulling single quotes from websites and giving them almighty importance above and beyond other sources such as the Constitution itself and a full Parliament of Canada guide to the government of the country. --G2bambino (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've noted my objections, and made suggestions for improving the article. You do not even discuss these because you choose to focus on personal attacks on myself. The onus is on an editor to demonstrate that the wording and emphasis are NPOV; please see Wikipedia policy on NPOV disputes. No one has demonstrated this.

Any suggestion that the GG or Queen have real political power needs to be tempered with the fact that they act exclusively on the instructions of the Prime Minister or Parliament except in very rare circumstances regardng the calling of elections. That is the democratic principle in action. Until we have done this to everyone's satisfactin, the neutrality tag remains.

Let's start by discussing how we're going to represent, in their totality, the relevant sources used to write the article below. --soulscanner (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestions for improving the section consist of pulling out unquoted quotes from a single website over the Constitution Act itself, and a published Parliament of Canada guide to governance. Despite the point that this "quote" of yours already repeats, with less subtlty and accuracy, what is stated further on in the paragraph, you insist on it's permanent placement exactly where you want it. Not only does this, ironically, make the section more confusing, which is exactly what you claim it to be, it also doesn't do anything to improve accuracy, which was never an issue in the first place.

Now, instead of your diverting the discussion off to personal matters - which is exactly the type of thing that makes you so frustrating - deal with what's been placed in front of you here. You've made a claim that the section is inaccurate. You've then made a claim that it's not inaccurate, just confusing. Tell it flat out: which one is your real problem? --G2bambino (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like a strong bold statement that real power lies in Cabinet and the PM, and that the GG and Queen are not politically powerful, as clearly outlined in the various sources that are given. There are too many references to the GG and Queen in the section, overstating their importance. --soulscanner (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So, then, you admit there's no factual inaccuracy in the section; your beef is purely with composition. Remove the "accuracy disputed" tag then; place a "cleanup" tag, if you adamantly think tags are necessary.

As for clear wording, I'm all for it. 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.

This means that "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. So, if you'd like to take a stab at recomposing the paragraph with that in mind, go for it. --G2bambino (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, I apologize for calling you guys jerks. It was late. I was tired. This dispute seems trivial. Here's a better way to proceed — why doesn't soulscanner propose a revision that he thinks is better. Then, other people can suggest modifications to it. --Haemo (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Feb. 27 edit

As there was no response to my above statements and requests, I've gone ahead and made the following alterations to the Government and politics section:

a) Removed the accuracy tag, as Soulscanner admitted there was no inaccurate information, only a seemingly confusing wording.

b) Changed

• The constitution is the supreme law of Canada to
• The constitution is the supreme law of of the country.

this avoids repetitious use of the word "Canada," doesn't copy what the source says verbatim, and still says the exact same thing.

c) Added mention of the Statute of Westminster, 1931, as an important part of Canada's constitutional evolution.

d) Removed repetition of the Cabinet's powers from the second paragraph. It now reads, with highlighted emphasis on what Soulscanner seemed to earlier believe was missing:

The monarch is constitutionally vested with executive authority, and is represented by the Governor General, who exercises almost all of the duties of the sovereign; Michaëlle Jean has served as Governor General since September 27, 2005. Both have the authority to sign bills into law, issue Orders-in-Council, and make gubernatorial appointments, and retain some discretionary powers in exceptional constitutional crisis situations, but the Cabinet, a committee of the appointed Queen's Privy Council (QPC) made up of Ministers of the Crown who are generally responsible to the elected House of Commons, is the main body charged with the task of directing the use of executive authority, as, by constitutional convention, to ensure the stability of government both the monarch and viceroy almost invariably defer to the advice of their ministers. One Cabinet member, usually the current leader of the political party that obtains the confidence of a plurality in the House of Commonss, is appointed by the Governor General as Prime Minister, who acts as head of government, making the Prime Minister's Office (PMO), consisting of the Prime Minister and his closest political advisers, one of the most powerful organs of the government, responsible for selecting the other members of the Cabinet, Senators, federal court judges, heads of Crown corporations and government agencies, and the provincial and federal viceroys for appointment. The leader of the party with the second most seats usually becomes the Leader of the Opposition and is part of an adversarial Parliamentary system that keeps the government in check. Stephen Harper, leader of the Conservative Party has been Prime Minister since February 6, 2006, and Stephane Dion, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, has been Leader of the Opposition since December 2, 2006.

I don't think it can be condensed any more than that.

I do think, though, that it's important to note that this article is not the place to put others' commentary on the system of government, but purely the factual arrangement as it stands; other detail can, and should, be put in Government of Canada. --G2bambino (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Word

Someone removed the word all. That's a start. --soulscanner (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I did; purely to accomodate your pedantry. --G2bambino (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it's a start. --soulscanner (talk) 07:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you acknowledge you're using pedantry to force people to acquiesce to your demands. --G2bambino (talk) 07:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave your uncivil remarks aand recognize your edit as an act of good faith. --soulscanner (talk) 08:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing uncivil about it. Just an observation of part of what's causing this unnecessary dispute. --G2bambino (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone pedantic is uncivil. --soulscanner (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't call you pedantic, I said you resorted to tactics that involved pedantry; and not the good kind Gregalton alludes to below. --G2bambino (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Being called anything less than a flaming pedant is an insult in some circles, particularly anything related to Canadian constitutional practice. Wear it proudly, soul-man. ;)--Gregalton (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on: please just take the opportunity presented to drop the issue and move on. Both of you.--Gregalton (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. --G2bambino (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Is constitution the Supreme law in Canada?

Or is it considered by some to be the Supreme law in Canada? I think Section 51 52 of the Constitutin Act, quoted in the article, is clear. --soulscanner (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarify? GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"52.(1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect[21].

Is this valid?--soulscanner (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody said it's "considered by some" except for you; it said "is considered to be the supreme law of the country," without qualifiers on who consideres it so. Please stop inventing non-existent disputes! --G2bambino (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Considered by whom? Please see Wiki policies on weasel words. Clear bold statements are better than weasel words. Please answer the question: is the constitution the Supreme law in Canada? It clearly is. --soulscanner (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Considered by everyone, if you like. --G2bambino (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So if everyone considers it that way, the Constitution is the Supreme law in Canada. Right? Why did you change this wording? --soulscanner (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

For style and to avoid plagiarism. --G2bambino (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you believe that the Constitution is the Supreme law in Canada. It's a simple question that you refuse to answer. Why? --soulscanner (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No need to answer it. End of discussion. --G2bambino (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is. We need to have consensus about this. It's not hard to answer. --soulscanner (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

May I have a simplification on what both editors (G2bambino & Soulscanner) are butting heads over? Maybe I can help break this logjam. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In this section, I am trying to establish if there is consensus that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I had put this in the article, and G2 removed it several times. I wnt to know what his problem is with the statement. He also removed the quote above that supported this statement. --soulscanner (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, I reworded it. Stop lying. --G2bambino (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did you reword it? Answer the question instead of insulting me. --soulscanner (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Case closed, then. I'd still like to no why G2 altered the wording, though. --soulscanner (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Read above. --G2bambino (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that removing the quotes constitutes plagiarism? I don;t think so. It is referenced, and the statement so simple that this suffices. Also, please answer the main question here: Is the constitution the supreme law in Canada? It shouldn;t be this hard to introduce a simple statement of fact without having it altered. --soulscanner (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's an exact copy of what the source says, then yes, no quotations makes it appear as though the words are your own. There are other ways to state what you want without copying your source verbatim. --G2bambino (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the statement factual? --soulscanner (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Now moot. The point is: are you plagiarising? This can be worked out after you address the more serious issues still pending above. --G2bambino (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. It is the main question being posed here, and you still refuse to answer it. If we are to reword the phrase, we need to agree on how to express the fact that the Constitution is the supreme law in Canada. If you do not accept this fact, how can we agree on wording?

Why do you persist? I've already made it blatantly clear: I agree! I never disagreed. Now, for god's sake, move on. --G2bambino (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Really, why not acknowledge this right away? --soulscanner (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Because there was absolutely no reason for you to ask in the first place, let alone about sixteen times. This was just another example of you seeing a dispute where there clearly was none at all. --G2bambino (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes there was. You changes the wording. I wanted to know the reason for this. Other editors had no problem simply agreeing with it. --soulscanner (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So, you thought there needed to be a dispute over the replacement of the word "Canada" with "the country." As I said, you will find an argument where there clearly is none. --G2bambino (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem with this. I had trouble with "is considered the Supreme Law"; I was very clear about this. --soulscanner (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Until the issues of neutrality mentioned are adressed, the neutrality tag needs to stay. Please show good faith and adress the points in the appropriate section. --soulscanner (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, G2 has addressed the points you mention. If you think he hasn't perhaps you need to be clearer. Personally I don't see it.--Gazzster (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but I need time to review the edits. I'll take the tag off once we all agree that the dispute is resolved. It's clear on wiki policy that tags should stay until disputes are resolved. --soulscanner (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Gubernatorial

I find the word gubernatorial here; isn't it an Americanism? DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Found a better way of phrasing the same thing. I edited the government section, which I realise is a sensitive thing to be doing right now, but my intention was to fix only the style; especially the horrible run-on sentence about the soveriegn. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Is gubernatorial an Americanism? I didn't know. I suppose "governmental" would be a viable replacement.

As for your edits to the paragraph, I see little wrong with them, except that the addition of "except under extreme circumstances" is a near exact repeat of the words "they retain some discretionary powers in exceptional constitutional crisis situations." Though I have doubts, as I expressed earlier, I could be convinced that there's a way to hone this paragraph down even more, to avoid run-ons and repetitions. --G2bambino (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Gubernatorial" is a common name when referring to State governors in the U.S. Americans reading this article will likely assume that Premiers are referred to as governors when reading this. --soulscanner (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed 'make gubernatorial appointments' to 'appoint governors'. Shorter and clearer. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Guernatorial is a word meaning "of or relating to a governor" and is not an Americanism. However, the more familiar term used in a Commonwealth country is "vice-regal". -Rrius (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it seems then that I botched the whole thing. I intended the word to mean "governmental," not knowing that it was used specifically in relation to governors. --G2bambino (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed section

After stating that the previous issue with the "Government and politics" section was one of clarity and not accuracy, he appears to have a new concern about accuracy. I wonder if he'd be so kind as to enlighten us on what exactly is now inaccurate about the section in question. --G2bambino (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I've made it clear that I thought the role of the monarchy was overemphasized, and that it led to the innaccurate interpretation that the monarch and GG had real political power. That's an accuracy and POV problem.

Simply put, it needs to be clear that real executive political power in Canada resides with the Cabinet and PM, and that the role of the GG and monarch are largely ceremonial except in very rare circumstances. That is not the case here.

--soulscanner (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. Nothing in the section has been proven to be factually inaccurate. Thus, if a misleading impression is given, it merely has to do with how the accurate facts are arranged. That's a problem with composition, not accuracy. --G2bambino (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You say real power lies in the monarchy. The sources I've provided contradict that. That is the source of the conflict. --soulscanner (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: nothing in the section has been proven to be factually inaccurate. --G2bambino (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The omission that real power lies in cabinet give the misleading impression that real power lies in the Monarchy. I'm challenging this. The article glosses over what is an essential principle of democracy in Canada i.e. that real executive power lies in Cabinet. It is fully backed up by the sources given below. We have a legitimate neutrality problem --soulscanner (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ask for what was omitted, I said nothing in the section has been proven to be factually inaccurate, which is what your tag says the entire section is. If you are arguing that something is missing from the section, that's another matter all-together, but one better discussed below. --G2bambino (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What does the Constitution say? Does it say, the monarch has the executive powers? the Prime Minister? Whichever it is, use that. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Soulscanner's wishlist

Soulscanner appears to be arguing that the "Government and politics" section of this article is factually inaccurate because it omits key information. To remedy this, he insists on inserting direct copies of text from copyrighted sources in one specific location in the paragraph, failing every time to realise that this is just repeating what the paragraph already says.

I will now put forward a proposed paragraph, and illustrate how it contains every bit of information Soulscanner says is missing.

Executive authority is constitutionally vested in the monarch, who has delegated almost all these powers to her representative, the Governor General; Michaëlle Jean has served as Governor General since September 27, 2005. The Queen's Privy Council (QPC) is appointed to "aid and advise" in the governance of the country; however, by constitutional convention a committee of the QPC, the Cabinet, is the sole body charged with directing the use of the executive powers. As the monarch and viceroy, to ensure the stability of government, both remain apolitical, predominantly ceremonial, and almost invariably defer to the advice of their ministers in all governmental matters, executive power is said to lie with the Cabinet. To choose and head the Cabinet, the Governor General appoints a person, usually the leader of the political party that obtains the confidence of the House of Commons, as Prime Minister; thus, the Prime Minister's Office (PMO), consisting of the Prime Minister and his political advisers, is one of the most powerful organs of the government, responsible for selecting, besides the other Cabinet members, Senators, federal court judges, heads of Crown corporations and government agencies, and the provincial and federal viceroys for appointment. The monarch and Governor General do, however, retain some discretionary powers for use in exceptional constitutional crisis situations. The leader of the party with the second most seats usually becomes the Leader of the Opposition and is part of an adversarial Parliamentary system that keeps the government in check. Stephen Harper, leader of the Conservative Party has been Prime Minister since February 6, 2006, and Stephane Dion, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, has been Leader of the Opposition since December 2, 2006.

1) Soulscanner wants: the Monarch is bounded gy constitutional conventions

• The proposal states: by constitutional convention... the Cabinet is the sole body charged with directing the use of the executive powers.

2) Soulscanner wants: the GG's role is mostly ceremonial, Queen has very little political power

The proposal states: the monarch and viceroy, to ensure the stability of government, remain apolitical, predominantly ceremonial

3) Soulscanner wants: real power lies in Cabinet

• The proposal states: executive power is said to lie with the Cabinet

In this instance I have added the word "said" because this is said by the Department of Justice, and it is their interpretation of the situation, not something written explicitly in law.

It thus seems to satisfy every one of Soulscanner's demands. --G2bambino (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging my points. That's all I was asking. I don't have time to comment on this right now; my wife will leave me if I spend more time on this (jk). I'll be back tomorrow. We all need a breather anyways; Feel free to edit what I've put in the article; kindly do not revert, but move and add things instead, in good faith. Please leave the neutrality tag on there until everyone is happy with the edits (including me). We can work this out; we did well on the Quebec page. Let's show good faith and not resort to edit warring, but in revising what we put here. --soulscanner (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Be it said that the above is a far cry from what I would put. I think emphasizing the role of the Monarch over that of Cabinet gives a mistaken impression of how the political system in Canada really works. The role of cabinet needs to be described much earlier, an the role of the GG and Queen qualified. --soulscanner (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Versions

Version 1

Working off of Rrius' suggested beginning, I've come up with the following:

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; Michaëlle Jean has served in this post since September 27, 2005. As the monarch and viceroy stay apolitical and predominantly ceremonial in order to ensure the stability of government – by convention almost invariably deferring all governmental matters to their ministers in the Cabinet, who are themselves responsible to the elected House of Commons – real executive power is said to lie with the Cabinet. To head and select the Cabinet, the Governor General appoints one person, usually the leader of the political party that commands the confidence of the House of Commons, as Prime Minister; thus, the Prime Minister's Office is one of the most powerful organs of government, responsible for 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 Governor General do, however, retain discretionary powers for use in exceptional constitutional crisis situations. The leader of the party with the second most seats usually becomes the Leader of the Opposition and is part of an adversarial Parliamentary system that keeps the government in check. Stephen Harper, leader of the Conservative Party has been Prime Minister since February 6, 2006, and Stephane Dion, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, has been Leader of the Opposition since December 2, 2006.

--G2bambino (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Version 2

Here's Soulscanner's version:

Executive authority is formally vested in the monarch, but according to principles of democracy, is exercised politically by Cabinet . Most of the Queen's ceremonial duties are carried out by her viceroy, the Governor General; Michaëlle Jean has served as Governor General since September 27, 2005. The Cabinet is selected by the head of government, the Prime Minister, usually the leader of the political party that obtains the confidence of the elected House of Commons. By constitutional convention the monarch or Governor Generally formally appoint the Prime Minister and Cabinet, retaining some discretionary powers for use in exceptional constitutional crisis situations. The Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers become part of the Privy Council Office (PCO), a body formally set up to advise the Monarch and Governor General. Through cabinet, the Prime Minister's Office (PMO), consisting of the Prime Minister and his political advisers, is one of the most powerful organs of the government, responsible for selecting Senators, federal court judges, heads of Crown corporations and government agencies, and the provincial and federal viceroys for appointment. The monarch and Governor General always formally follow the wishes of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The leader of the party with the second most seats usually becomes the Leader of the Opposition and is part of an adversarial Parliamentary system that keeps the government in check. Stephen Harper, leader of the Conservative Party has been Prime Minister since February 6, 2006, and Stephane Dion, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, has been Leader of the Opposition since December 2, 2006.

Version 3

Here's a better version, which captures the essence of both. The idea here is to emphasize the dual nature of Canadian governance — as a de facto and a de jure set of rules.

Executive authority is constitutionally vested in the monarch, but is in practice exercised by the Cabinet, a committee of the Queen's Privy Council. The Cabinet is selected and lead by the head of government, the Prime Minister, and appointed by the Queen's viceroy, the Governor General; Michaëlle Jean has served in this post since September 27, 2005. The monarch and viceroy are apolitical and predominantly ceremonial — by convention deferring governmental matters to their ministers in the Cabinet, who are themselves responsible to the elected House of Commons, and exercising discretionary powers only in constitutional crises. The Prime Minister is formally appointed to office by the Governor General as well, but by convention the leader of the political party that commands the confidence of the House of Commons is chosen. Thus, the Prime Minister's Office is one of the most powerful elected organs of government, responsible for 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 leader of the party with the second most seats usually becomes the Leader of the Opposition and is part of an adversarial Parliamentary system that keeps the government in check. Stephen Harper, leader of the Conservative Party has been Prime Minister since February 6, 2006, and Stephane Dion, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, has been Leader of the Opposition since December 2, 2006.

I don't particularly approve of the changes above, for the following specific reasons:

• The first sentence omits the organ of the Governor General from Cabinet, ignoring the point that no Order-in-Council can be issued without the Governor General's name on it. Rrius was correct to state Executive authority is... in practice exercised by the Cabinet... through... the Governor General.
• It breaks and mixes up the order of process, mentioning the Prime Minister and part of his role before it's even explained how he comes to be. I think the paragraph should follow the constitutional structure: monarch, viceroy, QPC, Cabinet, Prime Minister; while at the same time making clear the locus of authority - the monarch - essentially leaves all political decisions and the exercise of executive power to the PM.
• It neglects to mention the very important aspect of continual governmental stability behind many of the conventions covered; this is a key factor behind why the chief executive rarely personally exercises her own powers.

In essence, I prefer my version at the head of this section over this particular hybrid. However it's worded, I think the paragraph should be built on the following flow: 1) The monarch is vested with executive authority, 2) the monarch delegates almost all the exercise of this to a representative, 3) the viceroy is advised by a council on how to exercise the executive authority, 4) to keep government stable, the monarch and viceroy leave political decision making predominantly to council, leaving them to focus more on ceremonial duties; 5) a Prime Minister heads the council 6) thus the Prime Minister is powerful. This whole thing simply needs to be looked at as an equation; a + b + c + etc. = x, without any hidden postulations on who's got more of what. --G2bambino (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

One problem with both of those - the mixing of the description of the roles with the names of the current incumbents. The whole thing would be much better of the roles were described first, and then the names given at the end. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Version 4

Fair enough. Then, with a few other tweaks, it might appear something like:

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. As the monarch and viceroy stay apolitical and predominantly ceremonial in order to ensure the stability of government – by convention almost invariably deferring all governmental matters to their ministers in the Cabinet, who are themselves responsible to the elected House of Commons – real executive power is 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.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; thus, the Prime Minister's Office is one of the most powerful organs of government, responsible for 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 leader of the party with the second most seats usually becomes the Leader of the Opposition and is part of an adversarial Parliamentary system that keeps the government in check. Michaëlle Jean has served as Governor General since September 27, 2005; Stephen Harper, leader of the Conservative Party has been Prime Minister since February 6, 2006; and Stephane Dion, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, has been Leader of the Opposition since December 2, 2006.

--G2bambino (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My only objection to this revision is that we've lost the "responsible to the elected House of Commons" line. It makes it a little bit unclear that Canadian government is elected, and that true power comes from the people, not the Queen. --Haemo (talk) 00:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's there; second sentence. --G2bambino (talk) 16:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm ... some might accuse you of creeping republicanism here ;-) . --soulscanner (talk) 04:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Version 5

• Again, the above text still glosses over important points. More emphasis needs to be made that real power lies in Cabinet. All references cited here say it does, and "said to" is a WP:Weasel Word that weakens this fact.

The clause of the BNA act that sets up the monarch with executive power has been superseded by constitutional precedent and Constitutional reforms that have further entrenched principles of democracy in the constitution. Historian Andrew Heard is clear that the BNA act clause recognizing the monarch as having "ultimate" (real, if you will) executive authority (among other subordinations) no longer applies:

"At its inception in 1867, Canada's colonial status was marked by political and legal subjugation to British Imperial supremacy in all aspects of government - legislative, judicial, and executive. ... the Governor General had a substantive role as a representative of the British government, and ultimate executive power was vested in the British Monarch - who was advised only by British Ministers in its exercise. Canada's independence came about as each of these subordinations was eventually removed."

Moreover, we should not expect to see laws declaring this; it is a question of constitutional conventions and legal interpretations of the courts that constrain the GG and Queen:

"Much of Canada's independence arose from the development of new political arrangements, many of which have been absorbed into judicial decisions interpreting the constitution - with or without explicit recognition."

One such precedent was explicitly recognized at the Imperial Conference of 1930, which set new rules constraining the Monarch to act on the advice of Canadian Cabinet Ministers in the appointment of the GG; Mackenzie King had insisted on this precisely so the King-Byng affair could not repeat itself:

1. The parties interested in the appointment of a Governor General are His Majesty the King, whose representative he is, and the Dominion concerned. 2. The constitutional practice that His Majesty acts on the advice of responsible Ministers applies also in this instance. 3. The Ministers who tender and are responsible for such advice are His Majesty's Ministers in the Dominion concerned. 4. The Ministers concerned tender their formal advice after informal consultation with His Majesty.

When legal scholars (say at the Department of Justice, the University of Ottawa Law School, or Simon Fraser University) say that Cabinet has real power, it is because they know that clauses in the BNA that proclaim the executive authority of the Queen have been replaced by a plethora of legal decisions and constitutional precedents. It is not the role of Wikipedia editors to put their own constitutional interpretations that contrast with known scholarship.

• It should be emphasized right away the GG and Monarch's functions are mostly ceremonial to leave no doubt where real political power lies.
• The only part of the Privy Council that matters is Cabinet; if the Privy council needs to be mentioned, it can be mentioned later that Cabinet Ministers are part of the Privy Council, or better yet, under Government of Canada article.
• Official Name of PCO is "Privy Council Office" (see PCO website).
• The quotes in the references need to stay.

Here's a new version:

Executive authority is formally vested in the monarch and her appointed Canadian representative, the Governor General; their function is primarily ceremonial and according to democratic principles, real political power is exercised by Cabinet. The Cabinet is selected by the head of government, the Prime Minister, usually the leader of the political party that obtains the confidence of the most members in the elected House of Commons. Through Cabinet and the Privy Council Office, the Prime Minister's Office acts as one of the most powerful organs of government, selecting Senators, federal court judges, heads of Crown corporations and government agencies, and the federal and provincial viceroys. Ceremonial duties of the Monarch and Governor General include calling on a new Prime Minister to form a government after an election, appointing the Cabinet, and formally appointing the elected government's political nominees; they retain some discretionary powers in calling elections and selecting Prime Ministers in exceptional crisis situations.. The leader of the party with the second most seats usually becomes the Leader of the Opposition and is part of an adversarial Parliamentary system that keeps the government in check. Michaëlle Jean has served as Governor General since September 27, 2005; Stephen Harper, leader of the Conservative Party has been Prime Minister since February 6, 2006; and Stephane Dion, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, has been Leader of the Opposition since December 2, 2006.

--soulscanner (talk) 04:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• "Said to" is not an example of weasel words because it is cited.
• Heard is talking about the waning imposition of British authority over Canada, not the Queen of Canada's position in the Canadian constitution.
• Nothing in my version above contradicts the decisions reached at the Imperial Conference, 1930.
• Your rendition lacks in a number of areas:

1) Executive authority is constitutionally vested.

2) Executive authority is not vested in the Governor General.

3) The Prime Minister is mentioned before any explanation of how he comes to be; as though he just appears out of nowhere as PM

4) The selection of a prime minister is not ceremonial.

5) The reserve powers extend beyond selecting prime ministers.

6) The PCO and Cabinet appear to be entities floating in complete separation, as opposed to being part of a larger body: the Privy Council.

• There's really nothing wrong with my last version, save for the valid point raised by Haemo r.e. responsibility to the House of Commons. It lays out the system as it stands in law, whereas it seems your main ambition here is to formulate a paragraph that suits only your world view - i.e. one wehere the prime minister is chief executive and true head of state, which simply is not the case. How much longer to you plan to keep this up? --G2bambino (talk) 15:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed tags for PM and GG

A user has added 'citation needed' tags all around the line saying that the GG formally appoints the PM, claiming "factual inaccuracies". Am I missing something here? I can't figure out what part of that line is incorrect. Is it the fact that constitutionally they are appointed to the privy council, not the cabinet? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation tags

At Artic.gnome's request, I'll explain the factual issues with the current "Government and politics" section:

• The constitution charges the Governor General with appointments to the Privy Council, and thus it's incorrect to state that the monarch has a part in appointing the Prime Minister and rest of Cabinet; though maybe the monarch could create the cabinet out of QPC members who've been appointed by the GG. None-the-less, it's a hazily written sentence.
• The Prime Minister and Cabinet members are not necessarily part of the Privy Council Office.
• The Privy Council Office does not advise the Governor General.

--G2bambino (talk) 18:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Reiteration of neutrality problems

A few examples of referenced sources contradicting claims made by G2

• Here's an example from the university of Ottawa:

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 [22].

• Here's a second example from the department of justice::

"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."

"Most laws in Canada are first examined and discussed by the Cabinet, then presented for debate and approval by members of the House of Commons and the Senate. Before a bill becomes a law, the Queen or her representative, the Governor General, must also approve or “assent to” it. This requirement of royal assent does not mean that the Queen is politically powerful; by constitutional convention, the Monarch always follows the advice of the government."[23]--soulscanner (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The following clarifications need to made boldly, or readers will confuse the ceremonial role of the GG and Queen:

• real power lies in Cabinet
• the Queen and GG are not politically powerful
• the role of the Queen and GG are mostly ceremonial
• the Queen and GG always defer to Cabinet or Parliament, except in exceptional circumstances

There are many ways of expressing this, an I'm open to various ones

These referenced statements (the bold in particular) directly contradict G2bambino's statements:

This means that "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,

The above say that real power DOES lie with the Cabinet because that is where it is exercised day to day. I think when original research and personal opinions conflict directly with solid, referenced sources, we have a neutrality and accuracy problem. --soulscanner (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're saying this is not an accuracy issue, but one of clarity.

The sources you quote above omit or gloss over some facts in favour of brevity. We do not want to do this in an encyclopaedia.

You have not been able to dispel the Constitution Act, 1867, as incorrect or irrelevant.

The section already outlines everything you state above. Readers will not mistake that the monarch and viceroy act predominantly in a ceremonial fashion. --G2bambino (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's your argument that gloss over the real issue. The references address it directly and simply. They say that real power lies with the cabinet, not with the monarch. They contradict your arguement directly. That is the source of conflict here. --soulscanner (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

My references address it more directly and less simply. They say that "real power" lies with the monarch, though it is usually only exercised by the Queen or GG on the advice of Cabinet, which makes the Cabinet appear to hold "real power." I'm not sure we want to present illusions as fact here.

I suppose one could say that the Cabinet is generally viewed as holding executive power, but that's just added detail that would most likely be better suited to Government of Canada, and which doesn't dispel the constitutionally entrenched verity that executive authority belongs to the Queen. --G2bambino (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

SO you disagree with the above references? --soulscanner (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't necessarily disagree fully with your references, but, as I've already said, I do believe they omit and blur some facts for the sake of brevity, something commonly done in general parlance, but which is not very academic. Basicly, they're simplistic summarys of the situation for fast consumption, which I don't think is what we're striving for here. If need be, though, we can mention in the section what I suggested above. --G2bambino (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I hesitate to get involved here, but I see references that back up, explicitly, what Soulscanner is saying. I don't see any that directly back up what G2bambino is saying. Now it's a long and complicated argument, but maybe G2bambino could point them out if I missed them? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

My sources are already in the article. --G2bambino (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, it is not up to us to decide if these sources "blur" things. The above references say that exucutive power is vested in the Queen, bu that this power is only ceremonial; real political power lies in Cabinet. It is the text in this article that blurs this over by not stating this in simple, straightforward language, with the express purpose of supporting your POV that real power lies in the monarch.. Please provide a direct quote contadicting the above conclusion about real executive power lying in Cabinet. All I've seen is your opinion. --soulscanner (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As all you've actually been presented with is sourced material, it would seem all you're choosing to see is my opinion. One might wonder if you're in denial because there are sources, including your own, that contradict your assertions. --G2bambino (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a clear quote and source that clearly states that real political power lies in the Monarchy. All we've seen is your interpretation of the BNA act, which is contradicted by the above quotes. --soulscanner (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It adds more back in, but is this any better?

Executive authority is constitutionally vested in the monarch, who has delegated almost all these powers to her representative, the Governor General; Michaëlle Jean has served as Governor General since September 27, 2005. The Queen's Privy Council (QPC) is appointed to "aid and advise" in the governance of the country; however, by constitutional convention a committee of the QPC, the Cabinet, is the sole body charged with directing the use of the executive powers. As the monarch and viceroy, to ensure the stability of government, remain apolitical and almost invariably defer to the advice of their Cabinet in all governmental matters, it is commonly said that real executive power lies with that body. To choose and head the Cabinet, the Governor General appoints a person, usually the leader of the political party that obtains the confidence of the House of Commons, as Prime Minister; thus, the Prime Minister's Office (PMO), consisting of the Prime Minister and his political advisers, is one of the most powerful organs of the government, responsible for selecting, besides the other Cabinet members, Senators, federal court judges, heads of Crown corporations and government agencies, and the provincial and federal viceroys for appointment. The monarch and Governor General do, however, retain some discretionary powers for use in exceptional constitutional crisis situations. The leader of the party with the second most seats usually becomes the Leader of the Opposition and is part of an adversarial Parliamentary system that keeps the government in check. Stephen Harper, leader of the Conservative Party has been Prime Minister since February 6, 2006, and Stephane Dion, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, has been Leader of the Opposition since December 2, 2006.

--G2bambino (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything there to disagree with the statement that executive authority lies with the cabinet. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean besides the Constitution Act, 1867, and Soulscanner's own source, I assume. --G2bambino (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything in them to disagree with it either. I understand that your interepretation is different, but given that we have the Department of Justice making a definitive interpretation ("In our democratic society, this is only a constitutional convention, as the real executive power rests with the Cabinet.") I think we should go with them. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What interpretation? I've simply laid it out as it is. --G2bambino (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

G2 is right. Legally executive power rests with the sovereign. Cabinet possesses it in the sense that it advises the sovereign on when and how to exercise her authority. It is the same in the UK, and in most of the other Commonwealth realms.--Gazzster (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. We have a clear statement by the Department of Justice: "real executive power rests with the Cabinet". You may be right in saying that theoretical power lies with the sovereign, but the DoJ gets the last word on these matters. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

We also have a clear statement in the Constitution Act, as well as from the Department of Justice, that executive power rests with the Queen. Are we to dismiss the Constitution Act outright and accept the DoJ's self-contradiction?

I think this is all beside the point anyway. In my proposal above I've essentially listed the various strata of the upper eschelons of government and how they're related, without commentary or original research. I then inserted the DoJ's take on the matter, without commentary or original research. Thus, it stands that there's nothing in the proposal that can really be contested as being inaccurate or misleading. --G2bambino (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You talk about the theoretical authority of the Queen. It may be unseen, but it is not theoretically. It is the legal foundation of the government, if I read your Constitution correctly. G2 quite correctly asserts this to be the case. The DoJs statement does not contradict this. It is simply saying that practically power lies with the cabinet (which is perfectly true). But the DOJ would also agree that legally authority ultimately comes from the sovereign. It prosecutes in her name, after all? TheQueen vs Blogs, or whatever.--Gazzster (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is your opinion. The referenced legal opinions above contradict it. That is not to say either is wrong or right, but basing this article on personal opinions (yours or mine), even reasonable ones, would constitute original research. According to the department of justice and legal scholars quoted above, real power lies in Cabinet. That is what needs to be explained in this article, along with the legal arguements that support it. If you don't accept it, I suggest we go to mediation or ask for a reference to sort out this issue of original research vs. referenced sources. --soulscanner (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Soulscanner: point out specifically where either the original research or inaccurate claims are in my above proposal. --G2bambino (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The following quote contradicts the above sources, and is based on your original research: This means that "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,; I am arguing that unless the ideas listed on top of this section are included, as is done int he sources, it will appear as if real power lies with the Monarch. The Wiki text right now gives this erroneous impression by deliberately omitting showing that real power lies in Cabinet. --soulscanner (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not ask you to point out OR in my opinion asked for by you and expressed by me on the talk page, not in the article. I requested that you to point out specifically where either the original research or inaccurate claims are in my above proposal. Now, please do so. --G2bambino (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Executive authority is constitutionally vested in the monarch,[27][28] who has delegated almost all these powers to her representative, the Governor General ... without a qualifier, this implies that the monarch has real power, which is false. ODeleteing the qualifier "but real power lies in Cabinet" "the Monarch is not politically powerful" "the Monarch always formally respects the wishes of Cabinet", it pushes your personal POV that real power lies in the Monarch. We can leave everything else in, but we need to add these qualifiers to accurately represent what is in these references. --soulscanner (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you ignore: by constitutional convention, a committee of the QPC, the Cabinet, is the sole body charged with directing the use of the executive powers. As the monarch and viceroy... remain apolitical and almost invariably defer to the advice of their Cabinet in all governmental matters, it is commonly said that real executive power lies with that body... the Prime Minister's Office (PMO)... is one of the most powerful organs of the government? --G2bambino (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Because there is nothing wrong with this part. The QPC is an unneccessary detail. Only the cabinet exercises power. However, that is besides the point. it is commonly said are WP:Weasel Words; Cabinet does have real executive power; I have seen no referenced source contradicting this, only your original interpretation of the BNA act--soulscanner (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, there's the "qualifier" you were looking for.

As for the QPC being unnecessary: your personal opinion.

If you don't like "it is commonly said" (I suppose, then, you think the DoJ is the only source that does), how about "the Department of Justice says."

The rest of your comments: irrelevant strawmen. --G2bambino (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I have to agree that you're nitpicking, making issues where there are none. I assume you acknowledge that the Constitutions says execitive power lies with the Sovereign. The Sovereign acts on the advice of the Cabinet, though there may be occasions where she may act without or against its advice. Therefore, practically, all executive authority lies with Cabinet. Surely this is what the DoJ means. All this has been explained. And you have not decisively and clearly denied it. Are we going around in circ les for the thrill of the ride? --Gazzster (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The above sources say this too, but qualify it by saying that real power lies in Cabinet. In other words, the Monarch's power is formal and ceremonial. All referenced sources here support it. It is ot nitpicking ... the paragraph is about who has the real executive power in Canada. It is an extremely important point. --soulscanner (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with including the simple statments "real power lies in Cabinet" "the Monarch is bounded gy constitutional conventions" "the GG's role is mostly ceremonial" "the Queen has very little political power"? Why should these be deleted? Why not start with "Real executive power lies with the Cabinet, but by constitutional convention is formally exercised by the GG and Queen?" It is a much more accurate representation of how power is structures, and a much differnt statement than what appears now.

Because it's not a convention. Now, answer my above question. --G2bambino (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a convention. "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." (see above). What is wrong with reproducing what is in a referenced source? Your opinion is contradicted. --soulscanner (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Because that would cause a contradiction within Wikipedia, whose own article Constitutional convention (political custom) accurately states that conventions are unwritten. In this case the Queen's holding of executive power is most certainly written in law.

Regardless, you still have not answered my question. --G2bambino (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

G2bambino, you appear to be being deliberately obstructive. Nobody disagrees that executive power lies formally (theoretically if you prefer) with the Queen. The DoJ makes it quite clear that that power is a constitutional convention, and those are the exact words it uses. Those two statements are not contradictory. Your interpretation of the constitution does not override the DoJ's. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And you appear to ignore Soulscanner's obstruction because you side with his argument. Executive power lies constitutionally (legally, if you prefer) with the Queen. This is written in law, and thus is not a convention. If you can provide us an example of how a statute law is a convention, please do your best. Say "the Department of Justice says it's a convention" all you want, the Constitution itself says it's not. --G2bambino (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the constitution explicitly states that executive authority is vested in the Crown, it is not a convention. A convention is an unwritten rule. Even if the DoJ website stated the contrary to be true, the explicit rule would not be a convention. The convention is that executive authority is exercised by the Cabinet. That another website, even a relatively reliable one, says something does not make it fact. The contention that what is stated in the constitution is a convention can be refuted by logic and a dictionary.

That said, the article text needs a better opening sentence. It needs to more clearly state the way the system works. I propose that it open, "Executive authority is constitutionally vested in the monarch, but in practice it is exercised by the Cabinet through the Governor General". The rest of the paragraph would need modest alterations, but I think the language I am proposing meets the needs of both sides. -Rrius (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a respectable beginning, but I think its use would necessitate a pretty hefty rewriting of the rest of the paragraph, as some of that is already covered in it. Not to say that isn't an option, of course. --G2bambino (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

G2bambino, you are talking rubbish. Your position is tenable only if you think the DoJ is wrong, and that you have a better knowledge of constitutional law than they do. Making your own interpretation of primary document is called Wikipedia:Original research and not allowed. Please give up on this piece of stupidity or you will be well on the way to becoming a problem editor. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was a helpful commentary. Thanks for participating! --G2bambino (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm glad you agree. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I hoped you would. --G2bambino (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disagreeing on the essential points, i.e.

1. constitutionally, executive power lies with the sovereign
2. In practice this power is almost always exercised upon the advise of the cabinet.

The disagreement seems to be about the word convention. A convention (in government) is a custom, a tradition. It is part of constitutional practice. So you could say that the Governor-General, the Queen's rep, is constitutionally bound to follow the advise of his or her ministers. But the constitution itself does not spell this out.--Gazzster (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Addition to external links

I was wondering if it is appropriate to add this website to the external links. It contains 3D Canadian contour maps from coast to coast with searchable place names.

http://www.earthdetails.com/

24.87.66.227 (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't have thought so. Quite suitable for the Geography of Canada article though. Canterbury Tail talk 21:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

-'s

Why are -'s produced in lower levels? For example in Canada, in the "Establishment" cell of its infobox, it has:

Establishment
 -British North America Act July 1, 1867
 -Statute of Westminster December 11, 1931
 -Canada Act April 17, 1982

Or something alone those lines. Why are these -'s (hyphens or whatever) created?Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like they are bulleted lists. Since some of the items go over one line, or are sequential, the dashes show where a new item begins. There is probably a better way of doing it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

350,000 baby seals to be clubbed to death this year.

I know this isn't the correct forum, however I am seeking clarification on something that .. well, Canada is known for almost as much as it's maple syrup. Why isn't the killing of 350k baby seals scheduled for this year even mentioned anywhere in the article? Also, can someone please confirm that there's clandestine media control in place in relation to this sicko stuff? I've been advised that the seal clubbers are protected by the Seal Protection Regulations that make it a Federal offense to witness or document a seal pup being killed. I heard that in Canada if you see a sealer club a seal pup and you don’t have a permit to witness the slaughter you can be arrested, jailed and fined up to $100,000 or sent to jail for a year.

I was thinking of running a small media crew up from Sydney, AU to document this event due to the fact I've never seen it exposed on television and I feel that if the public were confronted with it, well .. Canadians may have a lot to say about how their tax dollars are being spent, and the world at large would probably be much less impressed with them than Japan over whaling. But the thought of getting ganked and fined just for documenting something going on in the public sphere is intimidating. Any advice? 122.107.65.2 (talk) 08:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, neither this page nor the Talk:Seal hunting page are appropriate venues to discuss the merits of seal hunting. Second, I'd like to know where you got your information about the "Seal Protection Regulations". The only references I could find on it were on some obivously biased blogs. It would seem to me that someone should be able to produce a link to thedse so-called "regulations".--Ramdrake (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't the appropriate place for that; it belongs in seal hunting, if anywhere. Of course, citations for your claim would be expected, especially given that images of the seal hunt have appeared in Canadian media (including on The National), though the actual act is rarely shown, only its result. (Don't ask Wikipedians to support conspiracy theories about "clandestine media control", though, unless you have incontrovertible evidence for it.) Also, I believe that the Seal Protection Regulations made it an offense to interfere with the hunt, rather than simply viewing it. According to this, one needs to obtain a licence for viewing, and the terms for it are defined here. So, while it is restrictive, it is not, as you imply, illegal. Also, please don't expect others to do all this work for you - there are plenty of search engines that provide good links to the query "Seal Protection Regulations" (that is, instead of stating "I heard", provide reliable evidence). Mindmatrix 13:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't seen news coverage of the seal hunt then I'm tempted to ask "what country have you been living in?", except that you told us. The seal hunt is a media event, with celebrities lining up to be photographed next to cuddly little seal pups. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. "I've never seen it exposed on television" Not sure where you get that from. Every year I see vids and images of the seal hunt on CBC. If you aren't exposed to such images (and you wish to be), then you should be railing against the incredibly biased and ****tacular Australian media. Even FOX isn't as bad as what you poor people have to put up with in Australia, if my experiences with AU broadcasting are representative of the norm.Gopher65 (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup. It gets tons of media coverage. If I were you I'd run a big media crew because a small one is just going to get lost in the scrum. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the hunt isn't mentioned because it is not considered to be a major part of Canadian history, culture, or economy. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont see how Canadian seal hunting is any different from American deer hunting. Get a job. —Ƿōdenhelm (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)