Talk:Canada

Template:Canada selected article This article is hereby recognized as a recipient of the FCGA Award.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yukon uses hydroelectricity.

After reading this wiki, I noticed that Yukon Territory was omitted in the list of provinces who employ hydroelectricity as a major source or electric power. Perhaps this could be added?

Refs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yukon - "Economy... follows in importance, along with hydroelectricity"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yukon_Energy_Corporation - "YEC has developed a grid that connects hydro facilities in Whitehorse (Schwatka Lake Dam - 40 MW from four wheels, the fourth added in 1983), Aishihik Lake - 30 MW, and the YECL facilities at Fish Lake near Whitehorse. The communities on the "Whitehorse-Aishihik-Faro" grid include Whitehorse, Haines Junction, Champagne, Carcross, Tagish, Marsh Lake, Johnson's Crossing, Teslin, Carmacks, Faro, and Ross River." "The Yukon has no connections to the continental power grid, therefore, YEC cannot sell to or buy from networks"

http://www.yukonenergy.ca/services/renewable/hydro/ - "facilities have the ability to generate 75 megawatts (75 million watts) of power. That’s more than enough to currently serve all our customers."

http://www.yukonenergy.ca/services/non-renewable/ - "we rely on hydro for our energy supply"

Thanks,

Tyler

Food

In Canada thier are many cultural local deliciose dishes as the tourtier, shepereds pie, raindeer , bofulo, salmon, troute, caribo, moose, corn and diferent kinds of meat pie. For desert canaians also cook my pies and make tasty mapel sweets ect... The majority of these kinds of dishes or foods are french Canadian, Indian and English canadians. Canada is know'n for tipical dishes and go food at good resterants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.153.14 (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Ethnic Groups

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Gopher65.

What country are you from eh?

You sure do not know anything about Canada.

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Gopher65.

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

I was born, and I live in the,

Dominion of Canada,

Province of Ontario,

County of Ottawa-Carleton,

City of Ottawa.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello GoodDay.

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

Take care, and best wishes,

Don

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

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

Hello Pharmboy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I only trust SlimVirgin as an Admin.

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

Don

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

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

Howdy DoubleBlue.

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

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

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

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

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

Take care, and best wishes, DoubleBlue,

Don,

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

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

Languages mixed with ethnic groups

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

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

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

Why was my image removed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geopolitical Map Requires Revision

Hello,

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

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

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

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

This ties into the whole Arctic sovereignty dispute.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ethnic groups?!?!

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

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

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

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

Unsupported claims in government section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"successive Canadian governments have long maintained" ->

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

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

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

Request for Comment on G2bambino (talk)

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

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

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

Note

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

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

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

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

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

Opinions on undemocratic nature of Governor General's powers

I've rewritten them in a way that is closer to the references. I'm still open to improvements in the wording.

There can be no doubt, though, that Liberal governments and many constitutional scholars have opposed any kind GG prerogative in calling elections. The sources clearly say so. That is the issue here and I'd appreciate that this point be acknowledged before proceeding. --soulscanner (talk) 05:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If the Governor General can't call an election, who can? GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The Governor General is normally seen as simply an extension of the English Monarchy (even though the GG is now appointed by the Prime Minister). The argument against the Governor General having any sort of powers is traditionally the same as the argument against the Queen of England having any political powers, ie an anti-autocracy argument. Personally I'm of 2 minds in the matter.

Anyway, the feeling amongst the anti-GG crowd seems to revolve around the fact that she (or he) is not an elected official. Much the same as people don't like the senate because it isn't elected. EDIT: I've never heard anyone be completely clear on this, but I assume that the anti-GGers want the power to call an election to be solely in the hands of the Prime Minister (which, to all intents and purposes, it is now anyway). Gopher65_talk 15:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Please, don't say Queen of England. Say Queen of the United Kingdom, or in this case Queen of Canada. It's interesting to note though, Governor General Jean didn't refuse PM Harper's request for a federal election (even though he breached the 'fixed terms' Act). It would've been interesting if Dion, Duceppe & Layton had agreed to form a coalition government. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I purposefully said "England"; it was not an accidental slip. As Horton the Elephant said, "I said what I meant and I meant what I said". Gopher65_talk 03:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

While constitutional scholars such as Eugene Forsey, considered by many to be Canada's foremost expert on such matters, maintain that the sovereign and Governor General do retain their right to use the Royal Prerogative in exceptional constitutional crisis situations, others have stated that such actions would lack democratic legitimacy coming from an unelected institution, with Liberals adhering to the view that the Governor General does not have the right to refuse dissolution from the prime minister.

I very much dislike the set-up of this as Forsey vs democracy. Forsey would not claim it was democratic. The very beauty of the constitutional monarchy is that the farther down the power chart one goes, the greater the democratic legitimacy. The Governor General has the power to disallow legislation and dissolve Parliament but to not follow the advice of her PM would be against constitutional history and require an unfathomable extraordinary reason for the people not to dismiss her on such a move.

I am removing the the words "others have stated that" and replacing them with "however". DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever yas prefer. Again, the very fact the Governor General didn't refuse Harper on September 7; is very noteworthy. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that the wording has been changed while I was writing the above. I will have to consider it further. I still dislike the Forsey vs democracy set-up. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the CSPS as discounting Forsey's stance either. In fact, the source says: "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." DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Could we not say something like Constitutional scholars maintain that the Governor General retains the right to use the Royal Prerogative in exceptional constitutional crisis situations but only in order to defend Canada's democracy. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Is not the Governor General peforming those Royal Prerogatives, when she signs bills into law, dissolves Parliament (for example). GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyways, do as you see fit. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. Does the wording hint that the use is extraordinary, it is intended to say that in extraordinary conditions, she might use the power against her PM's advice. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I mean isn't it the Governor General's Royal Prerogative to sign bills aswell as veto them? To call an election, as well as refuse to? GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ya'll will have to be patient with me. The Governor General's duties are something I'm not fully familiar with. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The current wording seems fine, but if I may make a suggestion, I think it would be worthwhile to expand on these points in a new paragraph within the current section (Government and politics). The average reader, unless they wade through a couple of other articles, I think may be left a bit confused as to the constitutional role of the monarchy and its powers in law (de jure) and in practice (de facto). Forsey, for all intents and purposes, outlines what the status quo is and his interpretation is as close to the letter of the law as one can get. Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think anyone here disputes that. The reality of the law in practice, however, can differ depending on the current government. Anyway, my view is that the facts should be presented as neutrally as possible, without needlessly confusing the reader. DoubleBlue above makes a good point above. The Canadian public service is not in opposition to the status quo as represented by Forsey's mainline interpretation - it is simply making a clarification as per the realities of the Governor General's position. All things considered, I'm not sure if any constitutional scholars oppose Forsey on this. Liberal politicians, however, have been very adamant in their opposition to any de facto exercise of power by the Governor General. I think that much is clear, but their view does not necessarily have constitutional credibility. The Governor General, as Forsey explains, is intended as a defender and guarantee of constitutional freedom and democracy, which of course would only be theoretically exercised under extraordinary circumstances. For instance, if a prime minister attempted to vastly expand their powers to that of an executive and establish a totalitarian state. Thankfully, that's highly unlikely in a country like Canada (of course, you never know), but nevertheless, under such circumstances the Governor General would be well within their constitutional right to take action against maneuvers. IranianGuy (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The wording could be simplified considerably. Please give it a shot. Your contribution so far has been appreciated. --soulscanner (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that the public service quote does not oppose Forsey's interpretations, it just points out that the the House, the Prime Minister, and the Canadian people as a whole may object to a GG intervening in the democratic process (a reference to the King-Byng affair of 1926). Also, this section is likely not the place to expand on this subject. Conflicting interpretations of the GG's discretionary powers is not a hot topic in Canada today. The concentration of powers in the PMO is much more of an issue. However, if the topic is breached here, the various opinions (of which Forsey is one) should be mentioned. --soulscanner (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Symbolic and political executive

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

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

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

I trimmed the wording down from what it was a couple of days ago (which has since been further added to!):

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

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