Talk:Government of Canada

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Moved

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reference to Government 

message: 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)
replies: text:  I'll take that as a yes. Kevlar67 (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bingo. I've reworked it for better clarity though, and added a reference. - The Fwanksta (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Rrius correctly summarises the Manual of Style above. In the sentence "she appoints as her viceregal representative in Canada a governor general", "governor general" refers to the office generally. It therefore should not be capitalised in that context. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: 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)
thread_title: WikiProject template and assessment

message: 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)
thread_title:  Aboriginal Governance Section should be Added 

message: :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)
replies: text:  The paper doesn't take a position on the powers of the GG. It reviews the POV of monarchists Forsey (which is essentially the POV that you summarize above}, and summarizes the POV of most Canadians and Liberal governments (i.e. that the Crown would not have the democratic legitimacy to interfere in Canadian politics. It reviews various opinions on the matter. It's also not Republican to believe that the GG or monarch should have no discretionary powers. It just means that you believe the Crown should be strictly ceremonial, which it has been since 1926. In anycase, the important thing in the article is that all significant views be presented fairly.  --soulscanner (talk) 08:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

text: It's a problem. I don't know how to solve it. --soulscanner (talk) 08:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The constitutional powers and rights of the Crown

message: Methinks "Government of Canada" is the formal name, as all gov't-issued materials carry that name, not "Her majesty's gov't". That would imply a correction is needed to the very first sentence as it stands now.  elpincha (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Her/His Majesty's Government is the formal name. The term "Government of Canada" is the corporate title, as well as in common usage. Trackratte (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "Her majesty's gov't" as formal name *correction has been made*

message: The introduction currently states, "in Canadian English, the term can mean either the collective set of institutions or specifically the Queen-in-Council." I believe that the word government in Canadian English can refer to more than just those two things. In addition, forgive my ignorance, but I am confused about what the "Queen-in-Council" even is. The "Queen-in-Council" article itself is a stub and I found it difficult to understand. Is there some way this sentence could be re-written to make it clearer and more comprehensive? I didn't want to just go ahead and edit it without an understanding on what the "Queen-in-Council" is. I am a Canadian and I have never heard that term used before. Is it perhaps an antiquated term that is not regularly used in the public vernacular? And, when I think about it, the phrase "the collective set of institutions" could be a bit clearer as well. Thoughts? MsBatfish (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Queen of England is not the government of Canada, no. The last Queen of England died some three centuries ago. According to Section III of the Constitution Act 1867, the executive government of Canada is the Queen of Canada in Council, usually acting through her representative, the governor general. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Another thing I noticed is that the article states that there is a distinction between the meaning of the word government as used by the Canadian public as opposed to as used by the American public and that no one in Canada would refer to the administration as the government. But I actually hear this done all the time. It seems like this was opinion or at least "original research" (and I know that what I'm saying is too), but can I remove that sentence on that basis? MsBatfish (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

text: I don't beleive that paragraph refers to official usage, but common, instead. Could sources therefore not be found in media articles? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

text: What happened is that in January 2009 an editor who didn't know what he or she was talking about reworded the passage such that it took on the opposite meaning to what it had previously said. It was so badly worded that it couldn't even be set right by swapping "British" and "American". I have restored the old wording that was correct and understandable. -Rrius (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen-in-Council?? (definition of the term "government") 

message: This section seems to me to be a rehash of the Structure of the Canadian Government list article and should not be repeated here but instead have a link to that specific article. The Structure list article is not limited to just line departments as intimated in the "Divisions" section here as it already contains much more than that. trackratte (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I am okay with that. I was not aware of that article. I moved the lists only to conform to MOS style. Alaney2k (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divisions Section 

message: I have started an RfC on this question at Talk:Governor General of Canada.  All comments welcome. --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment: Should the term "viceroy" be used as a synonym for "Governor General" or "Lieutenant Governor" in articles on Canadian government? 

message: The lead and other sections of this article seem to be discussing the federal level of government in general, as well as the executive Government of Canada (Crown in Council). I think we should split this article into Government of Canada, for the Crown in Council (executive branch) and Federal government of Canada for the generic, overview of all the branches. 
* The legislature has its own independent article (Parliament of Canada) and so does the judiciary (Court system of Canada); makes even more sense for the executive to, as that is the only branch to brand itself as the "Government".
* An example of this is the Government of China article, which is a general overview of the Chinese central government, with State Council of the People's Republic of China, the executive, being a separate article.
Thanks, WildComet (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: An initial note is that we already have separate articles for the executive, such as monarchy of Canada, privy Council, etc. trackratte (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would be confusing to have two articles with titles containing the words government of Canada. The two proposed titles are synonyms in common use. I think that constitutionally Canada does not have a separate executive branch, either. The head of state is the monarch who follows the advice of the prime minister and parliament. Alaney2k (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Second note is that this separation doesn't really exist in Westminster systems like it does in the USA. For example, Parliament has three parts: the Crown, the House of Commons, and the Senate, so the executive is part of the legislative. The late Peter Hogg has written quite a bit on the topic. trackratte (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Canada is unique when compared to UK, NZ, etc. where part of the constitution actually specifically defines "Executive power". While that doesn't define anywhere near the role it actually plays conventionally, it is legally distinct. Though I do see how it can be confusing having two similarly titled articles. I may edit this one and see if I can make the distinction more clear, which may be a better solution than an outright split. WildComet (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Monarchy of Canada covers crown-in-parliament, crown-in-council, and crown-on-the-bench, so not the executive. Privy Council of Canada is also not the executive. It seems that there is no article about the actual executive, the actual "Government of Canada", and nothing else. JM (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

text: No precedence for division of this nature.--Moxy- 23:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting proposal 

message: Hi 
Did you mean to undo this table as well? I get the lead, wanted to clarify this. Thanks, WildComet (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes let's try to keep big un-informative link charts out of the article....we have room for WP:Prose.Moxy- 23:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judicial section 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Just noticed that this page & Australian Government use one type of gov't infobox. While Government of New Zealand & Government of the United Kingdom use another type. Shouldn't all four, be the same? GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The documentation for  suggests that NZ/UK are correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if it can be adopted to the Canadian & Australian gov't pages. Admittedly, the UK/NZ versions, are more compact. Also if adopted, it would require changes to the Canadian provinces/territories & Australian states/territories gov't pages, too. GoodDay (talk) 04:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Kingdom, Canada, Australia & New Zealand 

message: Following discussion at WP:CANADA and WP:AWNB, I believe there are some severe issues with this article's scope and topic. See Government of the United Kingdom, Government of Australia, Government of New Zealand. Each of those articles describe solely the respective "HM Government" of each country. Even this article itself tells us the following:  This means that there are some pretty severe issues with this article and is scope. It contradicts itself by telling us that the "Government of Canada" is officially the executive but then the rest of the article is about the entire federal level, leaving no article for the actual executive Government, and two articles that cover the same topic (this article and Politics of Canada). This article definitely needs to be drastically reduced in scope to actually being about its topic, the Government, not the federal level. Leave the federal level for the Politics of Canada article like it is for other Commonwealth realms. I will note that this article was basically created with the scope of covering the entire federal level despite its title. Time to change that to get it in line with the reality that the "Government of Canada" is the executive/administrative organ, not the whole federal level? I believe so. JM (talk) 05:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Recommend the same be done for the ten provincial government pages, too. GoodDay (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I should have also said that. JM (talk) 05:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Well , there doesn't seem to be any opposition to your proposal. GoodDay (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @GoodDay Alright, I've gone ahead and carried it out. I've also salvaged your infobox from the article's history and added the Canada wordmark to it. JM (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

text: @GoodDay I've revised the "Government" pages and transferred their extraneous content to the respective provincial "Politics" pages for all ten provinces. All eleven Canadian government pages now have "infobox executive government". I also added "infobox political system" to the "Politics" articles that didn't have them, and revised that infobox on the ones that already had it. JM (talk) 08:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You're amazing. All those changes were beyond my capabilities. Thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revising the scope and topic of this article 

message: Hello, could you make an article about the government of Canada in Spanish. Severomáster17 (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: First see Wikipedia:Translate us....then the tool your looking for is at Wikipedia:Content translation tool. Moxy🍁 22:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: es:Política_de_Canadá seems to cover a lot of the same topics. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government of Canada article in Spanish