Misplaced Pages

Go to Dominion

Can we concentrate on straigtening things out at Dominion? Whatever the result there? can be applied here. Besides having the same argument on 'two seperate' articles? is giving me a brain cramp. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what I proposed; until the issue is settled, though, there should be a marker indicating that the term dominion is disputed. --soulscanner (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The very fact that the Tag is being disputed? sorta signifies Dominion isn't settled. Go ahead add, will it help? who knows? will it hurt? nah! GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I carried out the editprotected, adding a {{disputed-inline}} after the text "federal dominion" and its refs. I honestly don't care about the "dominion" issue (even as a Canadian! :p), but there is a dispute, so deal with it - someone can remove the tag when the protection is lifted and a version settled upon. Nihiltres 16:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Could someone summarize this

Clearly, concisely, and with a minimum of name-calling. Simply summarize the arguments for why Canada should, and should not be called a dominion for me. I see a lot of reliable sources in the article which state, and recall learning about this in school, that Canada was formed as a Federal Dominion. Where is the dispute? I hate to see an FA-class article get protected, and tagged like this when it seems totally opaque to me what the problem is. --Haemo (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish this was easy to sum up; though I've been involved in this debate - though less so recently - I'm still not sure what the instigator's actual issues are. Initially it was with the use of the word "dominion" in the lead to describe what Canada became in 1867 (despite cited text from the Constitution Act, 1867), yet the offending word was removed long ago. After some months the same user has now decided to take issue with a piped link from the prhase "semi-autonomous polity within the British Empire" to the article Dominion. He may have peripheral issues with the idea of semi-autonomy and the application of the word "dominion" in any context, but I'm really not quite sure. --G2bambino (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I know summarizing is hard compared to name calling (i.e. "instigator", "his issues", etc.), but that doesn't mean you shouldn't honor the request. It's not about me, it's about references. See below for my "issues". --soulscanner (talk) 07:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems you don't know what "instigator" means, either. --G2bambino (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

An instigator is someone who picks a fight. It's not complimentary or neutral. --soulscanner (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No, an instigator is someone who starts something. One can instigate a fight, but one can also instigate a movement to help the homeless. It seems clear your interpretation of things is clouded by a constant paranoia of collusion and attack. --G2bambino (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Or it could be that you did not choose your words sufficiently carefully, if you had intended your comment to be neutral: Usage: Commonly used with reference to evil actions; as, to instigate one to a crime. Soulscanner is right that it is not generally neutral and does not read as such in your text above.--Gregalton (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose one is free to interpret a word as they choose. --G2bambino (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Still, no one has provided a rationale for using the word dominion. That is what the editor asked for. Although the above is toned down (somewhat) from what was written before, it still reads like a personal attack. That is what the original editor specifically did not want.

Do you have any rationale for using the word dominion in the lead? If not, I think there might be a pretty good consensus that the word dominion should go. I don't think anyone is interested in reading more about this being some perplexing personal issue of mine. --soulscanner (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead did not use the word "dominion" until Quizimodo recently replaced it. I was satisfied with the previous version, which was a compromise settled on at the end of a months-long debate you yourself started. However, to confuse matters even more, you last challenged not the word "dominion" (as it wasn't there) but "semi-autonomous polity of the British Empire," for which you provided no rationale. With such confusing challenges, one can only wonder if there is some personal issue behind your actions. --G2bambino (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've given my rationale below. Assume good faith, and please give yours. --soulscanner (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I can be forgiven for letting my AGF fail slightly with you, given your attacks, attempts to suppress me, and what-not. --G2bambino (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're not going to respect me, at least respect the spirit of Wikipdia and respect requests and efforts made by other editors who are trying to break an impasse. It's not about personal vendettas, it's about WP:POV. I put out a request for mediation, and you rejected it. You decided to edit war, and make a spurious 3RR claim to get me blocked instead. If you feel the atmosphere is so poisoned, the request for mediation is still open(Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation/Dominion).--soulscanner (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You see, there you go again with your chronologically incorrect claims of conspiracy. I don't want to participate in a mediated debate with you any more than I want to get into an unmediated one for precisely that reason: you're too erratic and unpredictable, making unclear arguments and quickly exploding into widespread calls to arms against someone for completely unfounded reasons, and only acknowledging your error after an extensive explanation of what actually happened. I'm not going to correct your error above, again, but I will say that I'm going to leave the Dominion dispute, generally, for others. My main concern now is this article, and the restoration of the compromise phrase that was here previously. --G2bambino (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue here pertains directly to the dominion dispute. Again, you have not given th requested explanation for why the disputed term should be used. You simply state that I'm the problem, assuming bad faith. --soulscanner (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is about whether the intro can include that in a meaningful way. A few months ago, the bulk of the editors agreed after long debate NOT to include that word in the intro --JimWae (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have to give an explanation for why the disputed term should be used, I don't want it used in the lead anymore. That you fail to understand this, despite numerous repetitions, does seem to point towards you being a fairly big part of the problem. "Semi-autonomous polity of the British Empire" is long-winded, but it is, unfortunately, the safest way to describe what the country became in 1867. Replace "Dominion" with that phrase again and the dispute here ends. --G2bambino (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please make your case for the replacement then instead of ranting about me. I've made the case for a suitable replacement, and everyone seems to understand my points; I'll be happy to clarify more. Your replacement is as problematic as the current wording; it is at best imprecise, and wide open to misinterpretation. in addition, it is more awkward than the current wording, and not backed up by any sources (certainly not the ones cited). --soulscanner (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you do drive one to ranting. If you have issues with the replacement, then that's too bad. You had ample opportunity to be involved in its formation earlier, and decided to excuse yourself. In an issue such as this, where your edit to the status quo is challenged, it is on you to explain why it should be changed. I have not, as of yet, seen any valid argument against "semi-autonomous polity of the British Empire," and, if you think that's vague, then you certainly can't support your own proposal of "a federation." If you want sources, then why don't you start with a very reliable one? --G2bambino (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You should read what I've posted; it's all there. If you cannot acknowledge references, that's your problem. There is nothing to indicate that Canada was "semi-autonomous" in 1867. Please provide links and sources. There are plenty of quotes from scholarly sources that say otherwise that you simply and outrightly refuse to recognize here. I addressed them directly to you. There is lots to indicate that Canada was completely subject to Britain, and by no means recognized as a "self-governing dominion" or "semi-autonomous polity". You will also note that silverchemist clearly cites sections 129 and 132 of the BNA act as backing up this claim, and your total failure to mention any new power that was accorded the Canadian government in 1867. You didn't do it there, and you're not doing it here. It is your failure to acknowledge referenced sources and attack me personally that made me apply for mediation. The debate needed to be scrutinized more closely. You are now continuing the behaviour here. How many more sources will I have to post? --soulscanner (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That's right, and yet Soulscanner started the debate up again here despite the fact that the word wasn't used in the intro. Quizimodo only added to the confusion, I think, by restoring "dominion" just a couple of days ago. --G2bambino (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Summary against using "Dominion" or "semi-autonomous" in the lead

The nature of Canada's evolution towards autonomy and the relationship to the word "Dominion" is complex, and you have to navigate some obscure passages of Canadian history to understand it's various meanings. That's why we are discussing these issues at the Dominion article, with the aim of resolving things there and then bringing them back here to remove the disputed tag. The two relevant articles with relevant references are Dominion and Canada's name. There are several problem with the word Dominion.

• 1. As a descriptive term, it is vague, ambiguous, and misleading. This is because the word no longer has the meaning it had in 1867.

• a) In 1867 (and for a good while afterwards), the word dominion referred to any overseas possessions of the British monarch. It was synonymous with colony. It's misleading to say that Canada became a dominion in this sense, because the provinces were already dominions (i.e. colonies). The Father's of Confederation chose Dominion to refer to Canada because they wanted to stay colonial and British, and not go for American-style indepenedence. What Confederation added to the equation was a federal level of government. No new autonomy was added, though, and Canada remained a total colony. I've provided clear excerpts from historians and constitutional scholars at the Dominion page backing this up .
• b) Between roughly 1907 (some scholars say 1919) and 1948, the term referred to semi-autonomous states (not quite colonies, not quite independent states) that exercised some autonomy from within the British Empire, especially in foreign affairs. This degree of autonomy continues to be referred to by historians as "dominion status". This is somewhat different than the 1867 definition. It is also the main subject at the article dominion. That is why applying words like "dominion" and "semi-autonomous polity" to the Canada of 1867 may mislead readers into thinking that Canada had gained more autonomy in 1867 than it really had.
• c) After 1948, when the Empire had been renamed the Commonwealth, "dominion" was used by Commonwealth agencies to refer to independent countries that kept the Queen as a symbolic head of state. That is WAY different than the 1867 meaning. If someone thinks that "Canada became a federal dominion" means Canada became more independent in 1867 (because they assume the modern as opposed to historical definition of the term), the reader would be greatly misled.

It is more accurate and clear to refer to Canada as a federation or country. The federal principle has outlasted the colonial and monarchical principle that "dominion" implied. The current political dialog in Canada revolves around the type of federalism we want, not the type of monarchy. Perhaps it still has some standing as a descriptor within the limited context of Commonwealth and Monarchical titles. If so, this might warrant a sentence in the etymology section, with the monarchical and Commonwealth context clearly indicated.

• 2. As a title, it is antiquated. Dominion is no longer used to name Canada by the government and all international agencies other than the Commonealth. This is in contrast with the title American states (e.g. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia; Republic of Texas, California) whose governments use these titles on drive licenses, laws passed by legislatures, etc. It's important to note that these titles don't act as legal descriptors: Mass and Pen are not commonwealths and not referred to as the commonwealths. They are states. Puerto Rico is a U.S. Commonwealth, with limited voting rights and no obligation to pay federal taxes. It is like referring to California as a Republic, Massachusetts as a Commonwealth, and Virginia as a Dominion. All these words appear in the founding documents of these states and they have kind of a nice ring to them, but it is more accurate and clear to refer to them as States. Similarly, it is more accurate and clear to refer to Canada as a federation or country. The federal principle has outlasted the colonial and monarchical principle that "dominion" implied. The current political dialog in Canada revolves around the type of federalism we want, not the type of monarchy. The consensus not to use Dominion as Canada's name is documented here and explained fully at this article. --soulscanner (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• 3. References given specifically identify the federal principle as the a key one. Only one mentions dominion in the descriptive sense. The common thread here is that of a federation. Note also that the site describing Canada as a dominion is a Commonwealth site, so that we're talking about a very particular context where the modern meaning and history of the word would be understood. Outside the context of the Commonwealth, it would be highly unusual to describe Canada as such.

• federal state
• federal Dominion
• federation.

Note that I have no trouble using dominion in the proper historical context. For example, in the Etymology section, the evolution of the usage of the word is dominion is fine because it is fully explained. In the lead, you don't have space to explain all the caveats. That's it in a nutshell. For a longer list, please see previous post in discussion archives--soulscanner (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad someone has explained the issue. In the heat of discussion it is easy to forget what the discussion is about.--Gazzster (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In #2 above Massachusetts was not a good example. Massachusetts and Pennsylvania and Virginia for that fact, officially refer to themselves as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Commonwealth of Virginia. —MJCdetroit 14:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is a good example, but it confuses two separate issues (which is part of the problem with this whole Dominion matter):

1. Official name: one part of the above discussion is whether or not 'Dominion of Canada' is the official long-form name. Some of the discussion above is about this issue, with different points of view and references. Commonwealth of Mass. is clearly the official long-form name, not the case for Canada (according to most sources).
2. Form of government/substantive: #2 above addresses this point. Massachussets is styled a commonwealth, but it is in substantive terms a state (i.e. one of the 50 states of the United States). The discussion above is that Canada was styled a Dominion by the constitution act, but that this does not tell you much substantively - the term itself was a fudge and had different practical, legal, symbolic and other connotations over the years (at inception it was a new term in a formal sense). So saying that Canada was formed as a Dominion does not tell you much, except that it was styled a Dominion.
3. And for clarity, the issue of styled and officially named are entirely separate issues. Canada was styled a Dominion, and named Canada tout court. Many other cases like Mass. are 'styled' in a certain way, and the style forms part of the official long-form name (like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is styled democratic and officially referred to in this way, even though it has little substantive meaning). Some (few) sources refer to Canada as "titled" a Dominion, but the meaning of "titled" in this context is not clear - it could mean simply styled; it could mean "titled" in the same way a Dukedom (Duchy) has a different status than an earldom (and in this sense, "Dominion" tells you nothing much about the substance in current terms, largely symbolic); or it could mean that at one point the title was considered part of the official long-form name, although this directly contradicts current reference sources.

So, I believe Soulscanner is arguing that it may make sense to say that the Commonwealth of Mass is a state; but that in the case of Canada, it is not part of the official name, and not a substantive description, and should be addressed in the text further down. (I agree with his argument in this sense). Some other country pages seem to follow this approach, the term is used when it is either part of the official name or meaningfully descriptive - the argument here is that it is not substantively descriptive.--Gregalton (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet it is part of the official name of Canada, and has been cited as such.

I'm still not clear on Soulscanner's argument about the semi-autonomous nature of Canada post 1867, either. --G2bambino (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I had indeed muddled the two issues. I've reorganized the above explanation into a) discussing dominion as a descriptor b) discussing dominion as a title. I hope that makes for an easier read.
• My arguement against using dominion as a descriptor (e.g. federal dominion) is that you do not know which of the following definitions you're using:

1. pre -1907: colony; possession of Britain
2. 1907-1919: colony with responsible government; self-governing colony
3. 1919-1939: neither colony nor independent country, with some say in foreign affairs
4. post 1939: independent country using British monarch as symbolic head of state

• Canadian Government sources, international organizations and treaties (NATO, NAFTA, the WTO, the UN, etc) just use "Canada". This outweighs the use by the Commonwealth and monarchist organizations of dominion. I think it might be good to include in the etymology section a short sentence mentioning organizations and one or two significant figures who still use the title and descriptor.--soulscanner (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Use federation instead of dominion

If there is no compelling rationale for using dominion to describe what Canada became in 1867, perhaps the word "federation" is more appropriate. There's no doubt that Canada was this: powers were and still are divided between a federal level of government and constituent provinces. All given sources make reference to it. This word should link to Canadian federalism, where the evolution of the federalist principle from 1867 - present is described. I think there is little doubt about what federalism means. --soulscanner (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

History section too long again

I've noticed that the bottom of the history section has grown and mentions FTA and NAFTA twice. Can this be shortened? --soulscanner (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Condensed history section, which was just too long. In the interest of space, I moved mention of NAFTA and trade agreements to the Economics section. This avoids repetition.--soulscanner (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Borders

I removed the following from the intro for being too detailed, intending to put it in the section where we discuss maritime borders, but I can't find it. Isn't there a maritimie border with Greenland too?

It also shares a maritime border with France with the Territorial Collectivity of St. Pierre and Miquelon located off the coast of Newfoundland.

DJ Clayworth (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the Geography of Canada?--soulscanner (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Who appoints the judges?

Is it the Queen, the Governor General or the Prime Minister? Let's haggle, people. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The PM chooses, the Queen and GG appoint the PM's choices. --soulscanner (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet, that is exactly what you kept changing into just "the PM chooses." That's a lazy, inaccurate, journalistic approach to editing, not an encyclopaedic one. You've since added "all choices are formally appointed by the Governor General or Monarch," which is a step in the right direction, but still skirts the point. The PMO still technically chooses nominees and advises the viceroy or sovereign to appoint them, but neither of those is 100% bound to accept that advice; an important part of the governmental system we have. Details shouldn't be glossed over for the sake of common appearances.

Working off of what you last put in there, I'd suggest:

The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) is one of the most powerful organs of the government, consisting of the Prime Minister and his closest political advisers, and is responsible for choosing Senators, federal court judges, heads of Crown corporations, government agencies, and the federal and provincial viceroys; all choices are formally appointed by the Governor General or monarch, though they retain the ability to refuse to do so.

Congrats, Soulscanner, on getting the page locked, again, by the way. --G2bambino (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

All my fault, right? Anyhow ...

My last edit corrects this. Is it okay with you? --soulscanner (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You were clearly and pointedly asked to take your issues here, and did not. You also have been around long enough to know the responsibility of defending your edit lies with you when it is challenged. Regardless, we're here now, and I've made my proposal above. --G2bambino (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We agree that the PM chooses; we agree that the GG and Queen appoint. We disagree that the GG and Queen may refuse. They wouldn't dare. See King-Byng Affair. --soulscanner (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. Do you accept or not accept my proposal? --G2bambino (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternately, it could be put this way: The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) is one of the most powerful organs of the government, consisting of the Prime Minister and his closest political advisers, and is responsible for choosing names to put forward to the Governor General for appointment as Senators, federal court judges, heads of Crown corporations, government agencies, and provincial viceroys, as well as to the monarch for appointment as Governor General. --G2bambino (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the PM chooses. It's the PM's choice, not that of the GG or Queen. The PM exercises power. The GG and Queen formally appoint the PM's choices; they have no power in the matter. This needs to be clear. --soulscanner (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You will, then, have to provide a source that proves the constitution to be wrong. --G2bambino (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We agree. The PM chooses; the Queen/GG appoint the PM's choices. Don't see in the constitution where the GG or Queen have the power to turn down the PM's choices. Please provide reference. --soulscanner (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Simple: III.9: "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen." Note: not the PM. III.10: "The Provisions of this Act referring to the Governor General extend and apply to the Governor General for the Time being of Canada, or other Chief Executive Officer or Administrator for the Time being carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the Name of the Queen, by whatever Title he is designated." Note: not the PM.

Yes, the PMO chooses names, and the Queen or GG have always made the recommended appointment - as far as we know - but that does not preclude the fact that they retain ultimate executive authority out of the PM's hands. That is the important part here, and a point you can't prove false. So, which of the two proposals do you prefer? --G2bambino (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The Queen and GG are both bound by constitutional convention. The fact that they have always carried out the Cabinets wishes binds them to do so in the future; they are both bound by the unwritten part of Canada's constitution to do the PM's and Parliament's bidding. They have no discretionary powers. AS the given references state, real power lies in the Cabinet. In effect, the Monarchy has abdicated any real political power by never using it. That is the nature of Westminster

1. The Statute of Westiminster is clear: "3. It is hereby declared and enacted that the Parliament of a Dominion has full power to make laws having extra-territorial operation.
2. The 1982 Constitution Act is clear: "(1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect. So the Queen is bound by precedent; it is the Supreme Court that would censure her should she overstep her constitutional bounds.

I think you don't understand the difference between a Constitutional and absolute monarchy. In a constitutional monarchy, the Monarch is bound by precedent and always defers to parliament; the monarch has no discretionary political powers. This has changed since 1867. --soulscanner (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

--soulscanner (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC) The GG and Queen can refuse recommendations — see the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis and the King-Byng Affair for similar examples where the Queen's power has been exerted against the wishes of the Prime Minister. It can happen — will it? Nah. But it has, and legally can. --Haemo (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

To put it another way, the Constitutional Authority to appoint judges is vested in the Queen, via the GG. However, a Constitutional Convention implies that the PM puts forward the names, and the GG approves them. The formal authority to refuse is still there. --Haemo (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. --G2bambino (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

They can try, but they'll be violating the constitution. The Queen and Governor general are constitutionally subservient to convention, principles of democracy and the rule of law; they cannot act against it. That's the "constitutional" part of "constitutional monarchy". The monarch's serve a ceremonial role, not an executive one. If they illegally exceed that, they'll be spanked by the Supreme Court, whose job it is to uphold constitutional convention.

Real executive power rests in Cabinet:

The Governor General's executive powers are of course exercised in accordance with constitutional conventions. For example, after an election he asks the appropriate party leader to form a government. Once a government is in place, 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.

"... true executive power lies in the Cabinet" ... should put it right in the article. Sourced legal opinion is pretty clear on it. So is the Balfour Declaration of 1926, which specifically said that the King should never be advised to override Dominion legislatures:

The present practice under which Acts of the Dominion Parliaments are sent each year to London, and it is intimated, through the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, that “His Majesty will not be advised to exercise his powers of disallowance” with regard to them.

In other words, the King will never have cause to kill federal legislation because no one will ever tell him to do so. This was put forward formally, in writing, what had been practiced for decades. It was all neatly settled a very long time ago, and tidied up by the Statute of Westminster in 1931. I thought there would be enough common sense here to realize that the Constitution has changed since 1867 through precedence and convention. The Queen and GG are merely symbolic figureheads, bound to obey democratic conventions. Basically, Monarchs are so meek in their exercise of colonial vestigial power that we just never bothered to get rid of them. --soulscanner (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop this annoyance. Executive power lies in the cabinet because convention dictates that the monarch and/or viceroy always follow the advice of their ministers, who are responsible to parliament. However, the constitution still makes perfectly clear that executive power belongs to the sovereign, and only the sovereign; the PM is mentioned only once in the constitution, post 1982, and the PMO is certainly never mentioned at all. This also, despite your incorrect interpretation of your source, has nothing to do with legislation. --G2bambino (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You said before that the monarch or GG could refuse legislation

a) "all choices are formally appointed by the Governor General or monarch, though they retain the ability to refuse to do so".

I objected saying that they do not have that ability. Now you say

b) "the monarch and/or viceroy always follow the advice of their ministers".

I agree with the second assertion. It's because they do not have the constitutional authority to do so. They are bound by constitutional convention, the Balfour Declaration, and the Stature of Westminster. It means that the PM chooses, and the GG obeys, according to the rule of law. Real power lies in Cabinet. The GG and Queen are symbolic figureheads. --soulscanner (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Twist this all you want, but you are still taking the amateur journalist point of view on this constitutional matter. I didn't comment once on the monarch's or viceroy's ability to refuse legislation, so drop that red herring. I stated the Queen and GG have the ability, the power, per the constitution of the country, to dismiss their ministers' advice, and Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball through which we predict the future. You did catch my error in my last statement; I should have said: the monarch and/or viceroy will always follow the advice of their ministers unless said advice is unconsitutional or threatens the stability of the government. As Haemo pointed out, there are precedents already set for this. Your republicanesque wishes for a powerless figurehead monarch are irrelevant here. --G2bambino (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You can use Misplaced Pages to push monarchist WP:POV all you want. The above legal opinion is pretty clear on where real executive power rests. I'm not republican at all, and I'm not a monarchist either. I think the Queen is fine as a figurehead and she doesn't interfere in politics. However, Monarchist POV is too marginal in Canada to mention these days. When the Conservatie PM refuses to invite the Queen to Quebec City to appease Quebec nationalists, it shows how truly marginal they have become. Australian precedents, frankly, don't affect Canada. The Queen presides separately over her "Realms", and authority in Canada lies in the Canadian constitution, which was patriated in 1982; the Queen signed off her rights willingly, right on the dotted line where the PM wanted her to. The King-Byng precedent cited brought forth the quote from the Balfour declaration that says the King should never disallow legislation in the Dominions. MacKenzie King was livid at the interference, Byng was sent packing, the Balfour Declaration was explicit about this never happening again. This is just a question of historical fact.; precedent has made the monarch purely symbolic. Until you can cite some other precedent that has not been superceded by constitutional convention and explicit statutes, there is no evidence here that the Queen or GG can veto any decision of the PM. It is not up to them to decide what is constitutional; that is the realm of the Supreme Court. If again you cannot accept clear quotes from legal sources, I can't hep you. --soulscanner (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. I said republicanesque; you go through all the same useless hoops to make the same argument. So, you sound like a republican, though you may not be one.

As for cites: if, again, you cannot accept clear excerpts of the constitution of Canada, I can't help you. --G2bambino (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I accept the 1867 excerpt. It was perfectly valid in 1867. I maintain that the Constitution has changed since then. Again, if you cannot accept the principle of Constitutional precedent, the Statute of Westminster, and the Constitution Act of 1982, I cannot help you.

As for constitutional monarchy, I think it has served us well. No need for a republic. Too bad you forget about the constitutional part. --soulscanner (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

From the department of justice:

"The Constitution sets out the basic principles of democratic government in Canada when it defines the powers of the three branches of government: the executive, the legislative and the judicial. 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."

"Most laws in Canada are first examined and discussed by the Cabinet, then presented for debate and approval by members of the House of Commons and the Senate. Before a bill becomes a law, the Queen or her representative, the Governor General, must also approve or “assent to” it. This requirement of royal assent does not mean that the Queen is politically powerful; by constitutional convention, the Monarch always follows the advice of the government."--soulscanner (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets be clear. This is about whether the Queen or GG can use the power of disallowance to block House legislation or decisions of the PMO. The Balfour Declaration says the Queen can't. Two legal opinions above say they cannot. Where's a referenced opinion saying they can, or be willing to? --soulscanner (talk) 05:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Constitutional conventions are not legally binding. The only power they has is tradition. If you want a reference, Dyck's Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches (4 ed.) specifically states that "the governor appoint superior, district, and county judges." The question you are asking is can the GG or Queen veto decisions made by Parliament. The short answer is, yes, they can — constitutional conventions are merely longstanding traditions which hold no formal legal weight, so the GG can legally refuse an appointment, refuse to dissolve Parliament, or refuse to sign a bill. The question which you are answering is willthey do that — and the answer is no. In Canada, the GG has the legal authority to appoint judges — that includes not approving judges if they don't wish to. However, constitutional convention has regulated their role to a rubber-stamp — they retain the legal ability to veto decisions, but do not exercise this power due to tradition. The answer to the question is "yes, but with provisions". We should discuss those provisions, because they are part of the fundamental character of Constitutional Law in Canada. --Haemo (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

To be more precise, you don't seem to understand what your source above says. The statement "by constitutional convention, the Monarch always follows the advice of the government" indicates that yes, she can block House legislation if she wants. However, she does not exercise this power because of a tradition in Canadian politics. --Haemo (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Conventions do hold legal weight. The unwritten portion of our constitution is constantly upheld by the Supreme Court. I understand full well what is going on; it's just face-saving, Victorian doublespeak typical of the declining British Empire. Constitutional convention IS binding on the monarch and GG ; that is the difference between an absolute and constitutional monarchy. The Sovereign cannot exceed her role as defined by precedent and convention. It is the courts and not the executive that decide when the Monarch oversteps its bounds. That is the way our new constitution is deliberately framed. Be it said, most modern legal scholars would disagree with your take. The Balfour declaration is pretty clear that the Queen should be banned from using her powers of disallowance. I guess she could do what she wanted, ultimately, but she would likely be ignored and overruled by the Supreme Court as violating the founding principle of democracy on which our constitution rests. So be it. The monarch cannot act as arbitor as to what is constitutional. Her powers are not absolute. The constraints of convention are very real. --soulscanner (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Your tactics never change, Soulscanner. For, I think, the third time: this is not about he monarch or Governor General refusing Royal Assent to legislation. That is a completely different matter; appointments are made by Order-in-Council, they are not laws. So let that straw man burn.

Good. So you agree that the GG and Queen have no authority to veto Parliament. It would violate democratic principles. Similarly, they cannot veto the PM's appointments. That too would violate principles of democracy. We are talking about democracy and the rule of law here. That trumps the monarchical principle in Canada. --soulscanner (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As interesting as the debate may be, we're losing sight of the real focus: how to word the paragraph in question. Thus, I will ask, again: what is it you particularly find wrong with either of my proposals above? Please be precise.

I'll comment on the proposals below. --G2bambino (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone brought up the Byng-King Affair: If the Liberals & the NDP had tried in 2006, what the Liberals & Progressives did in 1925-26 (form a coalition government), they'd been accused of ignoring the peoples choice. The people in 1925, choose the Conservatives to be the minority government. Mackenzie King was being undemocratic, not Lord Byng (just wanted to make note of that). GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Drafting

Anyways, this is silly, since we all agree — so let's just work on some wording instead of bickering.

The monarch is represented by the Governor General, who exercises almost all of the duties of the Queen. Michaëlle Jean has served as Governor General since September 27, 2005. In practice, the only body to direct the use of the executive powers is the Cabinet, a committee of the appointed Privy Council made up of Ministers of the Crown; all are responsible to the elected House of Commons. The Cabinet is headed by the Prime Minister, who acts as head of government; to ensure the stability of government, the Governor General appoints the current leader of the political party that obtains the confidence of a plurality in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) is one of the most powerful organs of the government, consisting of the Prime Minister and his closest political advisers, and responsible for selecting senators, judges in federal courts, heads of Crown corporations and government agencies, and even the Governor General; formally, this authority is vested with the current Governor General, but by constitutional convention she defers to the Prime Minister. The leader of the party with the second most seats usually becomes the Leader of the Opposition and is part of an adversarial Parliamentary system that keeps the government in check. The Prime Minister chooses the Cabinet, and by convention, the Governor General respects the Prime Minister's choices. Stephen Harper, leader of the Conservative Party has been her Prime Minister since February 6, 2006.

This is just a draft, so feel free to give it your own shot or twist. --Haemo (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right; we can go on about semantics all we want; it's mostly theoretical, because "can't" and "won't" both add up to a benign figurehead. The draft looks good. Changes

1. Put GG formal responsibilities in passing laws and making appointments up front so they do not need to be repeated
2. condensed the first statement on executive power to be more bold and straightforward,
3. wikified executive power,
4. added a verifiable scholarly reference that backs up your language and mine
5. crossed out "ensuring" stability; there are many reasons for this convention, including upholding democratic principle, simple convention, ensuring stability, respecting "peace order and good government", etc. Keep it short and to the point.
6. I think the GG formally asks the leader of party with plurality to select cabinet and form government; same with official Opposition

Seems pretty air tight to me. I'm all set. --soulscanner (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The monarch is represented by the Governor General, who exercises almost all of the duties of the Queen. Michaëlle Jean has served as Governor General since September 27, 2005. Formally, she has the authority to sign all bills into law and make all political appointments, but always defers to the advice of the elected government and constitutional convention. In practice true executive power lies in the Cabinet, a committee of the Privy Council made up of Ministers of the Crown; all are responsible to the elected House of Commons. The Cabinet is headed by the Prime Minister, who acts as head of government; by convention, the Governor General formally asks the current leader of the political party that obtains the confidence of a plurality in the House of Commons to choose his Cabinet and form the government. The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) is one of the most powerful organs of the government, consisting of the Prime Minister and his closest political advisers, and responsible for selecting senators, judges in federal courts, heads of Crown corporations and government agencies, and even the Governor General. The leader of the party with the second most seats usually becomes the Leader of the Opposition and is part of an adversarial Parliamentary system that keeps the government in check. Stephen Harper, leader of the Conservative Party has been Prime Minister since February 6, 2006, and Stephane Dion, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, has been Leader of the Opposition since December 2, 2006.

1. Magnet, Joseph E. (2007). "Constitutional Law of Canada: Separation of Powers in Canada". University of Ottawa. Retrieved 2008-02-19. The Governor General's executive powers are of course exercised in accordance with constitutional conventions. For example, after an election he asks the appropriate party leader to form a government. Once a government is in place, 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.

I find Soulscanner's version too wordy. It doesn't give much more information than Haemo's does in a more concise manner. But, his states the Governor General is empowered to appoint a Governor General, which isn't the case. I've made some alterations that I hope are acceptable.

The monarch is represented by the Governor General, who exercises almost all of the duties of the Queen. Michaëlle Jean has served as Governor General since September 27, 2005. In practice, the only body to direct the use of the executive powers is the Cabinet, a committee of the appointed Privy Council made up of Ministers of the Crown; all are responsible to the elected House of Commons. By constitutional convention, the monarch and viceroy must follow the advice of the Cabinet, except for in constitutional crisis situations, meaning the Cabinet is responsible for the selection of senators, federal court judges, heads of Crown corporations and government agencies, the federal and provincial viceroys, etc., as well as declaring war, accepting treaties, and the like, all made by Order-in-Council. However, the Cabinet is headed by the Prime Minister, who acts as head of government; to ensure the stability of government, the Governor General appoints the current leader of the political party that obtains the confidence of a plurality in the House of Commons. Thus, the Prime Minister's Office (PMO), consisting of the Prime Minister and his closest advisers, is one of the most powerful organs of the government. The leader of the party with the second most seats usually becomes the Leader of the Opposition and is part of an adversarial Parliamentary system that keeps the government in check. The Prime Minister chooses the Cabinet, and by convention, the Governor General respects the Prime Minister's choices. Stephen Harper, leader of the Conservative Party has been her Prime Minister since February 6, 2006.

Of course, my other two proposals above still stand as well. --G2bambino (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with G2bambino. The Queen is the Head of State & 'chief executive officer', the Governor General performs those duties (including making appointments) in the Queen's absents, the PM merely nominates people for appointments. Believe me, if PM Harper wanted Osama bin Laden on the Supreme Court of Canada, the GG would veto that appointment & if she didn't? the Queen could & would. By the way I am a republican. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what all the fire and brimstone is about, but a few short comments on this version:

1. I think the formulation "By constitutional convention, the monarch and viceroy must follow the advice of the Cabinet, except for in constitutional crisis situations," is not entirely on the button. Rather, the monarch and viceroy must follow the advice of cabinet; failure to do so would constitute or cause a constitutional crisis. (And grey area would be where cabinet / privy council could not agree or come to a decision; it is not excluded, for example, that Privy Council members not in cabinet could make separate decisions - that would be a crisis).
2. The emphasis on PMO is a little overly modern, and there should be more mention of PCO. Something along the lines of "Privy Council Office is the main executive agency of the Cabinet and hence the government; in practice, the Prime Minister's Office has considerable power and may effectively be responsible for many political decisions and appointments of Cabinet."

In general, the emphasis on the powers of the PM and PMO are overstated - most of these decisions are formally Privy Council, and the extent to which that power is concentrated in PMO/PM's hands has varied considerably over time.--Gregalton (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Per 1) I don't think that's actually the case. In the situations of both 1926 in Canada and 1975 in Australia, it was the PM who caused the constitutional crisis, and the GG had to deal with it.

Per 2) Technically, I think you're right. The PCO is already mentioned, but perhaps words need to be shifted around. --G2bambino (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. In 1867, the PM had less power. Since 1980, the PMO had more and more. As for the King Byng Crisis, it resulted in the GG being recalled. That is the precedent. It also resulted in the Balfour Declaration and Statute of Westminster assuring Canada's independence. The Australian incident is irrelevant to Canada. It does not affect the precedents set in Canada, which are substantially different than Australias. --soulscanner (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah - on 1), you are saying that where the PM proposes something unconstitutional, the GG may decline? I had understood the conversation earlier to be about something else. At any rate, I would still say that the "failure to follow the advice of cabinet" constitutes a crisis - no matter whose fault it may or may not be. E.g. if a GG fails to follow advice, whether justified or not, there is a constitutional crisis. (So perhaps my tag line of causality was not accurate).

Yes, on PCO, my understanding is that the PCO and the Governor-General-in-Council are the two parts with formal power here; PMO may have concentrated that power in practice (not to say usurped), but not much can be done without PCO/GGiC signing off. The current state of affairs of concentration of power in PMO's office is by no means certain to remain in long term or be formalised.--Gregalton (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Formal power is not real power. It is strictly ceremonial. It is useless to speculate what would happen if they didn't sign off, because they won't. They do not have the discretion to act outside the precedents that bind them. If the PM does something unconstitutional, it would be the Supreme Court and not the GG or QUeen that would intervene. It's not their call. They cannot turn down Parliament or the PM. --soulscanner (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so I think this is a good compromise:

The monarch is represented by the Governor General, who exercises almost all of the duties of the Queen. Michaëlle Jean has served as Governor General since September 27, 2005. Formally, she has the authority to sign bills into law and make political appointments, but defers to the advice of the elected government by constitutional convention — violations of convention may result in a constitutional crisis. In practice true executive power lies in the Cabinet, a committee of the Privy Council made up of Ministers of the Crown; all are responsible to the elected House of Commons. The Cabinet is headed by the Prime Minister, who acts as head of government; by convention, the Governor General asks the current leader of the political party that obtains the confidence of a plurality in the House of Commons to select a Cabinet and form the government. The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) is one of the most powerful organs of the government, consisting of the Prime Minister and his closest political advisers, and responsible for selecting senators, judges in federal courts, heads of Crown corporations and government agencies, and even the Governor General. The leader of the party with the second most seats usually becomes the Leader of the Opposition and is part of an adversarial Parliamentary system that keeps the government in check. Stephen Harper, leader of the Conservative Party has been Prime Minister since February 6, 2006, and Stephane Dion, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, has been Leader of the Opposition since December 2, 2006.

Acceptable to everyone? Because if it is, I'll unprotect the article and add it. --Haemo (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I like it. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's close, but not quite there. I'd alter it slightly to read:

The monarch is represented by the Governor General, who exercises almost all of the duties of the sovereign; Michaëlle Jean has served as Governor General since September 27, 2005. The viceroy appoints members to the Queen's Privy Council (QPC), a body responsible for advising the monarch or Governor General in the implementation of their executive powers. However, the Cabinet – a committe of the QPC made up of Ministers of the Crown who are generally responsible to the elected House of Commons – is the main body charged with the task of directing executive authority. One Cabinet member is appointed by the Governor General as Prime Minister, who acts as head of government; by convention, this is usually the current leader of the political party that obtains the confidence of a plurality in the House of Commonss. As the viceroy or monarch have the authority to sign bills into law, issue Orders-in-Council, and make gubernatorial appointments, but, by constitutional convention, both defer, save for in a constitutional crisis situation, to the advice of their ministers, the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) is one of the most powerful organs of the government, consisting of the Prime Minister and his closest political advisers, and is responsible for selecting the other members of the Cabinet, Senators, federal court judges, heads of Crown corporations and government agencies, and the provincial and federal viceroys for appointment. The leader of the party with the second most seats usually becomes the Leader of the Opposition and is part of an adversarial Parliamentary system that keeps the government in check. Stephen Harper, leader of the Conservative Party has been Prime Minister since February 6, 2006, and Stephane Dion, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, has been Leader of the Opposition since December 2, 2006.

That removes some repetition from Haemo's proposal, and, I hope, outlines the whole affair in a certain cyclical order, from the Crown to the PM and back again. --G2bambino (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Can I suggest ommitting the phrase 'in a constitutional crisis situation' though? It's not incorrect, of course. Only in a constitutional crisis a viceroy could act on the advice of the head of government, and his or her first instinct would be to do that. Tho,as you say, there are times when it would not be proper to do so.--Gazzster (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the moment when it would be improper to do so is the whole point of including that particular caveat. Any idea how to otherwise word it? --G2bambino (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

How about: 'In some circumstances the Governor-General may use his discretionary powers. See Constitutional crisis.'--Gazzster (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. then, does this work? The viceroy and monarch have the authority to sign bills into law, issue Orders-in-Council, and make gubernatorial appointments, and do retain discretionary powers for constitutional crisis situations; however, by constitutional convention, both defer to the advice of their ministers, making the Prime Minister's Office (PMO), consisting of the Prime Minister and his closest political advisers, one of the most powerful organs of the government, responsible for selecting the other members of the Cabinet, Senators, federal court judges, heads of Crown corporations and government agencies, and the provincial and federal viceroys for appointment. --G2bambino (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds cool.--Gazzster (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere near acceptable. See below. --soulscanner (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• I like the Haemo (talk) version as compromise. I don't think the constitutional crisis is neccessary to mention; obviously, if a ceremonial figurehead exercised political power, there would be trouble. Put in in and unblock the page. --soulscanner (talk) 10:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Groovy, whatever gets the traffic going. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I repeat that I think PCO deserves more mention in this context: PCO serves the privy council and cabinet as its executive body. PMO has very little formal authority, and has historically had much less influence than is currently the case. In addition, as far as I am aware (and here I admit to ignorance on details) the advice - when formally constituted - is transmitted by PCO/GGiC. The range of powers under this might also be broadened to include things like providing authority to sign treaties, etc., etc - since there is a whole of government activity where the PMO does not get involved, but GGiC and GG approval is needed.

That said, the issue is coming up because this para is blending together the formal/symbolic with the practical. Perhaps a logical split along these lines might be instructive and readable? e.g. one para, Queen/Viceroy formally makes most decisions on basis of recommendations of Privy Council acting through Privy Council Office / GGiC (more detail). Failure to follow advice would constitute constitutional crisis. Next para: In practice, most powers are exercised by Cabinet and PCO. Considerable influence at present is concentrated in PMO.

Just a thought. It is a tricky topic to express briefly and accurately.--Gregalton (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is what I was trying to do. Once paragraph summarizing the cermonial functions of the Monarch and GG, and another summarizing the real political executive functions of the government. Try the reference below. It is clear, simple, short, easy-to-understand and written by a legal scholar in literate style. --soulscanner (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

References

There are a lot of personal POV's above, but no scholarly sources. It would behoove the editors to back their POV's up with some evidence. Everyone has avoidd commenting on the sources, which are clear.

• Here's an example that no one seems to be commenting on:

The Governor General's executive powers are of course exercised in accordance with constitutional conventions. For example, after an election he asks the appropriate party leader to form a government. Once a government is in place, 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 .

A few highlites:

1. "executive powers exercised in accordance with constitutional conventions" - i.e. no discretionary powers; precedent binds GG and Queen
2. "executive powers ... exercised in accordance with the wishes of the leadership of that government" - i.e. PM gives the orders; GG and Queen push the pencil
3. "true executive power lies in the Cabinet" ... self explanatory
4. No mention here of the PCO.

• Here's a second example from the department of justice::

"The Constitution sets out the basic principles of democratic government in Canada when it defines the powers of the three branches of government: the executive, the legislative and the judicial. 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."

"Most laws in Canada are first examined and discussed by the Cabinet, then presented for debate and approval by members of the House of Commons and the Senate. Before a bill becomes a law, the Queen or her representative, the Governor General, must also approve or “assent to” it. This requirement of royal assent does not mean that the Queen is politically powerful; by constitutional convention, the Monarch always follows the advice of the government."--soulscanner (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets be clear. This is about whether the Queen or GG can use the power of disallowance to block House legislation or decisions of the PMO. The Balfour Declaration says the Queen can't. Two legal opinions above say they cannot. Can someone find a modern (i.e. post Constitution Act, 1982) scholarly legal opinion that contradicts the above simple summary? I don't know why people are wracking their brains formulating their own legal opinions; our opinions don't matter on Misplaced Pages, and would constitute original research. --soulscanner (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, let's be clear: legislation plays absolutely no part in this discussion! It is about the reserve powers of the monarch to dismiss her ministers' advice, which has only to do with the Cabinet and not parliament. As Pieuvre points out, conventions are not unbreakable, but even then, precedent has been set for the monarch or viceroy to do exactly what we're talking about. Beyond that, plus the irrefutable evidence of the Constitution Act, 1867, are scholarly sources. "In very exceptional circumstances, the Governor General could refuse a request for a fresh election." "A Prime Minister who resigns has no right to advise the Governor as to a successor unless asked; even then, the advice need not be followed." "The Governor General and the Lieutenant-Governors have the right to be consulted by their Ministers, and the right to encourage or warn them. 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." "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 American head of state cannot restrain the American head of government because they are the same person." "It was always the Governor General’s duty to keep a Parliament alive. This would be especially true for a Parliament that has only been in existence for two years of a five-year mandate... 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." So can we please stop pretending the chief executive plays absolutely zero role in government? --G2bambino (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think legislation figures into any conversation about the small amount of real power the GG has. I'll stick to commenting on the references just for focus. I have no objection to these quotes. They confirm that the GG and sovereign have extremely limited political power and can only use it very rarely.

1. In very exceptional circumstances, the Governor General could refuse a request for a fresh election.
2. 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.
3. 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 ...

Provided the strong qualifiers are used, there's no problem with pointing out that in very exceptional circumstances the GG or Monarch can use their ceremonial powers politically to avert a political crisis. It's the same as saying that the vast amount of real power lies in Cabinet, according to the democratic principle. I think it's a good thing. It's a check and balance on the executive, and we could use as much of that as we can get (albeit not necessarily from the GG). --soulscanner (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you now see there's no problem with pointing out the existence of the reserve powers to be used in exceptional circumstances, seeing as that's exactly what you've been refusing to acknowledge all along. Now, could we please decide on a way to construct the paragraph? --G2bambino (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I could certainly show that unwritten constitutional conventions can be broken. The Supreme Court of Canada did declare in 1982 that such constitutional conventions, even if hardened and honoured on over the course of time, cannot "crystallize" into laws. (Patriation Reference) In recent times, those conventions were broken a few times. In 1989, the Senate defeated a bill regulating abortion and three bills establishing free trade with the USA (against the convention that the Senate must pass all bills approved by the House). In 1968, the minority government unexpectly lost a money vote, but the election wasn't called (against the convention requiring the PM to report the GG to call an election if the PM loses a money vote). In 1961, the Lieutenant-Governor of Saskatchewan used his reserve power to defer a bill (not granting the royal assent) to the GG. I have to mention that in 2002Since you asked for more "modern" proofs (I consider after WWII as "modern"), those proofs happened after the Westminster and the King-Byng Affair. So precedents do not necessarily bind the GG and the Queen or anyone else including the PM. I'll going to have to disagree that the Queen and the GG have no reserve powers at this moment. (This comes from the Wiki itself from the Monarchy of Canada article). We cannot say they will not use them again in the future. We're no seers. Now to the point where you wrote "true executive power lies in the Cabinet". I don't understand. Do you mean "de-facto"? As far as I am concerned, the power of the state is vested in the Queen/GG with the PM giving advices how to exercise them. Please prove me wrong. The small kinks of Canadian politics are sometimes confusing for all of us, so I may overlooked something. Pieuvre (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree this shouldn't be overstated and finding the right balance is difficult. But:

1. PMO does not formally make decisions. Privy Council/GGiC (acting through PCO), both of which are controlled by the govt, does. In practice this may be exercised by the PMO but this is a matter of internal government organisation.
2. Precedent is great but, as in the legal system, rarely covers all potential eventualities. And can change (as it has done in past).
3. Reliance on the Supreme Court as the ultimate authority is one thing, but in practice a) there has to be a court case/request from the govt, and b) things may happen too quickly and new precedents be established.

As for text, I would suggest a) executive power is exercised by the Cabinet; b) symbolically vested in the monarch/viceroy; c) the monarch/viceroy formally approves actions of executive power based on advice of Cabinet; d) any failure to follow that advice (assent) would constitute or provoke a constitutional crisis. One cannot know with certainty the outcome of a constitutional crisis.

One of the texts above notes that the "bulk of" the GG's powers are exercised in accordance with wishes of the government. This leaves a pretty big opening. I don't think any of this proves that there are (theoretically) no reserve powers, nor that real executive power is not exercised by the government. Constitutional monarchies by their nature, however, evolve over time, retain certain contradictory features and have certain gaps that cannot be explained in advance.--Gregalton (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to the wording of "bulk". I think the quotes are fine. I'd say the opening is small, but if you're willing to use the wording of this entire passage more or less verbatim, I won't object. We can both use our imaginations as to what "bulk" means, as long as the "always" stays. After all, it is a valid source, and the stress here is not mine. --soulscanner (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "always" is incorrect. --G2bambino (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• To Pieuvre's points: I don't want to go into long debates about what we both think personally about this. That would qualify as original research on both our parts. I'll say that in the case of the patriation of the Constitution, it was the elected federal government that broke with convention, not appointed officials. The democratic principle allowed for this, and it was the supreme court (not the Queen) that had the final say. Indeed, the new Constitution made the Constitution and not the word of the Monarch the Supreme Law of the land.

Anyways, we an pontificate all we want. Lets stick to sources. They explain the ceremonial and political relationships between the GG and the real power in Cabinet. Lets focus on the simple wording of legal scholars, and see if someone come up with some simple language from modern scholarly sources that contradict the wording in these quotes. I'm not so sure what's hard to understand about "true executive power" especially when it's followed by a clear statement that the Queen and GG are NOT politically powerful. Yes, I'd say "real" and "true" mean de facto. In plain English, de facto means "real" and "true". I'd like to see some scholarly sources that directly support other wording that contradicts this.

1. This requirement of royal assent does not mean that the Queen is politically powerful; by constitutional convention, the Monarch always follows the advice of the government."
2. "executive powers exercised in accordance with constitutional conventions" - i.e. no discretionary powers; precedent binds GG and Queen
3. "executive powers ... exercised in accordance with the wishes of the leadership of that government" - i.e. PM gives the orders; GG and Queen push the pencil
4. "true executive power lies in the Cabinet" ...

Are you against putting these quotes in verbatim? If so why? They come form perfectly good references, they don't require complex legal arguments, the wording is straightforward, and there's no reason this wording, no matter how one interprets it, can't go in the text. --soulscanner (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate to keep repeating this but your version that "PM gives the orders" is overstating it. The line that true executive power lies in the Cabinet is accurate. The exact balance of power within the government/cabinet may vary, and PM is indeed "first among equals", but this is not a presidential system.--Gregalton (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If I may jump in here, I just don't believe that's true.The PM, as long as he has the support of caucus, can remake the cabinet at will. The PM -- and PMO -- does give the orders, regardless of what documents or tradition may have to say about it. (I'll try to continue to follow this debate)Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think what you're saying entirely contradicts: "as long as he has the support of caucus" is a very significant qualifier. How the PM retains that support is also significant. The documents and tradition are also important in cases where that support may not be guaranteed. PMO's power is entirely dependent on power of PM, which is largely based on personal/political/informal support within caucus. It's also different now from historically, and I don't think one can say the current concentration of that (effective) power in PMO is the last word.--Gregalton (talk) 07:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Soulscanner: I wasn't even trying to make a personal point. You brought up the comment and I brought out sources to explain them out. I did provide a couple scholarly works, didn't I? I'm not contesting the general points of the relationship between the PM and the Queen, but I do contest a couple key words. The wordings make it sound that the Queen "must not" refuse an advice from the PM, which is not true. Traditions do make the Queen follow the advices of the PM, but there is no legal barrier for her not to follow them in extreme cases. That's why I brought up a "modern" court ruling that constitutional conventions, which the functions of the Queen are based on, cannot crystallize into laws. So saying "no discretionary powers" and "precedents bind the Queen" is misleading, unless you have something to prove me wrong. Now I'm fine with Gregalton's suggestion. I'll quote it out.

As for text, I would suggest a) executive power is exercised by the Cabinet; b) symbolically vested in the monarch/viceroy; c) the monarch/viceroy formally approves actions of executive power based on advice of Cabinet; d) any failure to follow that advice (assent) would constitute or provoke a constitutional crisis. One cannot know with certainty the outcome of a constitutional crisis.

The letter D will clearly points out that the Queen is not necessarily required to follow every advice of the PM. We can clarify by putting the word "reserve power" and wikify it so the readers could click on it to see what it means. Pieuvre (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any quotes from sources from anything posted; please repost the relevant quote. --soulscanner (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Protected

The page is now protected for 5 days days. During this time, please try and find common ground and arrive to a version that all can live with. If you cannot, this is a good time to pursue dispute resolution such as third opinions or requests for comments. If you are ready to resume editing or to contest the protection, place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the issue? I get tho confused, dears.--Gazzster (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, what's the issue? There is no link to a mediation page. Please elaborate on the issue. DocVM (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The offer was to discuss issue of Canada's autonomy vis a vis Britain and the Monarchy on the Dominion page; that has spilled back here. The mediation page for that is here(Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation/Dominion). --soulscanner (talk) 11:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality and accuracy of Article compromised

The Article says categorically, without modification:

"The monarch is vested with all executive authority"

The cited article says:

"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 Cabinet, at the federal level, consists of the Prime Minister and Ministers who are answerable to Parliament for government activities."

This is not the same; the above statement needs to be modified, as it exaggerates the real powers of the Queen to such an extent that it seriously compromises the accuracy and POV of the article. Specifcally, we need the following ideas expressed:

• real executive power rests with the Cabinet
• Queen's executive power "is only a constitutional convention"; it is ceremonial. --soulscanner (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a serious disagreement here about how much power is really invested in the Monarch. Let's resolve this before making anymore edits on the subject. --soulscanner (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you not see that your imagined contradiction is just that: imagined? What real difference is there between The monarch is vested with all executive authority and the executive power in Canada is vested in the Queen? None. So, your cite actually supports what the article presently says. Your source is incorrect, however, in terms of the executive power being conventional; how much executive authority is vested in the monarch is not dictated by any convention or ceremony, it is spelled out clearly in section III.9 of the Constitution Act, 1867, making it a constitutional statute law, not a convention.

There is nothing wrong with the present wording, save for some needed condensing; it's disingenuous to pull out just one sentence and then say the entire section is flawed. I suggest you take into consideration the further elaboration in the section that covers just how executive authority is exercised in Canada before coming back here again to complain. Oh, and do follow your own advice about not editing until there's a resolution; namely one on just whether or not there's anything to dispute first. --G2bambino (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Add "real executive power lies in the Cabinet", and we have an accurate depiction of what's in the reference. --soulscanner (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a collection of quotes. --G2bambino (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The reference article is the government of Canada. Is someone claiming that what they say is wrong? DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If we read a few lines down (Government and Politics): however, the Cabinet – a committe of the QPC made up of Ministers of the Crown who are generally responsible to the elected House of Commons – is the main body charged with the task of directing executive authority. So the reference to the Sovereign's executive authority is explained.--Gazzster (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly; hence, my comments above about not just pulling one particular sentence out of context. --G2bambino (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Why can't we add "real executive power lies in the Cabinet", as is clearly stated in the reference? --soulscanner (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it is poor form in the English language to repeat one's self unnecessarily. --G2bambino (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone removed the word all. That's a start. --soulscanner (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I did; purely to accomodate your pedantry. --G2bambino (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Is constitution the Supreme law in Canada?

Or is it considered by some to be the Supreme law in Canada? I think Section 51, quoted in the article, is clear. --soulscanner (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Magnet, Joseph E. (2007). "Constitutional Law of Canada: Separation of Powers in Canada". University of Ottawa. Retrieved 2008-02-19. The Governor General's executive powers are of course exercised in accordance with constitutional conventions. For example, after an election he asks the appropriate party leader to form a government. Once a government is in place, 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.