Talk:Government of Canada

Moved

I've mostly copied and pasted parts from the Politics of Canada article. It needs work, so I hope there will be help. -PullUpYourSocks 01:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think your solution was great. As I commented on the Politics of Canada talk page, there may be articles pointing there that really ought to link to this article. I assume the long list of articles already linking did so when this article was still a redirect, so it might not be necessary to undertake such a review. I'll keep my eyes open and take care of it if and when I get a chance. Agent 86 23:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Reference to Government

I think that this page should perhaps include a note at the top that would read something along the lines of:

The Government of Canada often refers to the governing ministry, rather than the institution of government as a whole. For this usage, see the 28th Ministry of Canada.

When I searched for Government of Canada, I was actually searching for a page about the current Government (as in the Conservative Government), and I think it would make sense if we had a quick link at the top to that effect. Thoughts? Paradokuso 06:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Usage

Should say this:

In Canadian English, the word "government" is used to refer both to the whole set intitutions that govern the country (following American usage, but where Britons would use "state"), and to the current political leadership (following British usage, but where Americans would use "administration"). For example a Canadian could be a "government employee" but never a "state employee", and they would vote for the "Harper government" but never the "Harper administration".

Right?! Kevlar67 22:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll take that as a yes. Kevlar67 (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Can-pol w.jpg

Image:Can-pol w.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization

Terms for offices such as governor general, prime minister, and premier appear to be capitalized inconsistently throughout the article. Is there a rationale for the current capitalization choices, or should I clean it up? -Rrius (talk) 09:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the Manual of Style, I think editors may have used its rule of thumb while ignoring the basic rule. The issue is general versus specific uses of "prime minister". Capitalize it when discussing the official title (Prime Minister of Canada), when using it as a prenomial title (Prime Minister Stephen Harper), or when using it to refer to a specific individual ("today the Prime Minister met with the premiers of Alberta and Ontario"). When writing of the office generally, it should be lower case. For example, "such appointments are made on the advice of the prime minister". -Rrius (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

ok i really like vewin this information it was really helpful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.105.215 (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject template and assessment

I changed the WP Canada template today by removing links to the individual provinces/territory projects (as redundancies) and I raised the quality rating from 'Start' to 'C'. The article is of reasonable quality, although it is need of more referencing and footnoting. PKT 00:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Aboriginal Governance Section should be Added

There is nothing about Aboriginal Governance in the article. First Nations essentially operate at a level of Government that is provincially separate. I believe information should be added regarding Aboriginal governance in Canada historically and contemporarily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.170.158 (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The constitutional powers and rights of the Crown

My suggestion is that the facts be simply presented as thus, which is that the executive power of the country is vested in the Crown (i.e. the Queen and Governor General). Thus, Forsey's interpretation is entirely correct as the standard in law. As the quoted Canadian public service article itself states:

Since Canada is a constitutional monarchy, the Queen is the head of state in whom full executive power is vested. When the Queen is not in Canada, she is represented by the Governor General, who exercises the legal powers of the Crown on her behalf. For the most part, the Governor General exercises these powers “with the advice” or the “advice and consent” of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada ... The executive power of the government is extensive ... Under the constitution these powers are exercised by the Crown on the advice of the elected government of the day. At issue is whether the convention leaves any discretionary decision-making room in the hands of the Crown, that is, room not to follow the advice of the government and instead to do something else. If the Crown is to serve as a check on the government of the day, it must possess a discretionary power. Otherwise, it is simply a rubber stamp of the government’s actions.

Then the CSPS goes on to state:

Forsey’s credibility as an authority on these matters notwithstanding, many Canadians today would find these scenarios unthinkable. Thankfully, they are not used to seeing Prime Ministers act unconstitutionally and naturally would regard such concerns as overblown. Furthermore, they might view the exercise of the reserve power of the Crown as undemocratic because the Crown is not an elected institution ... Yet the system of responsible government needs a head of state with enough independence to withstand a determined government’s assault on the constitution, although not enough to interfere in democratic politics.

I bolded that one sentence because it is referring to the Canadian people. It is not presenting an official or legal opinion, but rather hypothesizing a possible reaction on the part of the Canadian populace in the event of the Crown exercising its executive power, which normally is viewed as ceremonial and symbolic by the population. However, the gist of what the article is talking about is that in reality, the power of the Crown is not ceremonial or symbolic - far from it. The CSPS is further stipulating that the Crown must retain this ability to counteract the government in the event of a constitutional crisis.

So, we simply need to state the facts, which is that the Crown has real (as opposed to symbolic or ceremonial) executive power and has the right to exercise that power if it so chose, which normally it does not, except under those circumstances when the government is acting unconstitutionally, which in this day and age, is quite rare. If I'm not mistaken, none of the editors disputes any of this, and the CSPS basically states exactly this, and this is a publicaation which is intended primarily for public servants.

However, the Liberal Party has a different opinion. They believe that the Crown has absolutely no right whatsoever to exercise its executive power independently. In other words, the Liberals have a very controversial disagreement with the constitution, and this is not surprising considering the level of republican sentiment in the Liberal Party, so this is consistent with the direction that they've been heading in for years, i.e. attempting to transform the Crown into a purely ceremonial institution or eliminate it altogether. But that's just my opinion.

Thoughts? Comments? IranianGuy (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)