![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() |
---|
Discussion of Canada's official name Future TFA paragraph |
When authoritative sources say that real power lies in Canada, there is no need to use weasel words to attempt to weaken a simple statement of fact. Real power lies in cabinet; the power of the GG and monarch are strictly ceremonial. -- soulscanner ( talk) 02:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Also, please do not delete relevant quotes from articles. They are important in this dispute. -- soulscanner ( talk) 03:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The article must in some way reflect the fact that a) the Executive role of the GG is marginal or nominal b) that the role of the Prime Minister is decisive:
As of now, the authority of the GG and monarch are exaggerated. -- soulscanner ( talk) 05:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what Soulscanner means when he says Lord Byng was "dismissed". In fact, he served out his five-year term. And the fact that this hasn't happened since the 1920's has more to do with the fact that the circumstances in which it could happen seldom arise than with anything that might have changed. The "limits" imposed on the governor general's powers in the Statute of Westminster relate only to the fact that the governor general is to act solely in the interests of Canada and without instructions from the British government, something which would have changed nothing in the King-Byng affair since Lord Byng refused to consult the Colonial Office.
Just to make things really clear that "purely ceremonial" is inaccurate, here is an excerpt from Constitutional Law (1997) by Patrick J. Monahan:
Frankly, I don't find anything objectionable in this old version. I don't believe the neutrality tag is called for. The current version is also in my opinion less well-written. Joeldl ( talk) 23:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
May 17 2008: The point many have missed below is that the Canadian Government acts, and must act, in the name of Her Majesty. Her Majesty does not personally make decisions. But in order for decisions to be formalized they must be done in the name of Her Majesty. This is what is meant by the Crown acting on the advice of Ministers. The Crown is constitutionally bound to accept advice of Ministers. So when someone is appointed to the Senate, for example, the appointment is made by the Prime Minister but in the name of Her Majesty, to make the appointment legal. The PM of the day has no individual legal authority to make the appointment him (or her-) self.
Nick
My objections here lie in G2bambino's belief that the monarch is invested with all executive authority in Canada. It taints the section on Government:
"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." - G2
This is contradicted by various sources.
All sources presented in fact present information that contradicts any notion that the monarch has all executive power, or any discretionary power. To those who object to government sources as "interested", I'll note that these were all used by G2 (selectively) to advance his thesis. All such theoretical and hypothetical questions about residual discretionary power are based on the opinion of the late Senator Eugene Forsey, an ardent monarchist. Again, this article reads like an essay designed to promote the notion that the monarchy is more than a formal and ceremonial institution. -- soulscanner ( talk) 06:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
As a sometime sparring partner with G2, whom I respect, I fail to see how he is pushing a flawed POV. We all essentially agree, but we're using different language to say it. You say that Canada, being a democracy, is ruled by the People. Correct. The GG, the Queen's rep has (in ordinary circumstances) no discretionary power to exercise the powers given him or her by the Constitution. Such decisions are made by the elected representatives of the People. Quite so. G2 (and myself) are saying the same thing, but in a more technical and constitutional manner: executive power rests with the GG. By convention, he or she is bound by unwritten constitutional law to exercise it in accordance with the will of the People as expressed by their elected representatives. So we both say the same thing. But you seem to think that executive power means absolute power. It does not. Executive power is only the authority to execute the will of the People. Every society must have a means to make laws, appointments and other acts legal and binding. In Canada and other nations whose monarch is Elizabeth II, that function happens to be exercised by a Govenor-general. This does not imply that the GG is the font of all authority. He or she is simply the means by which the People's will is made binding.-- Gazzster ( talk) 09:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to take a little straw poll to see just who actually thinks there are problems with the government and politics section.
No, the constitutional structures are explained sufficiently
Yes, the Governor General is given way too much play
Well, here are my alternatives for these four phrases:
-- Padraic 19:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
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 almost invariably follow the advice of the Cabinet.5) Because the Queen holds all executive authority, she, or her representative, can refuse the advice of the Cabinet in exceptional circumstances. This means that a) "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. G2bambino
This has clearly been contradicted by several references that I have given. G2bambino has also stated that the Prime Minister is not elected, and that he does not make direct Cabinet, Senate, and Supreme Court appointments, again contradicting direct references that I have given. This too has been contradicted by direct quotes. I think there are more than POV problems here; the factual integrity of this section is compromised. -- soulscanner ( talk) 22:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is the way I would reword the section for better flow, in very rough unref'd form, in a section separate from the real discussion above. Starting at the second paragraph:
This may end up longer but maybe clearer, and introduces the provinces. The Privy Council is not needed here, along with many of the exact details of who appoints who. This article is the overview, we can omit many truths as long as we don't present a false picture of how things work day-to-day, which is what the casual reader is interested in here. Franamax ( talk) 19:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Once more, G2Bambino has ignored direct quotes that contradict his stated opinions. He has said that the following do not contradict his assertion that actual executive power lies in the monarch, and that I'm simply misinterpreting them. I'll repeat myself once more, and offer the quotes that directly put (Choose one: real/true/actual/effective/legitimate) executive power in the hands of the Prime minister and Cabinet.
G2bambino has made his beliefs on where actual executive power lies:
I had at the time already posted several documents that contradict this. After King-Byng, King had explicit limits put on the power of the monarchy. In addition, constitutional scholars are explicit on where real power now lies.
*Parliamentary government is also associated with the presence of a dual executive. There is a ceremonial executive, which possesses some constitutional powers as well as performing symbolic functions, and a political executive, which performs the basic governing functions (see Magstadt and Schotten, 1999; O'Neill, 1999) page 15 Athabasca University.
To clarify matters, we need bold statements like this in the article as opposed to technical language that only constitutional scholars can understand. Indeed, the constitutional scholars themselves do a much better job at clarifying issues above than the article and obscure the facts expressed above. They are being excluded from the article only because G2bambibo disagrees with them personally, as noted above. -- soulscanner ( talk) 22:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The prime Minister is elected by the people of Canada.
I could giv emore references, but is there really a point to this? The PM is formally appointed by the Governor General, but the Governor General has no choice in the matter. Mentioning the Governor Genernal at all is a good example of the obfuscation duly noted by several editors. This level of technical and formalized jargon is not appropriate in a review article, especially when used to obscure verifiable facts. -- soulscanner ( talk) 22:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Another way of clarifying the role of the monarchy is to classify it as the "Symbolic Executive", as opposed to the political executive. A number of references support this:
I particularly like the last quote, a much more succinct way to summarizer the role of the monarch in Canada than the run-on sentences found in the current version of the article. It should follow the sentence saying that constitutional power is vested in the queen. It is one way of clarifying the difference between real political power and ceremonial power. It's good enough for scholars, why not here? -- soulscanner ( talk) 04:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I mostly approve of the new wording of the Government and politics section in this version and agree with removing the neutrality tag. From my own POV, I'd like to alter a couple of sentences but I recognise the present wording is well-sourced. The sentences are: "However, this [Executive authority of the monarch] power is only symbolic" and "The late Senator Eugene Forsey has argued that the sovereign and Governor General do retain their right to use the Royal Prerogative in exceptional constitutional crisis situations, but successive Canadian governments have long maintained that such actions would lack democratic legitimacy coming from an unelected institution."
I'd prefer that the first say "primarily" rather than "only" or, at least change to "now only". For the second, I dislike the "but" as I don't see these two ideas in opposition. The fact that the sovereign, or her representative, retains ultimate authority but has no legitimacy to do so is the very genius of our system. Should a government be acting unfathomably ridiculously, then the sovereign could over-rule the government and make a strong enough case to the people to act so illegitimately, and then it could be permitted to happen. However, the case would have to be beyond my imagination to allow such an event to happen and would otherwise certainly result in a change in monarchy by the will of the people, thus preventing the royal prerogative from ever being used and the genius of having an illegitimate, unelected person at the top of the system.
As I said, I recognise that the present wording is legitimate and well-sourced and will not withhold my approval nor further seek my requested changes as they are from my own POV. Should, however, alterations be seen to be acceptable to include these ideas, I would be very pleased. DoubleBlue ( Talk) 11:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I am proposing the following language with an eye toward bringing this to an amicable conclusion or, at the very least, helping to bring sharper focus to the textual disagreement:
“ | The constitution formally vests executive authority is formally and constitutionally vested in the monarch, but in practice it is exercised by the Cabinet, making the Cabinet the "active seat" of executive power. This arrangement stems from the principles of responsible government, wherein by convention the monarch and viceroy remain apolitical, deferring all governmental matters to the Cabinet, who are responsible to the elected House of Commons for their actions. Following this formula ensures the stability of government. While the sovereign and governor general do retain their right to use the reserve power in exceptional constitutional crisis situations, their role in government is largely ceremonial. | ” |
- Rrius ( talk) 05:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the proposed language was only meant to replace the one paragraph regarding executive authority. At any rate, I am proposing yet another version. This one takes into account the language Soulscanner added last night around the same time I was posting on this page. I have eliminated the redundant bit about "symbolic and ceremonial" and moved its reference up to where the Queen and GG are said to be "predominantly ceremonial". I have also once again changed "Royal Prerogative" to "reserve power". As I understand it, including from the two relevant articles, that is what is meant. I do not want to mess with adding a reflist on the talk page. If someone else does, great; otherwise, you can see it all on my sandbox. I think even this version needs to be tweaked to break-up the excessively long second sentence, but this is all I have time for at the moment.
- Rrius ( talk) 19:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Having looked at the paragraph as it stood in the article, and reviewing proposal 1, I see that the double mention of the monarch's mostly ceremonial role has been avoided by Rrius, but the duplicate of the PM being head of the Cabinet remains. If it is said that the Cabinet is the "active seat" (or "exerciser," or whatever term we use) of executive power, and that the PM is the head of the Cabinet, then it's redundant to say again that the PM is the head of the executive. Something like the following might hone the proposed paragraph above even more:
My proposal:
Formal executive authority is constitutionally vested in the Queen and her appointed representative, the Governor General. [15] [16] However, this power is only symbolic. [17] [18] [19] The Prime Minister is the effective head of the executive, with decisive influence on the operation of the Canadian government. [20] [21] True executive power is exercised by Ministers in the Cabinet [1] [22] [3].
The Governor General is bound by constitutional convention to "appoint" as Prime Minister the party leader who possesses the confidence of the House of Commons and "ask" him or her to form a Cabinet. [23] [1] In fact, as long as the Prime Minister retains the confidence of the House, he has the sole power to appoint and dismiss Cabinet Ministers, the Crown having no prerogative in the matter [24] [25]. This arrangement stems from the principles of responsible government wich developed during British colonial rule, and removed most discretionary power from the Crown [26] [27]. This makes the Prime Minister's Office is one of the most powerful organs of government, 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. The monarch and viceroy remain apolitical, and defer all governmental matters to their Cabinet ministers. The Prime Minister and Cabinet is responsible to the elected House of Commons for their actions, which acts as a check on executive power. [28] [29] [3] Following this formula ensures the stability of government. The late Senator Eugene Forsey has argued that the sovereign and Governor General do retain their right to use the Royal Prerogative in exceptional constitutional crisis situations [8] [30] [31] [32] [33], but successive Canadian governments have long maintained that such actions would lack democratic legitimacy coming from an unelected institution [34] [35]. References-- soulscanner ( talk) 06:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The reference to the Zolf quote was corrected. G2bambino's version incorrectly quoted the article. Zolf clearly cited Eugene Forsey as the source of the statement that the monarch retains residual powers. This is by no means accepted by all parties in Canada, as indicated by sourced passage. Please do not delete this again without discussion. We should not be promoting the POV of one dead senator, with clear monarchist bias when the Liberal policy since 1926 has clearly been to oppose this as undemocratic, despite the late Senators objections. -- soulscanner ( talk) 02:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The late Senator Eugene Forsey has argued that the sovereign and Governor General do retain their right to use the Royal Prerogative in exceptional constitutional crisis situations -- A sentence manipulated to turn fact into theory and attribute it to one person as though he were a solitary quack. The sources show Forsey is not the only person to acknowledge the GG's right to unilaterally exercise the Royal Prerogative in certain, albeit rare, situations. (I suppose that in Soulscanner's world if the PM went into a coma or something the country would just somehow go on without a functioning chief minister.)
...but successive Canadian governments have long maintained that such actions would lack democratic legitimacy coming from an unelected institution -- Successive governments? Long maintained? Which successive governments have maintained for how long?
...the monarch's powers are symbolic or ceremonial -- There's a lot of contradiction to that statement. Thus, "predominantly ceremonial and symbolic" strikes a balance between the legal reality and the normal situation. -- G2bambino ( talk) 14:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It's all very nice to speculate, but there are no sourced references here. I've found at least five scholarly sources that clearly describe the monarchy's power as symbolic or ceremonial as opposed to political or real, and no one has offered any sources that challenge this. So why the statements in these references (if not the references themselves) are consistently deleted? -- soulscanner ( talk) 04:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Canadians! I have just came back from France around the poitier area and the people were telling me that there dialect was very close to the montreal dialect. I knew a girl from about ten or so years ago from montreal who told me that the French had a hard time understanding her. Can anyone back up what I was told? Joe Deagan ( talk) 00:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Makes no sense. Landofpartinggifts ( talk) 02:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys. Canada Day is fast approaching, so I'm putting it out there that we need to try and get this on the main page for it, since I may not be available to do it. I think it's dumb that only 5 requests can be made at one time, but we gotta do what we can. The requests page has candidates for June 19, 22, and 27. I figure that anyone involved with this article should watch that page, wait for one of them to be removed, and if one is, submit a request for this article ASAP. I'll make the template here, and the text can be modified as necessary (ie. some severe summarizing to shorten it). -- Reaper X 05:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Canada ( /ˈkænədə/) is a country extending from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west and northward into the Arctic Ocean. It is the world's second largest country by total area, and shares land borders with the United States to the south and northwest. It was inhabited for millennia by various aboriginal people before British and French explorers started settling the Atlantic coast. France ceded nearly all of its colonies in North America in 1763 after the Seven Years War. In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada was formed as a federal dominion of four provinces. This began an accretion of additional provinces and territories and a process of increasing autonomy from the United Kingdom, highlighted by the Statute of Westminster in 1931 and culminating in the Canada Act in 1982 which severed the vestiges of legal dependence on the British parliament. Now a federation of ten provinces and three territories, Canada is a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy, with Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state. It is a bilingual and multicultural country, with both English and French as official languages. ( more...)
Perhaps I didn't read closely enough, but does the article mention where Canada's economy stand in relation to other developed countrie's economies, in size? I note in the Wikipedia article that Spain has the world's 8th largest economy. Why isn't Spain then part of the G8? Is Spain's economy larger than Canada's? Cd195 ( talk) 00:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
In the wikipedia you can see that Spain is the 8th largest economy, more that Canada. I don't know why do you have doubts... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.27.17.46 ( talk) 19:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Rankings according to the WSJ/Heritage Foundation 'Index of Economic Freedom' should be removed, as upon close inspection their ten postulates governing the index have more to do with the security of property rights than with human freedom. It's a measure of how easy it is for investment and capital to operate without any interference from outside sources such as meddling governments, progressive activist groups, and labor unions, and not a measure of any kind of real benefit to citizenry at large. It also should not be the policy of Wiki to lend academic credence to conservative think-tanks, which gain visibility not because of the rigors of their research but because of the bounty of their funding, and do not engage in the same kind of critical peer review as actual academic institutions. Their allegiance is not to reveal the workings of the world around them, but instead to various right-wing shibboleths, regardless of whether they fit the facts or not. 71.232.176.48 ( talk) 01:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Canada Jack ( talk) 20:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Under 'Geography and Climate' the following entry was made "Since 1925, Canada has claimed the portion of the Arctic between 60°W and 141°W longitude,[47] but this claim is not universally recognized." May we all know who this(these) countries may be, or is it simply rumoured?
Under the Constitution Act, the country's name was changed from Dominion of Canada to Canadian Federation. The United Nations recognizes this, Canadian law recognizes this, so should Wikipedia!!
Mnmazur ( talk) 20:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Howdy,
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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.204.225 ( talk) 17:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello DJ Clayworth.
Consider your long-form name (i.e., your legal name). Is it just DJ?
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.204.225 ( talk) 17:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Gopher65. The question is one of legal Order-of-Precedence. Does a long-form name have a "higher rank" than a short-form name? The legal tradition of English-Speaking Common Law countries is YES.
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 was not explicitly used until its first amendment, the British North America Act 1871.
In the USA Declaration of Independence 1776, Article I explicitly names the declared country as ...
"The stile of this Confederacy shall be the United States of America".
To sum up, Canada did not explicitly state its long-form name until the FIRST AMENDEMENT of its Constitution in 1871, whereas America explicitly stated its long-form name from the beginning in 1776.
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 70.48.58.36 ( talk) 14:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 99.239.203.61 ( talk) 14:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello DJ Clayworth.
I can disagree with the Government of Canada on any point that I wish. Why? I can do this because the Dominion of Canada was founded on July 1, 1867, as, and it is still today a "free-country" ... the last time I checked.
Just because the Government of Canada has an internet website where something is typed, does not make it true.
I am a reasonably intelligent person, and one of my hobbies is old documents and British Commonwealth of Nations Constitutional Law. In particular, I am fascinated by the "ins-and-outs" of long-form name(s) of Countries.
Since you will not discuss reasonably your own long-form name (out of privacy I imagine), please consider this dead famous person's long-form name...
John Fitzgerald Kennedy
or was his long-form name just ...
Johnny?
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 99.239.204.225 ( talk) 18:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello GoodDay. I don't mind stopping to talk about this subject. My opinion on the long-form name of this country being the Dominion of Canada is well known. My reasons for believing so have be re-hashed alot. So I'll stop. In closing, Please consider this dead famous person's long-form name...
John Fitzgerald Kennedy
or was his long-form name just ...
Johnny?
Interesting "food-for-thought".
Take care eh, and best wishes,
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 99.239.204.225 ( talk) 19:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe that on my Canadian passport, Canadian and Canadienne are both official denonyms for a Canadian citizen, depending on which language they regard as their primary one (Anglosphones use Canadian whilst Francophones use Canadienne). I suggest that this gets changed to more accurately inform the public.
Regards,
68.151.24.187 ( talk) 03:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Because being a G member is a political decision based on democracy principles, backed by a World top economy, not the other way around (see the extension process from G6 to G7 to include Canada in 1976 and not Spain, and then G7 to G8 to accommodate Russia in the 1990's, and not China or even India) Yannn ( talk) 00:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
India exports almost the same as Thailand and its nominal gdp is almost the same as Australia's. for the last decade almost every second year Spain and Canada swich positions in the nominal gdp rankings because they are very close. 2009 Canada's gdp growth is suppose to be much larger than Spain's so in 2 years Canada could be slightly larger again. you can't really say that one country has the larger gdp. TRADE Canada's exports are almost 2 times larger than Spains Canada's imports are over 20 billion dollars larger total trade Canada 830 billion dollars total trade Spain 637 billion dollars These statistics make Canada the only country with a top 10 gdp outside of Germany,UK,France,Italy,China,Japan,US to make the top 10 list for imports and exports. so far in 2008 the world's largest economy (US) traded more with Canada than China (world's 2nd largest economy using ppp gdp) and Japan (world's 2nd largest economy using nominal gdp) combined. US gets more petroleum products from Canada than Saudi Arabia and Iraq combined (soon it could be Saudi Arabia and Mexico combined). That country has to be at G8 meetings because the US always has something it needs to discuss with Canada. GDP PER CAPITA Spain and Canada have the same nominal gdp (2007 imf said Spains nominal gdp was 4 % higher that could have been due to error) Spain has 35 % more people so gdp per capita Canada is a lot richer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.212.64 ( talk) 21:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I have the proof to backup all of my statements but I don't know for sure if those are the reasons why Canada was chosen to be in the G8. They do give Canada the edge economically over Spain and Brazil. China is a country that should be in the G8 the only thing that could keep it out is gdp per capita.
no I think this is where it belongs, one of the hot topics when it comes to Canada is its role in the world economy and the G8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grmike ( talk • contribs) 22:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you have anything about the article to say? This is not a forum for discussing politics. If this conversation is not working to add or change content in the article, I'm going to have to archive it as being off-topic. -- Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 22:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Toronto stock exchange is the 7th largest in the world by market cap. Canada's 5 biggest banks have a combined market value almost as large as the biggest bank in the world.
Geez, this is so complicated (being protected and all) that it's no wonder these haven't been changed! Anyway, the paragraph beginning, "Efforts by Progressive Conservative (PC) government of Brian Mulroney *beganto* recognize Quebec as a "distinct society" and end western alienation" should be "began to"; and the next paragraph beginning, "In the 1990s, *Anger* in predominantly French-speaking Quebec" should have "anger" uncapitalised. Hope that helps.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.166.102 ( talk) 05:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the History section:
This is a little peculiar, Canada I believe took a prominent role in peacekeeping since, umm, a Canadian invented it. I think there are references out there, which I can't lay my hands on, that show a significant decline in peacekeeping participation through the '90's. A little recent-ism may be creeping in here.
This paragraph is also a little skewed by the recent change of Dallaire to a "peacekeeping official" - he was actually an Army Lt-Gen., not an "official". Also the lack of mandate to prevent the genocide and criticism thereof is vague and unsourced (Shake Hands With The Devil, I'm holding it in my non-typing hand), and not particularly relevant to Canada's history as a body. And further, "also took part in Bosnia" - what about Maj-Gen Mackenzie leading forces to take control of Sarajevo airport at the height of the conflict? My point here is that the paragraph seems inaccurate and unbalanced, and possibly unnecessary. Comments?
Franamax (
talk)
05:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought, that with the exception of sending General Dallaire to Rwanda, Canada ignored that entire conflict until it was already over? No soldiers, no aid, no nothing. It would be a little rich to suggest that Canada had any significant part in that conflict. Gopher65 talk 16:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Changing the Demographics section to include the more useful metropolitan area populations. The table of municipal populatioons should be removed, if there are no objections. naturalnumber ( talk) 08:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the title be The Kingdom of Canada rather than merely Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.62.198 ( talk • contribs)
Hello! For those who support NAFTA, let me know what you think about this. Use it freely. Alex Covarrubias ( Talk? ) 20:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
This user supports NAFTA. |
![]() |
I apologize for not providing sources on the information I have recently been adding, but this information is widely known in Canada and it would be very easy for anyone to find sources for the material I have just added. I have added the material to give a more detailed view of important events in Canadian history which are typically mentioned in Canadian history textbooks, such as mentioning modern-day issues involving aboriginal peoples such as the controversial Oka crisis in 1990 and the shooting of Dudley George in 1995, as well as more positive issues of aboriginal affairs such as the Nisga'a Final Settlement and the government apologizing this year to aboriginal people for the oppression of aboriginals in residential schools. Furthermore, continental free trade adopted in the 1980s has been a significant and controversial event in Canada and it deserves more attention.-- R-41 ( talk) 06:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Is the history section too long? I'd gladly support any effort to condense it. -- soulscanner ( talk) 20:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I know as a fact that the information under Demographics regarding the metropolitan population of major Canadian cities is false. Edmonton has nearly 1 million people, and Toronto nearly 5 Million. Edmonton has also a greater population than Toronto. I believe that the source, although supposedly is Statistics Canada, was either misinterpreted or perhaps not a valid source. I suggest checking this out, as I know this information is void. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macman175 ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I think they're rather helpful. As you have written, the history section may be on the long side. -- Blehfu ( talk) 04:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Needs a normal map in addition to the animated gif. I wanted to look at a modern map of Canada but the gif doesn't even stop when it gets to the end. Quite aggravating. 71.36.206.189 ( talk) 08:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Why there is a separate section for language? Language should be mentioned within Demographics section. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 04:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The French-Canadian consolidated version,
references the long-form name of the Dominion du Canada many times.
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 99.241.149.152 ( talk) 22:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This paragraph:
Since 2001, Canada has had troops deployed in Afghanistan as part of the U.S. stabilization force and the UN-authorized, NATO-commanded International Security Assistance Force. Canada and the U.S. continue to integrate state and provincial agencies to strengthen security long the Canada-U.S. Border through the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.[45] Canada's Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) has participated in three major relief efforts in the past two years; the two-hundred member team has been deployed in relief operations after the December 2004 tsunami in South Asia, Hurricane Katrina in September 2005 and the Kashmir earthquake in October 2005.
Hurricane Katrina hit US mainland in August 2005, not September. Your own linked source reveals that. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
BlueDragonfly310 (
talk •
contribs)
22:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
What is the precise name of this state? For instance, Ireland is the precise legal name of the state that is known by the description Republic of Ireland. Does Canada's constitutional connection with Britain shape its official name, even if it is internationally known as Canada? 86.42.119.12 ( talk) 18:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I almost added a warning when I wrote my answer above saying that ArmchairVexillologistDon would probably turn up and try to claim the Dominion of Canada was the long form name. But I hoped that maybe he had decided to be adult about this. Don is of course entitled to his opinion, but included in the 'unfortunate' consensus he describes is the government of Canada, along with every encyclopedia and atlas maker. Don, your continued pushing of a point that has been disproved over and over again is disruptive. I would remind you that disruptive editing can result in a block. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 14:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Canada/Archive 17. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Canada/Archive 17 at the Reference desk. |
When are Canadians going to stop having the Queen of England as their head of state? Is there any republican debate there, as there is in Australia? There isn't a word about it in this article. I'm wondering do my Irish cousins in Canada stand and sing God Save the Queen for their national anthem? Do you have the Queen of England on your coins and stamps as well? Do you use the metric system or are you still on imperial measurements? Canada seems like a more intelligent and environmentally conscious place than the United States, and the health system is the best in the world along with France's, apparently. It just seems backward and unenlightened with this English royalist cult. Will, for instance, a Catholic ever be allowed serve as Canadian head of state? 86.42.119.12 ( talk) 08:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
While, as an American, I disagree with the "more intelligent" thing, there is a real issue here regarding improvement to the article. I think the initial comment can be fairly interpreted as asking whether Republicanism in Canada requires better treatment in this article. As I think there is a real question here, I am removing the template. - Rrius ( talk) 23:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the point is that Republicanism is very far down the list of significant political issues in Canada. Now someone coming to the article looking for information about Republicanism may be surprised not to find it, but we can't fill the article with descriptions of minor issues just in case someone is interested in them. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 16:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It also presupposes the surveys mean anything. The Mysterious Case of the Missing Australian Republicans gives reason to believe that they don't mean too much. - Rrius ( talk) 21:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it the consensus then that republican sentiment is not significant enough to warrant treatment in the article as a minority view or to note majority support of the monarchy? - Rrius ( talk) 21:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
1982 - So canada is only 26 y.o.? ChesterTheWorm ( talk) 00:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC) ChesterTheWorm
Which Canadians, pray tell, "take pride in universal health care"? The health care system in Canada is broken beyond repair, with waiting list measured in years. Anyone who can afford to get health care abroad does so; while most of the middle class either gets well waiting, or dies waiting.
While it may be tactful to not mention the pathetic state of health care in the main article, it's dishonest to present it as a successful system. I suggest the rosy presentation of health care be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.129.4 ( talk) 02:58, 12 September 2008
Which surveys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.129.4 ( talk) 08:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Try some of these links. Or talking to some Canadians. [8] [9] "About 13% of Americans reported that they had experienced an unmet health care need in the year prior to the survey, compared with 11% of Canadians." "87% of Canadians are somewhat or very satisfied with their overall healthcare services" DJ Clayworth ( talk) 13:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
So, 13% of Amricans are unsatisfied, which makes their health care system a failure, and 11-13% of the Canadians are unsatisfied, which makes them take pride in theirs. Somethings is half full or half empty, but I cannot decide what. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.246.29 ( talk) 17:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I understand canada is a distinct nation.But is Canada a sovereign nation? Does the Canadian constitution acknowledge its independent status in any way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.120.65 ( talk) 07:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The Dominion of Canada was founded on July 1, 1867, as a Sovereign Nation (i.e., as an independent coutry). That was the whole purpose of its founding.
Two vestiges of control, namely, (1). Reservation by the Imperial Parliament, (2). Disallowance by the Imperial Parliament, were included only as a last resort safeguard so that Republicanism, or the founding of an Alternate Royal Family, would not occur.
The Statute of Westminster 1931, removed the control of Disallowance by the Imperial Parliament.
The Canada Act 1982, removed the control of Reservation by the Imperial Parliament, added an ammending formula to the Constitution, and added an explicit Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
So either we were independent in 1867, or 1982. Personally, I prefer 1867.
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 134.117.137.162 ( talk) 19:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
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 Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
The governor general holds formal executive power within the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, and signs orders-in-council.Cite error: The named reference "DJC" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
As Head of State ... Elizabeth II has no political power, only symbolic power
the Crown now serves as the ceremonial executive
As Canada is a constitutional monarchy, the symbolic head of the executive is the governor general.
Under the constitutional convention of responsible government, the powers of the Crown are exercised by ministers, both individually and collectively.Cite error: The named reference "CSPS" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
The Cabinet as selected and directed by the prime minister constitutes the active seat of executive power in Canada.
... 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.
The Cabinet as selected and directed by the prime minister constitutes the active seat of executive power in Canada.
The prime minister is the chief minister and effective head of the executive in a parliamentary system ...
While the modern governor general has only a nominal influence on the operation of the Canadian government, the prime minister's influence is decisive.
The Executive Council would be governed by the leader of the political party that held an elected majority in the Legislative Assembly. That same leader would also appoint the members of the Executive Council. The governor would therefore be forced to accept these "ministers", and if the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly voted against them, they would have to resign. The governor would also be obliged to ratify laws concerning the internal affairs of the colony once these laws had been passed to the Legislative Assembly.
This key principle of responsibility, whereby a government needed the confidence of Parliament, originated in established British practice. But its transfer to British N America gave the colonists control of their domestic affairs, since a governor would simply follow the advice (ie, policies) of responsible colonial ministers.
Responsible government means that the Crown no longer has the prerogative to select or remove Ministers. They are selected and removed by the first Minister — the Prime Minister.
Ministers are thereby accountable to the Prime Minister who, in the Canadian tradition, has the sole power to appoint and dismiss them.
In very exceptional circumstances, the Governor General could refuse a request for a fresh election.
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.
Yes: 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 Governor General must take all steps necessary to thwart the will of a ruthless prime minister prematurely calling for the death of a Parliament.
In exceptional circumstances, the governor general may appoint or dismiss a prime minister.
One of the governor general's most important responsibilities is to ensure that Canada always has a prime minister and a government in place. In the case of the death of a prime minister, it is the governor general's responsibility to ensure the continuity of government.Cite error: The named reference "Forsey" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
As Head of State ... Elizabeth II has no political power, only symbolic power
the Crown now serves as the ceremonial executive
As Canada is a constitutional monarchy, the symbolic head of the executive is the governor general.
As Head of State ... Elizabeth II has no political power, only symbolic power
the Crown now serves as the ceremonial executive
As Canada is a constitutional monarchy, the symbolic head of the executive is the governor general.
The Cabinet as selected and directed by the prime minister constitutes the active seat of executive power in Canada.
... 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.
The Cabinet as selected and directed by the prime minister constitutes the active seat of executive power in Canada.
The prime minister is the chief minister and effective head of the executive in a parliamentary system ...
While the modern governor general has only a nominal influence on the operation of the Canadian government, the prime minister's influence is decisive.
Ministers are thereby accountable to the Prime Minister who, in the Canadian tradition, has the sole power to appoint and dismiss them.
The Executive Council would be governed by the leader of the political party that held an elected majority in the Legislative Assembly. That same leader would also appoint the members of the Executive Council. The governor would therefore be forced to accept these "ministers", and if the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly voted against them, they would have to resign. The governor would also be obliged to ratify laws concerning the internal affairs of the colony once these laws had been passed to the Legislative Assembly.
This key principle of responsibility, whereby a government needed the confidence of Parliament, originated in established British practice. But its transfer to British N America gave the colonists control of their domestic affairs, since a governor would simply follow the advice (ie, policies) of responsible colonial ministers.
Responsible government means that the Crown no longer has the prerogative to select or remove Ministers. They are selected and removed by the first Minister — the Prime Minister.
The governor general holds formal executive power within the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, and signs orders-in-council.
The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
As Head of State ... Elizabeth II has no political power, only symbolic power
the Crown now serves as the ceremonial executive
As Canada is a constitutional monarchy, the symbolic head of the executive is the governor general.
The prime minister is the chief minister and effective head of the executive in a parliamentary system ...
While the modern governor general has only a nominal influence on the operation of the Canadian government, the prime minister's influence is decisive.
... 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.
The Cabinet as selected and directed by the prime minister constitutes the active seat of executive power in Canada.
Responsible government means that the Crown no longer has the prerogative to select or remove Ministers. They are selected and removed by the first Minister — the Prime Minister.
Ministers are thereby accountable to the Prime Minister who, in the Canadian tradition, has the sole power to appoint and dismiss them.
The doctrine of responsible government remove most of the discretionary power of the governor general.
"His Majesty will not be advised to exercise his powers of disallowance"
The Executive Council would be governed by the leader of the political party that held an elected majority in the Legislative Assembly. That same leader would also appoint the members of the Executive Council. The governor would therefore be forced to accept these "ministers", and if the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly voted against them, they would have to resign. The governor would also be obliged to ratify laws concerning the internal affairs of the colony once these laws had been passed to the Legislative Assembly.
This key principle of responsibility, whereby a government needed the confidence of Parliament, originated in established British practice. But its transfer to British N America gave the colonists control of their domestic affairs, since a governor would simply follow the advice (ie, policies) of responsible colonial ministers.
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.
Yes: 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.
Forsey argued that 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.
In exceptional circumstances, the governor general may appoint or dismiss a prime minister.
Forsey's credibility as an authority on these matters notwithstanding, many Canadians today would find these scenarios unthinkable ... they might view the exercise of the reserve power of the Crown as undemocratic because the Crown is not an elected institution.
... the Liberal view is that the Governor General in Canada has no right to refuse dissolution from a Canadian prime minister.
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
/ |date=
mismatch (
help)
A polity that is not permitted to decide even if it is at war or not, is not a sovereign nation. Canada became a sovereign nation gradually throughout the 20th century, culminating in 1982 -- JimWae ( talk) 07:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does.
The Dominion of Canada was founded on July 1, 1867, as a Sovereign Nation (i.e., as an independent coutry). That was the whole purpose of its founding.
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 134.117.137.241 ( talk) 19:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
What was the purpose of founding the,
United States of America (1776),
Dominion of Canada (1867),
Commonwealth of Australia (1901),
Dominion of New Zealand (1907),
Dominion of Newfoundland (1907),
Union of South Africa (1910),
Irish Free State (Dec. 6, 1921),
Dominion of India (1947),
Dominion of Pakistan (1947)
then eh?
Just some mental exercise or something?
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 134.117.137.128 ( talk) 22:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello Gazzster. It is very nice to hear for you indeed. I hope all is well "down-under" eh!
The Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 is a problem. Yes it is a thorny problem. You are most correct that it did counter-mand the Sovereignty of the Dominion of Canada from 1867 to 1889. In 1889, the Interpretation Act 1889 made a distinction between self-governing Colonies, and self-governing Dominions, the latter being exempt from the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865.
So upon the founding of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901 as a self-governing Dominion, you folkes in Australia should have been exempt from the effects of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865.
The residual powers (i.e., residue of un-defined powers) in the Dominion of Canada resided with the Federal Government and not the Provincal Governmemts. I believe that the residual powers in the Commonwealth of Australia resided not with the Federal Government but with the State Governments (e.g., the State of New South Wales, the State of Queensland, the State of Victoria, etc).
Could that of been the reason the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, still had some legal force left in 1986 in the States of the Commonwealth of Australia?
Take care eh, ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 134.117.137.174 ( talk) 20:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Not sure about residual powers, but I do know that Lord Carrington advised Wran, the Premier of NSW, that the Queen would, on his (Carrington's) advise, refuse the Royal Assent to a bill of the NSW Parliament. The bill, which had already passed both houses, would have required the Queen to be be advised by New South Welsh ministers alone in matters pertaining to NSW. I don't know if the Colonial Laws Validity Act was invoked, but it was an example of the British Government exercising authority over a state. This was in 1981 I believe.-- Gazzster ( talk) 22:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Whether we call Canada a country, a state, or a nation, it did not become sovereign until the 20th century (even though it had been self-governing to some degree since 1867). "Independence"is too vague a term for Canada - it had some independence in 1867, but not the same degree of independence the USA attained 1776-1783 -- JimWae ( talk) 01:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
In Canada their are many cultural local delicious dishes such as the tourtier, sheppards pie, reindeer , buffalo, salmon, trout, cariboo, moose, corn and different kinds of meat pies. For dessert Canadians also cook pies and make tasty maple sweets ect... The majority of these kinds of dishes or foods are French-Canadian, Indian and English-Canadian. Canada is known for typical dishes and to go food at good restaurants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.153.14 ( talk) 17:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
( Tylerfm ( talk) 21:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I've taken this dispute here, specifically here. This isn't a discussion about content anymore. -- soulscanner ( talk) 04:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Is it possible to upload a different map? I've seen many maps that show all the provinces and simply do not use a northern border. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.134.119 ( talk) 00:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
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 actually prefer that we pare it down even more.
Canada is a parliamentary democracy with a federal system of parliamentary government and strong democratic traditions. The Parliament is made up of the Crown and two houses: an elected House of Commons and an appointed Senate. [1] [2] [3] Each Member of Parliament in the House of Commons is elected by simple plurality in an electoral district or riding. General elections must be called by the Prime Minister within five years of the previous election, or may be triggered by the government losing a confidence vote in the House (usually only possible during minority governments). Members of the Senate, whose seats are apportioned on a regional basis, are chosen by the Prime Minister and formally appointed by the Governor General, and serve until age 75.
Canada is also a constitutional monarchy, with The Crown acting as a symbolic or ceremonial executive. [4] [5] The Crown consists of Queen Elizabeth II (legal head of state) and her appointed viceroys, the Governor General (acting head of state) and provincial Lieutenant-Governors , who perform most of the monarch's ceremonial roles. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. The political executive consists of the Prime Minister (head of government) and the Cabinet and carries out the day-to-day decisions of government. [11] [12] [13] [14] The Cabinet is made up of ministers usually selected from the House of Commons and headed by the Prime Minister [15] [16] [17], who is normally the leader of the party that holds the confidence of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) is one of the most powerful institutions in government [18] [19], initiating most legislation for parliamentary approval and selecting, besides other Cabinet members, Senators, federal court judges, heads of Crown corporations and government agencies, and the Governor General. The Crown formally approves parliamentary legislation and the Prime Minister's appointments. [20]
There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons.
Parliament is the legislative branch of Government, composed of the Sovereign (represented by the Governor General), the Senate and the House of Commons.
The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
Parliamentary government is also associated with the presence of a dual executive. There is a ceremonial executive, which possesses some constitutional powers as well as performing symbolic functions, and a political executive, which performs the basic governing functions (see Magstadt and Schotten, 1999; O'Neill, 1999). In the British model, the Crown now serves as the ceremonial executive (or head of state) while the Prime Minister is head of government.
o symbolic executive: Queen (de jure head of state) ... Governor General (de facto head of state); o political executive: Canada: Privy Council, including cabinet; Prime Minister (head of government) primus inter pares; cabinet/ministry membership (32 members including the PM); o permanent executive (bureaucracy): departments, agencies, & civil service
The symbolic executive is composed of the Queen, who is the legal head of state of Canada, and her representatives, who fulfill the monarch's daily duties in Canada.
{{
cite web}}
: line feed character in |quote=
at position 143 (
help)
However, the British monarch continues to serve as Canada's symbolic executive, appointing a representative, the Governor-General, on the advice of the Canadian Prime Minister.
As Head of State ... Elizabeth II has no political power, only symbolic power
The executive power in Canada is vested in the Queen. In this democratic society, this is only a constitutional convention, as the real executive power rests with the Cabinet.
In Canada (and indeed most parliamentary democracies in the world today), the majority of challenges to legislative power which develop no longer come from the ceremonial executive (the Crown), but from the political executive, the government of the day.
Under the constitutional convention of responsible government, the powers of the Crown are exercised by Ministers, both individually and collectively.
... 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.
The Cabinet as selected and directed by the prime minister constitutes the active seat of executive power in Canada.
The prime minister is the chief minister and effective head of the executive in a parliamentary system ...
Responsible government means that the Crown no longer has the prerogative to select or remove Ministers. They are selected and removed by the first Minister—the Prime Minister.
While the modern governor general has only a nominal influence on the operation of the Canadian government, the prime minister's influence is decisive.
Ministers are thereby accountable to the Prime Minister who, in the Canadian tradition, has the sole power to appoint and dismiss them.
The governor general holds formal executive power within the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, and signs orders-in-council.
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() |
---|
Discussion of Canada's official name Future TFA paragraph |
When authoritative sources say that real power lies in Canada, there is no need to use weasel words to attempt to weaken a simple statement of fact. Real power lies in cabinet; the power of the GG and monarch are strictly ceremonial. -- soulscanner ( talk) 02:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Also, please do not delete relevant quotes from articles. They are important in this dispute. -- soulscanner ( talk) 03:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The article must in some way reflect the fact that a) the Executive role of the GG is marginal or nominal b) that the role of the Prime Minister is decisive:
As of now, the authority of the GG and monarch are exaggerated. -- soulscanner ( talk) 05:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what Soulscanner means when he says Lord Byng was "dismissed". In fact, he served out his five-year term. And the fact that this hasn't happened since the 1920's has more to do with the fact that the circumstances in which it could happen seldom arise than with anything that might have changed. The "limits" imposed on the governor general's powers in the Statute of Westminster relate only to the fact that the governor general is to act solely in the interests of Canada and without instructions from the British government, something which would have changed nothing in the King-Byng affair since Lord Byng refused to consult the Colonial Office.
Just to make things really clear that "purely ceremonial" is inaccurate, here is an excerpt from Constitutional Law (1997) by Patrick J. Monahan:
Frankly, I don't find anything objectionable in this old version. I don't believe the neutrality tag is called for. The current version is also in my opinion less well-written. Joeldl ( talk) 23:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
May 17 2008: The point many have missed below is that the Canadian Government acts, and must act, in the name of Her Majesty. Her Majesty does not personally make decisions. But in order for decisions to be formalized they must be done in the name of Her Majesty. This is what is meant by the Crown acting on the advice of Ministers. The Crown is constitutionally bound to accept advice of Ministers. So when someone is appointed to the Senate, for example, the appointment is made by the Prime Minister but in the name of Her Majesty, to make the appointment legal. The PM of the day has no individual legal authority to make the appointment him (or her-) self.
Nick
My objections here lie in G2bambino's belief that the monarch is invested with all executive authority in Canada. It taints the section on Government:
"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." - G2
This is contradicted by various sources.
All sources presented in fact present information that contradicts any notion that the monarch has all executive power, or any discretionary power. To those who object to government sources as "interested", I'll note that these were all used by G2 (selectively) to advance his thesis. All such theoretical and hypothetical questions about residual discretionary power are based on the opinion of the late Senator Eugene Forsey, an ardent monarchist. Again, this article reads like an essay designed to promote the notion that the monarchy is more than a formal and ceremonial institution. -- soulscanner ( talk) 06:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
As a sometime sparring partner with G2, whom I respect, I fail to see how he is pushing a flawed POV. We all essentially agree, but we're using different language to say it. You say that Canada, being a democracy, is ruled by the People. Correct. The GG, the Queen's rep has (in ordinary circumstances) no discretionary power to exercise the powers given him or her by the Constitution. Such decisions are made by the elected representatives of the People. Quite so. G2 (and myself) are saying the same thing, but in a more technical and constitutional manner: executive power rests with the GG. By convention, he or she is bound by unwritten constitutional law to exercise it in accordance with the will of the People as expressed by their elected representatives. So we both say the same thing. But you seem to think that executive power means absolute power. It does not. Executive power is only the authority to execute the will of the People. Every society must have a means to make laws, appointments and other acts legal and binding. In Canada and other nations whose monarch is Elizabeth II, that function happens to be exercised by a Govenor-general. This does not imply that the GG is the font of all authority. He or she is simply the means by which the People's will is made binding.-- Gazzster ( talk) 09:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to take a little straw poll to see just who actually thinks there are problems with the government and politics section.
No, the constitutional structures are explained sufficiently
Yes, the Governor General is given way too much play
Well, here are my alternatives for these four phrases:
-- Padraic 19:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
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 almost invariably follow the advice of the Cabinet.5) Because the Queen holds all executive authority, she, or her representative, can refuse the advice of the Cabinet in exceptional circumstances. This means that a) "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. G2bambino
This has clearly been contradicted by several references that I have given. G2bambino has also stated that the Prime Minister is not elected, and that he does not make direct Cabinet, Senate, and Supreme Court appointments, again contradicting direct references that I have given. This too has been contradicted by direct quotes. I think there are more than POV problems here; the factual integrity of this section is compromised. -- soulscanner ( talk) 22:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is the way I would reword the section for better flow, in very rough unref'd form, in a section separate from the real discussion above. Starting at the second paragraph:
This may end up longer but maybe clearer, and introduces the provinces. The Privy Council is not needed here, along with many of the exact details of who appoints who. This article is the overview, we can omit many truths as long as we don't present a false picture of how things work day-to-day, which is what the casual reader is interested in here. Franamax ( talk) 19:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Once more, G2Bambino has ignored direct quotes that contradict his stated opinions. He has said that the following do not contradict his assertion that actual executive power lies in the monarch, and that I'm simply misinterpreting them. I'll repeat myself once more, and offer the quotes that directly put (Choose one: real/true/actual/effective/legitimate) executive power in the hands of the Prime minister and Cabinet.
G2bambino has made his beliefs on where actual executive power lies:
I had at the time already posted several documents that contradict this. After King-Byng, King had explicit limits put on the power of the monarchy. In addition, constitutional scholars are explicit on where real power now lies.
*Parliamentary government is also associated with the presence of a dual executive. There is a ceremonial executive, which possesses some constitutional powers as well as performing symbolic functions, and a political executive, which performs the basic governing functions (see Magstadt and Schotten, 1999; O'Neill, 1999) page 15 Athabasca University.
To clarify matters, we need bold statements like this in the article as opposed to technical language that only constitutional scholars can understand. Indeed, the constitutional scholars themselves do a much better job at clarifying issues above than the article and obscure the facts expressed above. They are being excluded from the article only because G2bambibo disagrees with them personally, as noted above. -- soulscanner ( talk) 22:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The prime Minister is elected by the people of Canada.
I could giv emore references, but is there really a point to this? The PM is formally appointed by the Governor General, but the Governor General has no choice in the matter. Mentioning the Governor Genernal at all is a good example of the obfuscation duly noted by several editors. This level of technical and formalized jargon is not appropriate in a review article, especially when used to obscure verifiable facts. -- soulscanner ( talk) 22:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Another way of clarifying the role of the monarchy is to classify it as the "Symbolic Executive", as opposed to the political executive. A number of references support this:
I particularly like the last quote, a much more succinct way to summarizer the role of the monarch in Canada than the run-on sentences found in the current version of the article. It should follow the sentence saying that constitutional power is vested in the queen. It is one way of clarifying the difference between real political power and ceremonial power. It's good enough for scholars, why not here? -- soulscanner ( talk) 04:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I mostly approve of the new wording of the Government and politics section in this version and agree with removing the neutrality tag. From my own POV, I'd like to alter a couple of sentences but I recognise the present wording is well-sourced. The sentences are: "However, this [Executive authority of the monarch] power is only symbolic" and "The late Senator Eugene Forsey has argued that the sovereign and Governor General do retain their right to use the Royal Prerogative in exceptional constitutional crisis situations, but successive Canadian governments have long maintained that such actions would lack democratic legitimacy coming from an unelected institution."
I'd prefer that the first say "primarily" rather than "only" or, at least change to "now only". For the second, I dislike the "but" as I don't see these two ideas in opposition. The fact that the sovereign, or her representative, retains ultimate authority but has no legitimacy to do so is the very genius of our system. Should a government be acting unfathomably ridiculously, then the sovereign could over-rule the government and make a strong enough case to the people to act so illegitimately, and then it could be permitted to happen. However, the case would have to be beyond my imagination to allow such an event to happen and would otherwise certainly result in a change in monarchy by the will of the people, thus preventing the royal prerogative from ever being used and the genius of having an illegitimate, unelected person at the top of the system.
As I said, I recognise that the present wording is legitimate and well-sourced and will not withhold my approval nor further seek my requested changes as they are from my own POV. Should, however, alterations be seen to be acceptable to include these ideas, I would be very pleased. DoubleBlue ( Talk) 11:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I am proposing the following language with an eye toward bringing this to an amicable conclusion or, at the very least, helping to bring sharper focus to the textual disagreement:
“ | The constitution formally vests executive authority is formally and constitutionally vested in the monarch, but in practice it is exercised by the Cabinet, making the Cabinet the "active seat" of executive power. This arrangement stems from the principles of responsible government, wherein by convention the monarch and viceroy remain apolitical, deferring all governmental matters to the Cabinet, who are responsible to the elected House of Commons for their actions. Following this formula ensures the stability of government. While the sovereign and governor general do retain their right to use the reserve power in exceptional constitutional crisis situations, their role in government is largely ceremonial. | ” |
- Rrius ( talk) 05:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the proposed language was only meant to replace the one paragraph regarding executive authority. At any rate, I am proposing yet another version. This one takes into account the language Soulscanner added last night around the same time I was posting on this page. I have eliminated the redundant bit about "symbolic and ceremonial" and moved its reference up to where the Queen and GG are said to be "predominantly ceremonial". I have also once again changed "Royal Prerogative" to "reserve power". As I understand it, including from the two relevant articles, that is what is meant. I do not want to mess with adding a reflist on the talk page. If someone else does, great; otherwise, you can see it all on my sandbox. I think even this version needs to be tweaked to break-up the excessively long second sentence, but this is all I have time for at the moment.
- Rrius ( talk) 19:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Having looked at the paragraph as it stood in the article, and reviewing proposal 1, I see that the double mention of the monarch's mostly ceremonial role has been avoided by Rrius, but the duplicate of the PM being head of the Cabinet remains. If it is said that the Cabinet is the "active seat" (or "exerciser," or whatever term we use) of executive power, and that the PM is the head of the Cabinet, then it's redundant to say again that the PM is the head of the executive. Something like the following might hone the proposed paragraph above even more:
My proposal:
Formal executive authority is constitutionally vested in the Queen and her appointed representative, the Governor General. [15] [16] However, this power is only symbolic. [17] [18] [19] The Prime Minister is the effective head of the executive, with decisive influence on the operation of the Canadian government. [20] [21] True executive power is exercised by Ministers in the Cabinet [1] [22] [3].
The Governor General is bound by constitutional convention to "appoint" as Prime Minister the party leader who possesses the confidence of the House of Commons and "ask" him or her to form a Cabinet. [23] [1] In fact, as long as the Prime Minister retains the confidence of the House, he has the sole power to appoint and dismiss Cabinet Ministers, the Crown having no prerogative in the matter [24] [25]. This arrangement stems from the principles of responsible government wich developed during British colonial rule, and removed most discretionary power from the Crown [26] [27]. This makes the Prime Minister's Office is one of the most powerful organs of government, 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. The monarch and viceroy remain apolitical, and defer all governmental matters to their Cabinet ministers. The Prime Minister and Cabinet is responsible to the elected House of Commons for their actions, which acts as a check on executive power. [28] [29] [3] Following this formula ensures the stability of government. The late Senator Eugene Forsey has argued that the sovereign and Governor General do retain their right to use the Royal Prerogative in exceptional constitutional crisis situations [8] [30] [31] [32] [33], but successive Canadian governments have long maintained that such actions would lack democratic legitimacy coming from an unelected institution [34] [35]. References-- soulscanner ( talk) 06:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The reference to the Zolf quote was corrected. G2bambino's version incorrectly quoted the article. Zolf clearly cited Eugene Forsey as the source of the statement that the monarch retains residual powers. This is by no means accepted by all parties in Canada, as indicated by sourced passage. Please do not delete this again without discussion. We should not be promoting the POV of one dead senator, with clear monarchist bias when the Liberal policy since 1926 has clearly been to oppose this as undemocratic, despite the late Senators objections. -- soulscanner ( talk) 02:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The late Senator Eugene Forsey has argued that the sovereign and Governor General do retain their right to use the Royal Prerogative in exceptional constitutional crisis situations -- A sentence manipulated to turn fact into theory and attribute it to one person as though he were a solitary quack. The sources show Forsey is not the only person to acknowledge the GG's right to unilaterally exercise the Royal Prerogative in certain, albeit rare, situations. (I suppose that in Soulscanner's world if the PM went into a coma or something the country would just somehow go on without a functioning chief minister.)
...but successive Canadian governments have long maintained that such actions would lack democratic legitimacy coming from an unelected institution -- Successive governments? Long maintained? Which successive governments have maintained for how long?
...the monarch's powers are symbolic or ceremonial -- There's a lot of contradiction to that statement. Thus, "predominantly ceremonial and symbolic" strikes a balance between the legal reality and the normal situation. -- G2bambino ( talk) 14:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It's all very nice to speculate, but there are no sourced references here. I've found at least five scholarly sources that clearly describe the monarchy's power as symbolic or ceremonial as opposed to political or real, and no one has offered any sources that challenge this. So why the statements in these references (if not the references themselves) are consistently deleted? -- soulscanner ( talk) 04:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Canadians! I have just came back from France around the poitier area and the people were telling me that there dialect was very close to the montreal dialect. I knew a girl from about ten or so years ago from montreal who told me that the French had a hard time understanding her. Can anyone back up what I was told? Joe Deagan ( talk) 00:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Makes no sense. Landofpartinggifts ( talk) 02:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys. Canada Day is fast approaching, so I'm putting it out there that we need to try and get this on the main page for it, since I may not be available to do it. I think it's dumb that only 5 requests can be made at one time, but we gotta do what we can. The requests page has candidates for June 19, 22, and 27. I figure that anyone involved with this article should watch that page, wait for one of them to be removed, and if one is, submit a request for this article ASAP. I'll make the template here, and the text can be modified as necessary (ie. some severe summarizing to shorten it). -- Reaper X 05:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Canada ( /ˈkænədə/) is a country extending from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west and northward into the Arctic Ocean. It is the world's second largest country by total area, and shares land borders with the United States to the south and northwest. It was inhabited for millennia by various aboriginal people before British and French explorers started settling the Atlantic coast. France ceded nearly all of its colonies in North America in 1763 after the Seven Years War. In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada was formed as a federal dominion of four provinces. This began an accretion of additional provinces and territories and a process of increasing autonomy from the United Kingdom, highlighted by the Statute of Westminster in 1931 and culminating in the Canada Act in 1982 which severed the vestiges of legal dependence on the British parliament. Now a federation of ten provinces and three territories, Canada is a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy, with Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state. It is a bilingual and multicultural country, with both English and French as official languages. ( more...)
Perhaps I didn't read closely enough, but does the article mention where Canada's economy stand in relation to other developed countrie's economies, in size? I note in the Wikipedia article that Spain has the world's 8th largest economy. Why isn't Spain then part of the G8? Is Spain's economy larger than Canada's? Cd195 ( talk) 00:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
In the wikipedia you can see that Spain is the 8th largest economy, more that Canada. I don't know why do you have doubts... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.27.17.46 ( talk) 19:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Rankings according to the WSJ/Heritage Foundation 'Index of Economic Freedom' should be removed, as upon close inspection their ten postulates governing the index have more to do with the security of property rights than with human freedom. It's a measure of how easy it is for investment and capital to operate without any interference from outside sources such as meddling governments, progressive activist groups, and labor unions, and not a measure of any kind of real benefit to citizenry at large. It also should not be the policy of Wiki to lend academic credence to conservative think-tanks, which gain visibility not because of the rigors of their research but because of the bounty of their funding, and do not engage in the same kind of critical peer review as actual academic institutions. Their allegiance is not to reveal the workings of the world around them, but instead to various right-wing shibboleths, regardless of whether they fit the facts or not. 71.232.176.48 ( talk) 01:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Canada Jack ( talk) 20:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Under 'Geography and Climate' the following entry was made "Since 1925, Canada has claimed the portion of the Arctic between 60°W and 141°W longitude,[47] but this claim is not universally recognized." May we all know who this(these) countries may be, or is it simply rumoured?
Under the Constitution Act, the country's name was changed from Dominion of Canada to Canadian Federation. The United Nations recognizes this, Canadian law recognizes this, so should Wikipedia!!
Mnmazur ( talk) 20:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Howdy,
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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.204.225 ( talk) 17:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello DJ Clayworth.
Consider your long-form name (i.e., your legal name). Is it just DJ?
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.204.225 ( talk) 17:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Gopher65. The question is one of legal Order-of-Precedence. Does a long-form name have a "higher rank" than a short-form name? The legal tradition of English-Speaking Common Law countries is YES.
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 was not explicitly used until its first amendment, the British North America Act 1871.
In the USA Declaration of Independence 1776, Article I explicitly names the declared country as ...
"The stile of this Confederacy shall be the United States of America".
To sum up, Canada did not explicitly state its long-form name until the FIRST AMENDEMENT of its Constitution in 1871, whereas America explicitly stated its long-form name from the beginning in 1776.
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 70.48.58.36 ( talk) 14:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 99.239.203.61 ( talk) 14:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello DJ Clayworth.
I can disagree with the Government of Canada on any point that I wish. Why? I can do this because the Dominion of Canada was founded on July 1, 1867, as, and it is still today a "free-country" ... the last time I checked.
Just because the Government of Canada has an internet website where something is typed, does not make it true.
I am a reasonably intelligent person, and one of my hobbies is old documents and British Commonwealth of Nations Constitutional Law. In particular, I am fascinated by the "ins-and-outs" of long-form name(s) of Countries.
Since you will not discuss reasonably your own long-form name (out of privacy I imagine), please consider this dead famous person's long-form name...
John Fitzgerald Kennedy
or was his long-form name just ...
Johnny?
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 99.239.204.225 ( talk) 18:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello GoodDay. I don't mind stopping to talk about this subject. My opinion on the long-form name of this country being the Dominion of Canada is well known. My reasons for believing so have be re-hashed alot. So I'll stop. In closing, Please consider this dead famous person's long-form name...
John Fitzgerald Kennedy
or was his long-form name just ...
Johnny?
Interesting "food-for-thought".
Take care eh, and best wishes,
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 99.239.204.225 ( talk) 19:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe that on my Canadian passport, Canadian and Canadienne are both official denonyms for a Canadian citizen, depending on which language they regard as their primary one (Anglosphones use Canadian whilst Francophones use Canadienne). I suggest that this gets changed to more accurately inform the public.
Regards,
68.151.24.187 ( talk) 03:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Because being a G member is a political decision based on democracy principles, backed by a World top economy, not the other way around (see the extension process from G6 to G7 to include Canada in 1976 and not Spain, and then G7 to G8 to accommodate Russia in the 1990's, and not China or even India) Yannn ( talk) 00:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
India exports almost the same as Thailand and its nominal gdp is almost the same as Australia's. for the last decade almost every second year Spain and Canada swich positions in the nominal gdp rankings because they are very close. 2009 Canada's gdp growth is suppose to be much larger than Spain's so in 2 years Canada could be slightly larger again. you can't really say that one country has the larger gdp. TRADE Canada's exports are almost 2 times larger than Spains Canada's imports are over 20 billion dollars larger total trade Canada 830 billion dollars total trade Spain 637 billion dollars These statistics make Canada the only country with a top 10 gdp outside of Germany,UK,France,Italy,China,Japan,US to make the top 10 list for imports and exports. so far in 2008 the world's largest economy (US) traded more with Canada than China (world's 2nd largest economy using ppp gdp) and Japan (world's 2nd largest economy using nominal gdp) combined. US gets more petroleum products from Canada than Saudi Arabia and Iraq combined (soon it could be Saudi Arabia and Mexico combined). That country has to be at G8 meetings because the US always has something it needs to discuss with Canada. GDP PER CAPITA Spain and Canada have the same nominal gdp (2007 imf said Spains nominal gdp was 4 % higher that could have been due to error) Spain has 35 % more people so gdp per capita Canada is a lot richer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.212.64 ( talk) 21:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I have the proof to backup all of my statements but I don't know for sure if those are the reasons why Canada was chosen to be in the G8. They do give Canada the edge economically over Spain and Brazil. China is a country that should be in the G8 the only thing that could keep it out is gdp per capita.
no I think this is where it belongs, one of the hot topics when it comes to Canada is its role in the world economy and the G8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grmike ( talk • contribs) 22:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you have anything about the article to say? This is not a forum for discussing politics. If this conversation is not working to add or change content in the article, I'm going to have to archive it as being off-topic. -- Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 22:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Toronto stock exchange is the 7th largest in the world by market cap. Canada's 5 biggest banks have a combined market value almost as large as the biggest bank in the world.
Geez, this is so complicated (being protected and all) that it's no wonder these haven't been changed! Anyway, the paragraph beginning, "Efforts by Progressive Conservative (PC) government of Brian Mulroney *beganto* recognize Quebec as a "distinct society" and end western alienation" should be "began to"; and the next paragraph beginning, "In the 1990s, *Anger* in predominantly French-speaking Quebec" should have "anger" uncapitalised. Hope that helps.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.166.102 ( talk) 05:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the History section:
This is a little peculiar, Canada I believe took a prominent role in peacekeeping since, umm, a Canadian invented it. I think there are references out there, which I can't lay my hands on, that show a significant decline in peacekeeping participation through the '90's. A little recent-ism may be creeping in here.
This paragraph is also a little skewed by the recent change of Dallaire to a "peacekeeping official" - he was actually an Army Lt-Gen., not an "official". Also the lack of mandate to prevent the genocide and criticism thereof is vague and unsourced (Shake Hands With The Devil, I'm holding it in my non-typing hand), and not particularly relevant to Canada's history as a body. And further, "also took part in Bosnia" - what about Maj-Gen Mackenzie leading forces to take control of Sarajevo airport at the height of the conflict? My point here is that the paragraph seems inaccurate and unbalanced, and possibly unnecessary. Comments?
Franamax (
talk)
05:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought, that with the exception of sending General Dallaire to Rwanda, Canada ignored that entire conflict until it was already over? No soldiers, no aid, no nothing. It would be a little rich to suggest that Canada had any significant part in that conflict. Gopher65 talk 16:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Changing the Demographics section to include the more useful metropolitan area populations. The table of municipal populatioons should be removed, if there are no objections. naturalnumber ( talk) 08:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the title be The Kingdom of Canada rather than merely Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.62.198 ( talk • contribs)
Hello! For those who support NAFTA, let me know what you think about this. Use it freely. Alex Covarrubias ( Talk? ) 20:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
This user supports NAFTA. |
![]() |
I apologize for not providing sources on the information I have recently been adding, but this information is widely known in Canada and it would be very easy for anyone to find sources for the material I have just added. I have added the material to give a more detailed view of important events in Canadian history which are typically mentioned in Canadian history textbooks, such as mentioning modern-day issues involving aboriginal peoples such as the controversial Oka crisis in 1990 and the shooting of Dudley George in 1995, as well as more positive issues of aboriginal affairs such as the Nisga'a Final Settlement and the government apologizing this year to aboriginal people for the oppression of aboriginals in residential schools. Furthermore, continental free trade adopted in the 1980s has been a significant and controversial event in Canada and it deserves more attention.-- R-41 ( talk) 06:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Is the history section too long? I'd gladly support any effort to condense it. -- soulscanner ( talk) 20:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I know as a fact that the information under Demographics regarding the metropolitan population of major Canadian cities is false. Edmonton has nearly 1 million people, and Toronto nearly 5 Million. Edmonton has also a greater population than Toronto. I believe that the source, although supposedly is Statistics Canada, was either misinterpreted or perhaps not a valid source. I suggest checking this out, as I know this information is void. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macman175 ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I think they're rather helpful. As you have written, the history section may be on the long side. -- Blehfu ( talk) 04:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Needs a normal map in addition to the animated gif. I wanted to look at a modern map of Canada but the gif doesn't even stop when it gets to the end. Quite aggravating. 71.36.206.189 ( talk) 08:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Why there is a separate section for language? Language should be mentioned within Demographics section. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 04:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The French-Canadian consolidated version,
references the long-form name of the Dominion du Canada many times.
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 99.241.149.152 ( talk) 22:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This paragraph:
Since 2001, Canada has had troops deployed in Afghanistan as part of the U.S. stabilization force and the UN-authorized, NATO-commanded International Security Assistance Force. Canada and the U.S. continue to integrate state and provincial agencies to strengthen security long the Canada-U.S. Border through the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.[45] Canada's Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) has participated in three major relief efforts in the past two years; the two-hundred member team has been deployed in relief operations after the December 2004 tsunami in South Asia, Hurricane Katrina in September 2005 and the Kashmir earthquake in October 2005.
Hurricane Katrina hit US mainland in August 2005, not September. Your own linked source reveals that. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
BlueDragonfly310 (
talk •
contribs)
22:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
What is the precise name of this state? For instance, Ireland is the precise legal name of the state that is known by the description Republic of Ireland. Does Canada's constitutional connection with Britain shape its official name, even if it is internationally known as Canada? 86.42.119.12 ( talk) 18:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I almost added a warning when I wrote my answer above saying that ArmchairVexillologistDon would probably turn up and try to claim the Dominion of Canada was the long form name. But I hoped that maybe he had decided to be adult about this. Don is of course entitled to his opinion, but included in the 'unfortunate' consensus he describes is the government of Canada, along with every encyclopedia and atlas maker. Don, your continued pushing of a point that has been disproved over and over again is disruptive. I would remind you that disruptive editing can result in a block. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 14:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Canada/Archive 17. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Canada/Archive 17 at the Reference desk. |
When are Canadians going to stop having the Queen of England as their head of state? Is there any republican debate there, as there is in Australia? There isn't a word about it in this article. I'm wondering do my Irish cousins in Canada stand and sing God Save the Queen for their national anthem? Do you have the Queen of England on your coins and stamps as well? Do you use the metric system or are you still on imperial measurements? Canada seems like a more intelligent and environmentally conscious place than the United States, and the health system is the best in the world along with France's, apparently. It just seems backward and unenlightened with this English royalist cult. Will, for instance, a Catholic ever be allowed serve as Canadian head of state? 86.42.119.12 ( talk) 08:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
While, as an American, I disagree with the "more intelligent" thing, there is a real issue here regarding improvement to the article. I think the initial comment can be fairly interpreted as asking whether Republicanism in Canada requires better treatment in this article. As I think there is a real question here, I am removing the template. - Rrius ( talk) 23:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the point is that Republicanism is very far down the list of significant political issues in Canada. Now someone coming to the article looking for information about Republicanism may be surprised not to find it, but we can't fill the article with descriptions of minor issues just in case someone is interested in them. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 16:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It also presupposes the surveys mean anything. The Mysterious Case of the Missing Australian Republicans gives reason to believe that they don't mean too much. - Rrius ( talk) 21:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it the consensus then that republican sentiment is not significant enough to warrant treatment in the article as a minority view or to note majority support of the monarchy? - Rrius ( talk) 21:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
1982 - So canada is only 26 y.o.? ChesterTheWorm ( talk) 00:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC) ChesterTheWorm
Which Canadians, pray tell, "take pride in universal health care"? The health care system in Canada is broken beyond repair, with waiting list measured in years. Anyone who can afford to get health care abroad does so; while most of the middle class either gets well waiting, or dies waiting.
While it may be tactful to not mention the pathetic state of health care in the main article, it's dishonest to present it as a successful system. I suggest the rosy presentation of health care be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.129.4 ( talk) 02:58, 12 September 2008
Which surveys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.129.4 ( talk) 08:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Try some of these links. Or talking to some Canadians. [8] [9] "About 13% of Americans reported that they had experienced an unmet health care need in the year prior to the survey, compared with 11% of Canadians." "87% of Canadians are somewhat or very satisfied with their overall healthcare services" DJ Clayworth ( talk) 13:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
So, 13% of Amricans are unsatisfied, which makes their health care system a failure, and 11-13% of the Canadians are unsatisfied, which makes them take pride in theirs. Somethings is half full or half empty, but I cannot decide what. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.246.29 ( talk) 17:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I understand canada is a distinct nation.But is Canada a sovereign nation? Does the Canadian constitution acknowledge its independent status in any way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.120.65 ( talk) 07:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The Dominion of Canada was founded on July 1, 1867, as a Sovereign Nation (i.e., as an independent coutry). That was the whole purpose of its founding.
Two vestiges of control, namely, (1). Reservation by the Imperial Parliament, (2). Disallowance by the Imperial Parliament, were included only as a last resort safeguard so that Republicanism, or the founding of an Alternate Royal Family, would not occur.
The Statute of Westminster 1931, removed the control of Disallowance by the Imperial Parliament.
The Canada Act 1982, removed the control of Reservation by the Imperial Parliament, added an ammending formula to the Constitution, and added an explicit Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
So either we were independent in 1867, or 1982. Personally, I prefer 1867.
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 134.117.137.162 ( talk) 19:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
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 Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
The governor general holds formal executive power within the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, and signs orders-in-council.Cite error: The named reference "DJC" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
As Head of State ... Elizabeth II has no political power, only symbolic power
the Crown now serves as the ceremonial executive
As Canada is a constitutional monarchy, the symbolic head of the executive is the governor general.
Under the constitutional convention of responsible government, the powers of the Crown are exercised by ministers, both individually and collectively.Cite error: The named reference "CSPS" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
The Cabinet as selected and directed by the prime minister constitutes the active seat of executive power in Canada.
... 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.
The Cabinet as selected and directed by the prime minister constitutes the active seat of executive power in Canada.
The prime minister is the chief minister and effective head of the executive in a parliamentary system ...
While the modern governor general has only a nominal influence on the operation of the Canadian government, the prime minister's influence is decisive.
The Executive Council would be governed by the leader of the political party that held an elected majority in the Legislative Assembly. That same leader would also appoint the members of the Executive Council. The governor would therefore be forced to accept these "ministers", and if the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly voted against them, they would have to resign. The governor would also be obliged to ratify laws concerning the internal affairs of the colony once these laws had been passed to the Legislative Assembly.
This key principle of responsibility, whereby a government needed the confidence of Parliament, originated in established British practice. But its transfer to British N America gave the colonists control of their domestic affairs, since a governor would simply follow the advice (ie, policies) of responsible colonial ministers.
Responsible government means that the Crown no longer has the prerogative to select or remove Ministers. They are selected and removed by the first Minister — the Prime Minister.
Ministers are thereby accountable to the Prime Minister who, in the Canadian tradition, has the sole power to appoint and dismiss them.
In very exceptional circumstances, the Governor General could refuse a request for a fresh election.
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.
Yes: 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 Governor General must take all steps necessary to thwart the will of a ruthless prime minister prematurely calling for the death of a Parliament.
In exceptional circumstances, the governor general may appoint or dismiss a prime minister.
One of the governor general's most important responsibilities is to ensure that Canada always has a prime minister and a government in place. In the case of the death of a prime minister, it is the governor general's responsibility to ensure the continuity of government.Cite error: The named reference "Forsey" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
As Head of State ... Elizabeth II has no political power, only symbolic power
the Crown now serves as the ceremonial executive
As Canada is a constitutional monarchy, the symbolic head of the executive is the governor general.
As Head of State ... Elizabeth II has no political power, only symbolic power
the Crown now serves as the ceremonial executive
As Canada is a constitutional monarchy, the symbolic head of the executive is the governor general.
The Cabinet as selected and directed by the prime minister constitutes the active seat of executive power in Canada.
... 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.
The Cabinet as selected and directed by the prime minister constitutes the active seat of executive power in Canada.
The prime minister is the chief minister and effective head of the executive in a parliamentary system ...
While the modern governor general has only a nominal influence on the operation of the Canadian government, the prime minister's influence is decisive.
Ministers are thereby accountable to the Prime Minister who, in the Canadian tradition, has the sole power to appoint and dismiss them.
The Executive Council would be governed by the leader of the political party that held an elected majority in the Legislative Assembly. That same leader would also appoint the members of the Executive Council. The governor would therefore be forced to accept these "ministers", and if the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly voted against them, they would have to resign. The governor would also be obliged to ratify laws concerning the internal affairs of the colony once these laws had been passed to the Legislative Assembly.
This key principle of responsibility, whereby a government needed the confidence of Parliament, originated in established British practice. But its transfer to British N America gave the colonists control of their domestic affairs, since a governor would simply follow the advice (ie, policies) of responsible colonial ministers.
Responsible government means that the Crown no longer has the prerogative to select or remove Ministers. They are selected and removed by the first Minister — the Prime Minister.
The governor general holds formal executive power within the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, and signs orders-in-council.
The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
As Head of State ... Elizabeth II has no political power, only symbolic power
the Crown now serves as the ceremonial executive
As Canada is a constitutional monarchy, the symbolic head of the executive is the governor general.
The prime minister is the chief minister and effective head of the executive in a parliamentary system ...
While the modern governor general has only a nominal influence on the operation of the Canadian government, the prime minister's influence is decisive.
... 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.
The Cabinet as selected and directed by the prime minister constitutes the active seat of executive power in Canada.
Responsible government means that the Crown no longer has the prerogative to select or remove Ministers. They are selected and removed by the first Minister — the Prime Minister.
Ministers are thereby accountable to the Prime Minister who, in the Canadian tradition, has the sole power to appoint and dismiss them.
The doctrine of responsible government remove most of the discretionary power of the governor general.
"His Majesty will not be advised to exercise his powers of disallowance"
The Executive Council would be governed by the leader of the political party that held an elected majority in the Legislative Assembly. That same leader would also appoint the members of the Executive Council. The governor would therefore be forced to accept these "ministers", and if the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly voted against them, they would have to resign. The governor would also be obliged to ratify laws concerning the internal affairs of the colony once these laws had been passed to the Legislative Assembly.
This key principle of responsibility, whereby a government needed the confidence of Parliament, originated in established British practice. But its transfer to British N America gave the colonists control of their domestic affairs, since a governor would simply follow the advice (ie, policies) of responsible colonial ministers.
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.
Yes: 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.
Forsey argued that 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.
In exceptional circumstances, the governor general may appoint or dismiss a prime minister.
Forsey's credibility as an authority on these matters notwithstanding, many Canadians today would find these scenarios unthinkable ... they might view the exercise of the reserve power of the Crown as undemocratic because the Crown is not an elected institution.
... the Liberal view is that the Governor General in Canada has no right to refuse dissolution from a Canadian prime minister.
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
/ |date=
mismatch (
help)
A polity that is not permitted to decide even if it is at war or not, is not a sovereign nation. Canada became a sovereign nation gradually throughout the 20th century, culminating in 1982 -- JimWae ( talk) 07:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does.
The Dominion of Canada was founded on July 1, 1867, as a Sovereign Nation (i.e., as an independent coutry). That was the whole purpose of its founding.
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 134.117.137.241 ( talk) 19:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
What was the purpose of founding the,
United States of America (1776),
Dominion of Canada (1867),
Commonwealth of Australia (1901),
Dominion of New Zealand (1907),
Dominion of Newfoundland (1907),
Union of South Africa (1910),
Irish Free State (Dec. 6, 1921),
Dominion of India (1947),
Dominion of Pakistan (1947)
then eh?
Just some mental exercise or something?
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 134.117.137.128 ( talk) 22:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello Gazzster. It is very nice to hear for you indeed. I hope all is well "down-under" eh!
The Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 is a problem. Yes it is a thorny problem. You are most correct that it did counter-mand the Sovereignty of the Dominion of Canada from 1867 to 1889. In 1889, the Interpretation Act 1889 made a distinction between self-governing Colonies, and self-governing Dominions, the latter being exempt from the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865.
So upon the founding of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901 as a self-governing Dominion, you folkes in Australia should have been exempt from the effects of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865.
The residual powers (i.e., residue of un-defined powers) in the Dominion of Canada resided with the Federal Government and not the Provincal Governmemts. I believe that the residual powers in the Commonwealth of Australia resided not with the Federal Government but with the State Governments (e.g., the State of New South Wales, the State of Queensland, the State of Victoria, etc).
Could that of been the reason the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, still had some legal force left in 1986 in the States of the Commonwealth of Australia?
Take care eh, ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 134.117.137.174 ( talk) 20:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Not sure about residual powers, but I do know that Lord Carrington advised Wran, the Premier of NSW, that the Queen would, on his (Carrington's) advise, refuse the Royal Assent to a bill of the NSW Parliament. The bill, which had already passed both houses, would have required the Queen to be be advised by New South Welsh ministers alone in matters pertaining to NSW. I don't know if the Colonial Laws Validity Act was invoked, but it was an example of the British Government exercising authority over a state. This was in 1981 I believe.-- Gazzster ( talk) 22:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Whether we call Canada a country, a state, or a nation, it did not become sovereign until the 20th century (even though it had been self-governing to some degree since 1867). "Independence"is too vague a term for Canada - it had some independence in 1867, but not the same degree of independence the USA attained 1776-1783 -- JimWae ( talk) 01:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
In Canada their are many cultural local delicious dishes such as the tourtier, sheppards pie, reindeer , buffalo, salmon, trout, cariboo, moose, corn and different kinds of meat pies. For dessert Canadians also cook pies and make tasty maple sweets ect... The majority of these kinds of dishes or foods are French-Canadian, Indian and English-Canadian. Canada is known for typical dishes and to go food at good restaurants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.153.14 ( talk) 17:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
( Tylerfm ( talk) 21:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I've taken this dispute here, specifically here. This isn't a discussion about content anymore. -- soulscanner ( talk) 04:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Is it possible to upload a different map? I've seen many maps that show all the provinces and simply do not use a northern border. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.134.119 ( talk) 00:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
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 actually prefer that we pare it down even more.
Canada is a parliamentary democracy with a federal system of parliamentary government and strong democratic traditions. The Parliament is made up of the Crown and two houses: an elected House of Commons and an appointed Senate. [1] [2] [3] Each Member of Parliament in the House of Commons is elected by simple plurality in an electoral district or riding. General elections must be called by the Prime Minister within five years of the previous election, or may be triggered by the government losing a confidence vote in the House (usually only possible during minority governments). Members of the Senate, whose seats are apportioned on a regional basis, are chosen by the Prime Minister and formally appointed by the Governor General, and serve until age 75.
Canada is also a constitutional monarchy, with The Crown acting as a symbolic or ceremonial executive. [4] [5] The Crown consists of Queen Elizabeth II (legal head of state) and her appointed viceroys, the Governor General (acting head of state) and provincial Lieutenant-Governors , who perform most of the monarch's ceremonial roles. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. The political executive consists of the Prime Minister (head of government) and the Cabinet and carries out the day-to-day decisions of government. [11] [12] [13] [14] The Cabinet is made up of ministers usually selected from the House of Commons and headed by the Prime Minister [15] [16] [17], who is normally the leader of the party that holds the confidence of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) is one of the most powerful institutions in government [18] [19], initiating most legislation for parliamentary approval and selecting, besides other Cabinet members, Senators, federal court judges, heads of Crown corporations and government agencies, and the Governor General. The Crown formally approves parliamentary legislation and the Prime Minister's appointments. [20]
There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons.
Parliament is the legislative branch of Government, composed of the Sovereign (represented by the Governor General), the Senate and the House of Commons.
The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
Parliamentary government is also associated with the presence of a dual executive. There is a ceremonial executive, which possesses some constitutional powers as well as performing symbolic functions, and a political executive, which performs the basic governing functions (see Magstadt and Schotten, 1999; O'Neill, 1999). In the British model, the Crown now serves as the ceremonial executive (or head of state) while the Prime Minister is head of government.
o symbolic executive: Queen (de jure head of state) ... Governor General (de facto head of state); o political executive: Canada: Privy Council, including cabinet; Prime Minister (head of government) primus inter pares; cabinet/ministry membership (32 members including the PM); o permanent executive (bureaucracy): departments, agencies, & civil service
The symbolic executive is composed of the Queen, who is the legal head of state of Canada, and her representatives, who fulfill the monarch's daily duties in Canada.
{{
cite web}}
: line feed character in |quote=
at position 143 (
help)
However, the British monarch continues to serve as Canada's symbolic executive, appointing a representative, the Governor-General, on the advice of the Canadian Prime Minister.
As Head of State ... Elizabeth II has no political power, only symbolic power
The executive power in Canada is vested in the Queen. In this democratic society, this is only a constitutional convention, as the real executive power rests with the Cabinet.
In Canada (and indeed most parliamentary democracies in the world today), the majority of challenges to legislative power which develop no longer come from the ceremonial executive (the Crown), but from the political executive, the government of the day.
Under the constitutional convention of responsible government, the powers of the Crown are exercised by Ministers, both individually and collectively.
... 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.
The Cabinet as selected and directed by the prime minister constitutes the active seat of executive power in Canada.
The prime minister is the chief minister and effective head of the executive in a parliamentary system ...
Responsible government means that the Crown no longer has the prerogative to select or remove Ministers. They are selected and removed by the first Minister—the Prime Minister.
While the modern governor general has only a nominal influence on the operation of the Canadian government, the prime minister's influence is decisive.
Ministers are thereby accountable to the Prime Minister who, in the Canadian tradition, has the sole power to appoint and dismiss them.
The governor general holds formal executive power within the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, and signs orders-in-council.