Talk:28th Canadian Ministry

message: Was there actually a legal requirement for Emerson to switch parties and Fortier to get appointed to the senate in order to become a cabinet minister? I was under the impression that the prime minister could pretty much appoint anyone to cabinet without some kind of senate appointment loophole.
:Speaking from a strictly constitutional standpoint, there's really no criteria at all for who may or may not be a member of cabinet.  Then again, the constitution is completely silent about things like the executive branch of government (save the Queen and GG), parties, etc.  Technically, Harper could have appointed Emerson to cabinet without requiring him to switch parties.  Realisticly, though, Canadian political parties simply don't get along well enough that it would have been acceptable for a member of the official opposition to be a cabinet minister.  My own personal bias would have preferred Emerson to sit as an independant.  I doubt there's any precident for including an independant MP as a member of the cabinet, but I don't think it would have gone down any worse than the current situation.
:As for Fortier, it's a matter of convention that all members of cabinet be parliamentarians.  Generally, all cabinet ministers, with the exception of the Leader of the Government in the Senate of course, are expected to be members of the House of Commons.  This is because the executive branch is accountable to the House.  A new cabinet minister (or a new Prime Minister, for that matter) that is not already an MP is expected to run for a seat in a by-election to legitimize their position.  Where regional representation is an issue, however, it's not unheard of for a senator to be appointed to cabinet.  There are also a couple of cases where the Prime Minister ruled from the Senate.  Both were over 100 years ago, though, and both came into power after the sudden death of the current Prime Minister.  --68.146.186.92 01:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal Issues

message: Should Cabinet not be capitalized in the title since it is the proper title of a group? --M vopni 03:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cabinet Capitalized? 

message: Oops. Forgot to sign this.Jeremicus rex 18:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: *The title of this article seems to be a bit PoV. Would it not make more sense to call it "The 28th Canadian cabinet" or "28th Cabinet of Canada"? -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 03:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the GG's press release calls it the 28th ministry . So it would be less POV if were to go by convention, and not by who lead it. It makes it sound too American like (the Bush Administration, the Regan Administration, the Harper Cabinet). It would be better to keep the PM's name out of it. I'll set up a poll here. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 17:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: :Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
*To clarify, I've split it up into the two options for supporting. This way it'll be an easier survay to read. I still support 28th Canadian Ministry. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To [[28th Canadian Ministry]]/[[28th Ministry of Canada]]

message: If we are changing "cabinet of Prime Minister Harper" to something like "cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Harper", we should choose a phrase that works for historical ministries too.  A sentence like "The Second Canadian Ministry was the cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Alexander Mackenzie" sounds a bit off to me.  What do others think?  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Cabinet, a part of the ministry, is chaired by the PM, but it doesn't really belong to him, per say, as though the ministers in the ministry are meant to minister the prime minister. Technically the cabinet belongs to the sovereign or viceroy whom they minister, but "cabinet of Governor General Michaelle Jean," I figured, would just be too confusing. Perhaps it's not, but I thought "the cabinet chaired by Prime Minster Stephen Harper" didn't confuse and isn't inaccurate. --G2bambino 00:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's better than anything I can think of for this article.  Do you think we should use the same wording for all of the articles on historical ministries?  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't looked at the historical articles, but I don't see why the wording shouldn't be similar. --G2bambino 16:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence 

message: This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image :File:20060206 cab01.jpg, found on :28th Canadian Ministry, has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact this bot's operator.  STBotI (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: An image on this page may be deleted

message: I think this article should be named the Harper Government because that how it referred to in the news and to me, it makes more sense. Ministry sounds religious or to formal. It's the 21st century. We should change it. We could at least change it to The 28th Cabinet. I just think it should be changed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.14.105 (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be looking for Premiership of Stephen Harper if you want to read more about him and his policies while in government.  The name "28th Ministry" is the official name that the organization calls itself, even if it is a bit religious or formal.  Changing it would be a contest of official name vs. common name.  The naming convention is vague enough to let us go either way.  I personally prefer this name, though we should probably have the name "Harper government" in bold in the first line.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change