Talk:Prime Minister of Canada: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:00, 16 January 2010 editMiesianiacal (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users47,041 edits →Infobox: r← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:43, 8 January 2025 edit undoTicketthedog (talk \| contribs)93 edits →JANUARY 6 2025: ReplyTag: Reply
(710 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{talk header}}
	{{WikiProject Canada\|class=C\|importance=High\|cangov=Yes}}
			{{Canadian English}}
	{{WikiProject Politics\|class=C\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|
			{{WikiProject Canada\|importance=High\|cangov=Yes}}
			{{WikiProject Politics\|importance=mid}}
			}}
			{{archive box\|auto=yes\|search=yes\|bot=MiszaBot I\|age=100}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 100K
			\|counter = 3
			\|minthreadsleft = 4
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\|algo = old(100d)
			\|archive = Talk:Prime Minister of Canada/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{Broken anchors\|links=
			* <nowiki>]</nowiki>
			* <nowiki>]</nowiki>
			}}

	__TOC__		__TOC__

			== Infobox: Term length ==
	In this Interregnum between the elections and the sworn in of the next government. Paul Martin is the PM and Stephen Harper is the PM-designate. They both conserved thier style. Actually, Paul Martin has not resigned, he has advised the GG his intention to resign, it's not the same!

	Good night

	A thought as I watch the results of the January 2006 election come in: the article states "If a general election gives an opposition party a plurality of the seats, the prime minister's party is still given the first opportunity to continue as the government. The incumbent prime minister may attempt to gain the support of another party (a coalition government), or he/she may resign and allow the party that won the most seats to form the government." I do not know if this is true in law or if this is a governmental tradition, but would this not suggest that Paul Martin could continue as Prime Minister, perhaps again with the support of the NDP? The NDP and Liberals, at current counts, have a combined total number of seats greater than the Tories (102+31=133 vs. 123), so such a potential coalition government would better represent the desires of a larger number of Canadians. In any case, it seems premature to be declaring Stephen Harper the new Prime Minister, even if the Conservatives do indeed have the plurality of the seats. ]

	How 'bout that. They're speculating about just that right now. Well, it'll be interesting to see which way this goes... ]

	----

	However valid the arguments in this article may be, they are not neutral. They are entirely intended to support one point of view - i.e. that the prime minister has too much power. ]

	Do you feel that it's a bit more neutral now? Please respond. Also...
	<i>All Prime Ministers have lived there since Prime Minister ].</i>
	That's a bit awkward. We should be mentioning the year, not whose term it was. I was going to put down 1948, but for all I know, he could have only started living there towards the end of his term.
	--]

	:I think it's still lacking in NPOV re: the power of the PM. For instance:

	::''Over time, the role of the Prime Minister of Canada has undergone some modifications but he/she today has the most personal and absolute power of any elected leader of any full democracy in the world.''

	:...this is true only by a strict reading of the constitution. Indeed, Canada's (essentially unicameral) parliamentary system combined with our world's strictest system of party discipline (outside of sham parliaments in various dictatorships), combined with the (deprecated) power of disallowment over the provinces, would suggest that the PM has near dictatorial powers.

	:In practise, however, the power of the PM is greatly restricted by the power of the provinces (Canada is one of, if not the, more decentralized federations going). It doesn?t mean a lot to say the PM can do whatever they want within the areas of federal jurisdiction when a lot of the most important stuff (health, education) is either held entirely by the provinces or only involves Ottawa to the extent that they write the cheques.

	:As for this whole bit:

	::''Unlike the Presidental system of government used in such countries as the United States, an elected member of the Canadian House of Commons cannot vote in accordance with the will of his constituents.''

	:How exactly does a representative vote 'accordance with the will of his constituents'? Canada has a first-past the post system remember. Mose of that members constituents likely didn't even vote for the member, and the idea that even a convincing majority of them will agree on anything is unlikely. Therefore, 'according to his/her own preference' would be much more realistic.

	:While Canada's strict party control does put individual members on a tight leash, it also prevents the type of pork-barrel politics that plague the US and many other democracies. Members (i.e. parties) are forced to consider the national, rather than the purely local, interest.

	:It's also arguably more democratic considering most voters have some idea what a party stands for, but absolutely nothing about a candidates personal beliefs.

	:When I have more time (exams!) I'll try and add some balance to this article. -- ] 08:22 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

	----
	The article says "In contrast to the British government, in which members of
	parliament have long tenure but Prime Ministers have relatively short tenures, the Canadian Prime Minister typically has a long tenure except in cases where there is a ]."

	Considering Thatcher and Blair, I don't think UK PMs have relatively short tenures. ] 20:43, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
	----
	Strictly there is no limit on the length of time a PM can serve, they just have to call an election every five years. Anyone disagree with this? ]
	----
	It says "The Prime Minister is also restricted by two usually powerless branches of government", but it only mentions one branch, the Senate...
	----
	The "Jr." (as in Paul Martin, Jr.) has been removed--ref. ''Chicago Manual of Style''. When the elder member of a family dies, the "junior" designation is usually dropped. While there is a trend to keeping the designation in the U.S., it generally isn't done in Canada (check CBC or Globe and Mail websites if you need to confirm this). ] 04:20, 2003 Dec 18 (UTC)
	----
	Canadian PMs do not appear to have long terms. Since 1970 Britain has had five PMs, while Canada has had 6 (not counting Martin). What is unusual is the extremes. Three of the Canadians had terms of ten years or thereabouts, while two had terms of less than 1 yr. Go figure. ] 06:56, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

	:A bit of trivia: Actually it is three PMs since 1970 who had terms of less than one year: Clark, Turner and Campbell. Turner and Campbell replaced a retiring PM (Trudeau and Mulroney respectively) and then lost the subsequent election. Clark is unique. He led a minority government in 1979, but lost a non-confidence motion over the budget. An election was called and he lost. ] 21:56, 2003 Dec 19 (UTC)

	I'd like to see the prime minister's salary on this page. Just for fun.

	I've posted the PM's salary for 2004, according to the CBC. In 2004, Paul Martin made $284,000 (CAD). --] 15:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

	== Graphical Timeline ==

	I have added a new graphical timeline similar to the one over at ]. I hope it is useful. If anyone sees any errors or if you are better at manipulating those EasyTimelines than I am... - ] 20:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

	:A timeline was already created at ]. That timeline has exact dates, not just the year. I suggest some sort of merge. I'd do it, but I dont have the time. ] 19:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

	::I'd agree with a merge vote.
	::but also, the 3 blues used in the current one are almost indistinguishable. --] 07:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

	:::I just checked and, in fact, they ''are'' the same colour. ] 08:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

	::::Because they are essentially the same party. The difference between the historical and current Tories might present a problem though. - ] 04:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

	== books by Prime Ministers ==

	I have created a page ] to list the books written by (not about) former Prime Ministers. ] 02:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

	== Too soon to say Harper will be PM? ==
	I'm not from Canada so I may have missed something along the way somewhere, but I don't understand how people have come to the conclusion that Harper will be PM. It seems to me that there are still a few seats where a handful of votes could swing the result. A Prime minister would need to be able to secure the confidence of the House. Normally in a situation where no party has a majority, parties enter into negotiations to try to secure support for a confidence vote. Wouldn't the numbers would seem to suggest that Martin could potentially secure the support of the BQ and NDP to form Government, or have the other two parties already ruled out their support for the Liberals and pledged it to teh Conservatives? -- ]\|] 05:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

	There is also parliamentary tradition that says that the party that wins the largest number of seats gets the first crack at forming a government. The one time this custom was not followed, we ended up with a consitutional crisis (see ].) Also, Martin has now conceded defeat. While niether the BQ nor the NDP are natural allies for the Conservatives, all parties (except the BQ) will be expected to try to make the new Parliament work. Voters would likely punish a party that forces a new election too quickly by being obtructionist. ] \| ] 05:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

	:Thanks. It seems that the CBC and others seem to have accepted a Conservative Government as a given, so I guess that is the way it will be (and the fact that Martis said he will stand down), but it just seems so different to what happend in germany for example, or New Zealand, where the parties spent weeks negotiating who would be PM. Is there a precedent in Canada for a Government to change without an election? The process, as I've always understood it, is that the Governor General (or equivalent) would offer the leader of the largest party the option of forming Gov't, and if that leader was unable to do so, they would then see if another party could form Government. In 1996 in ], following a by-election where the Government lost a majority, the Government faced a vote f no confidence on the floor of the Parliament, and the Leader of the opposition then formed a Government without the need for a General election. One would think that a similar process could take place in Canada without an election necessarilly being triggered when a minority Government lost a confidence vote. -- ]\|] 06:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

	::There are a couple of precedents for a change in government without an election: Mackenzie took over from Macdonald in 1873 following a vote of non-confidence; Mackenzie called a general election a few months later, which he won. In 1926, during the ], Meighan took over from King, but then he quickly lost a confidence motion, called an election, and King won a majority. In the current case, forming a coalition with the Bloc or even an informal alliance is unthinkable for both Conservatives and Liberals, the NDP does not have enough seats to make a coalition with either of the big 2 workable, and the Liberals would quickly lose a confidence motion if they tried to continue as government. A Conservative minority with Harper as PM is the only option. He will have to get support from the Liberals or the Bloc for each of his major bills on a case-by-case basis. If this fails in the first year or so, we may indeed see the GG give the Liberals a try without another election. ] 17:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

	::In the ], the incumbent PC Party won 52 seats, the Liberals won 48 seats and the NDP won 30. The PC Party returned to the Legislature, and introduced a ] to attempt to continue to govern, despite the public knowledge that the Liberals had meade a deal with the NDP for support. The Liberals and NDP moved non-confidence in the government, and it was defeated. The Lieutenant Governor asked the leader of the Libveral Party to form a government. The government, with fewer seats than the Official Opposition, governed for two years with the support of the third party. No coalition was formed. 17:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

	:::Thanks for these two explanations. It's has helped make sense of it all from a distance. Sometimes its difficult to understand local context from far away. -- ]\|] 23:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

	== PM-designate or PM-elect ==

	I seem to recall that during other transitional periods following elections the term "PM-elect" was used rather than "PM-designate". However, during the time before Martin's swearing in, the term "PM-designate" had to be used because he had not been "elected" by the Canadian people at large in any direct or indirect way. I don't want to do any editing until I get confirmation because I'm not 100% sure my recollection is correct. ] 17:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

	"PM-elect" is a term used by media people who have picked the term up from US politics where the president is elected. The prime minister is not elected. Members of Parliament are elected. It is incorrect in the Canadian context to use the term "PM-elect". "PM-designate" is not an official designation, but it is commonly used. In fact, it would mkae ''more'' sense to use PM-elect in the Martin case because he was elected by his party, which had a majority in parliament, but let's avoid importing a US term that doesn't make sense in the canadian context. ] \| ] 17:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

	I agree that "PM-designate" is the more appropriate and sensible term. Let's hope the media settle on it this time. ] 18:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

	Correct. As the PM is not elected but appointed, calling him ''PM-elect'' is factually incorrect. ]]\<sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 19:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

	:There is no such thing as a ''PM-elect'' in the Westminster system as PMs are not elected, but rather appointed by the monarch (or a Governor General in the Commonwealth realms). Also, "president-elect" in the US context is used to refer to a person who has already been elected president, but is still waiting the end of the previous presidential term in order to be sworn-in. That is really not the case in the UK, where a sitting PM normally resigns the day after his/her party's defeat in a general election and the Queen immediately calls upon the leader of the winning party to form a new government. Parliament doesn't have to be in session at the time and the new PM doesn't have to wait for a new Parliament to be convened before he can be sworn-in. I don't know how it works in Canada, but I'd suppose it should be similar. ] (]) 13:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

	==From the Senate==

	Who were the PMs who governed from the Senate? ] 18:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

	* The two prime ministers to govern from the ] were the Rt. Hon. Sir ] and the Rt. Hon. Sir ]. It should be noted too, perhaps, that the Rt. Hon. Sir ] governed for a part of his term without a seat in either house of Parliament. ] 02:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

	** Well ] spent his whole term as PM outside of the House, and several others Kim Campbell, King stand out in my mind have lost their seats in elections and thus been PM without a seat. - ] 14:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

	== Main image ==

	Is it not a bit early to have Stephen Harper's image at the top of the page already? Technically, he is still only Prime Minister-designate. I'm thinking his image should only go up once Martin is off the scene. ] 02:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
	* Might be worth having, but it's interesting to note that in the edits in the last day or so, both Martin and Chretien have vanished. One, or both, should be restored. ] 05:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

	== PM Infobox too big! ==

	Infobox PM on all the Prime Ministers pages are way too big, and need fixing. ] 01:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


	== Encyclopedic Language ==

	"Too Much Power?" is kind of a charged title. I rephrased and deleted unencyclopedic language and framed criticisms more generally than the previous version, which was focussed on evaluating the Prime Minister vis-a-vis the American Presidency. If a comparison was to be made in a criticism of something like party discipline and motions of confidence, it is more relevant to use the British Parliament, where more votes are free due to different protocol regarding motions of confidence. Still, I don't think an incomplete comparison of the PM to the POTUS on the matter of party discipline is all that crucial to include. ] 08:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

	== Right Honourable Title ==

	It seems like someone took out all the Right Honourable titles from every individual prime minister page, should this be put back up? --] 23:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

	I definitely think it should be done. I have no idea why so many of those titles were removed in the first place. ] (]) 20:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

	==the picture==
	Can somebody get a better looking picture of this guy? Harper's expression is identitical to that of someone who's just smelled a bad fart in an elevator with another 30 floors to go before he can get off.

	== Oath of Office ==
	Maybe someone could add the oath of office, where the prime minister has to plege allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II.

	== "succession" ==

	I removed the section that was added concerning Harper's "succession" list, as I believe there was misunderstanding about both the history behind this, and the purpose. First off, to deal with the purpose, it is not meant as a list of succession. It is a prioritized list as to who can act in the absence of the PM, and is in effect nothing more than a list of alternate signing authority (ie. PM is overseas, and something needs to be signed, who do they go to). Also, there is nothing historic about Harper doing this list. It is quite standard for a PM, upon having had his Cabinet sworn in, to issue an OiC outlining those who can act on his behalf, as well as alternate ministers. As just one example, I will link the OiC from when Martin was sworn in , the only difference from the current format being that it clearly indicates the Deputy PM is first, and then proceeds down the list in order of precedence. It would appear that Harper has mixed his list up a little more, but that's it.


	That is correct should he die/become unable to do his job an acting prime minister would be appointed by the party. They would then hold a leadership convention, and the new leader would be sworn in as Prime Minister.
	:Not necessarily. They might just appoint a caucus member and that would be the end of it. They would probably do what you mentioned, but there are many other things that "might" happen.] 01:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

	==Clean-up==
	In my opinion, this article needs to be seriously modified...half of it just seems to be complaining about how much power the PM has, and even factual sections are lumped in the "Criticisms" section. I think we should concentrate more on the historical gaining of power by the office then just having the complaints. Just like to see what the consensus is.] 23:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
	:I couldn't agree more. ] 14:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

	== Ellen Fairclough ==

	Can she be footnoted here, under Diefenbaker's entry? -- ] 15:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
	:Why? ] 15:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
	::I am assuming because she was acting PM for a two days - ] 16:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
	::Would we include every "acting prime minister" in Canada's history? ] 17:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::I am, by no means, suggesting that, just trying to answer your question ;) - ] 00:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::Sorry. I should have made it clear that I'm not posing the question to you, but to the person who first raised the issue. ] 03:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

	== Parents of the Prime Ministers ==

	I'd like to create an article listing the parents of the Prime Ministers, but I need to know the parents of Clark, Turner, Campbell and Chretien which are not listed in their articles. --] ] - ] 03:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
	:Ok, I've found them all, I just need Kim Campell's mothers' maiden name. --] ] - ] 06:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

	== minor suggestion ==
	Regarding; "The Prime Minister, along with the other ministers of the Cabinet, is formally appointed by the Governor General on behalf of the Queen." Would it not be better if read "The Prime Minister and the other ministers of the Cabinet are formally appointed by the Governor General on behalf of the Queen." or "The Prime Minister is formally appointed by the Governor General on behalf of the Queen."? ] 01:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

	:The best description of the system would be: "The Prime Minister is appointed by the Governor General on behalf of the Queen. The other members of the cabinet are then formally appointed by the Governor General upon nomination by the Prime Minister. " That emphasizes the important point that the PM, not the Crown, chooses who will be in the cabinet, whereas the Queen (or her GG in Canada) chooses who will be PM based on the strength of each political party in the House of Commons. ] (]) 14:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

	==Fair use rationale for Image:Can-pol w.jpg==
	]
	''']''' is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under ] but there is no ] as to why its use in '''this''' Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the ], you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with ].

	Please go to ] and edit it to include a ]. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

	If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Missing rationale2 -->

	] 05:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)



	==Canada Election Act 2007 ==

	Where in the aforementioned Act is it written that an early election can be called only in the event of a vote of no confidence ? As far as I read it, the 2007 act says clearly that nothing therein restricts the power of the Governor General to dissolve Parliament and call an election whenever he/she wants (in fact, any provision otherwise would be unconstitutional). Therefore, '''in theory''', the PM is still capable of advising the GG to call an early election even in the absence of a no-confidence vote. I agree though that '''in practice''', as a matter of unwritten convention, PMs will refrain from doing so given that the act does contain an explicit default fixed date for elections to be held in the absence of early dissolutions.


	In other words, I believe that the claim that elections from now on will not be called earlier (i.e. on a date other than the default date) unless the government is defeated in the House is, in '''practical terms''', factually correct. However, I think it is factually incorrect to say that is so because the 2007 Act explicitly excludes any other possibility. Please correct the text. ] (]) 13:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

	:This has since been challenged in court. As a result, Harper requesting the writ being dropped before the 4 year term was vindicated. Thus, all the act really managed to do in law was to ensure an election at least once every four years, as opposed to the possibility of a five year mandate previously enjoyed by the Government of the day. ] (]) 15:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

	==PM Leader of Party With the Most Seats==
	In the opening of the article it reads:
	"The Prime Minister is almost invariably the leader of the political party that holds the largest number of seats in the House of Commons."
	Was there ever a PM who wasn't the leader of the party with the most seats? The ''Qualifications and selection'' section provides no information stating if this is possible.
	--] (]) 04:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
	:Yes there was. The 1925 minority of William Lyon Mackenzie King. See ]. --] <sup><font face="Calibri">''] ♦ ]''</font></sup> 04:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

	:: I've reworked that section hopefully adequately. -- ] (]) 02:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

	==Image copyright problem with Image:Trudeau, Turner, Chretien, and Pearson.jpg==
	The image ] is used in this article under a claim of ], but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the ] when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an ] linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

	:* That there is a ] on the image's description page for the use in this article.
	:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
	<!-- Additional 10c list header goes here -->

	This is an automated notice by ]. For assistance on the image use policy, see ]. --18:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

	== Prime Minister not directly elected. ==

	In comparison the US listing for US president...the US president is not 'directly' elected...however you do vote for a President...the difference is that each state gets electoral votes....?

	In Canada the name of the Prime Minister does not appear on the ballot...you vote for a local MP and if he or she belongs to a party, then 'the party rep' gets a vote, based on the seat...

	I hope someone finds the time and words to explain this detail on the site...

	Good luck....The Truth, and not merely truths will set us free...

	--] ] 02:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

	:::: Done, hopefully to your satisfaction. -- ] (]) 02:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

			Wouldn't that be at the governor general's pleasure? as the governor general appointed the prime minister? Just wondering. ] (]) 21:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
	==Criticisms of Prime Ministerial Power==
			:No. The Governor General is the representative of the Crown, not the Crown itself. ] (]) 22:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
			::I've noticed that "Governor General's Pleasure" is used in the infoboxes at ], ] & other forms or no forms at all, at other non-UK Commonwealth realm prime ministers' infoboxes. So, kinda thought it somewhat out-of-sync, at this page. ] (]) 01:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
			:::Can't assume that all Commonwealth countries are the same. In Australia, there is a dispute over exactly who is the head of state, the monarch or the GovGen, which could explain that usage in the wikipedia article: ]. ] (]) 02:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
			::::There's no dispute in Australia, as their head of state ''is'' the monarch. The latter page you mention, was basically created to promote the false dispute & should be deleted. ] (]) 03:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

			== Coat of Arms of Canada infobox ==
	I've done a bit of reworking there to provide sources and remove weasel words, but there's still some more for me to do. I figured I'd get a section going here on the talk page for anyone to give me some suggestions on how that section is coming along. I also hope to work on this article in general, but I'm unfortunately a little busy at school right now. -- ] (]) 02:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

			The Royal arms should be added to the info box, Firstly this was commonplace on this info box until recently, secondly the royal arms are widely used to symbolise the office of Prime Minister as they are the King of Canada first minister and chief advisor (on Canadian state affairs) see https://www.pm.gc.ca/en secondly on the page of the Canadian government website canada.ca referring to the use of the Royal arms and other symbols of state "Symbols such as the Coat of Arms of Canada, the “Canada” Wordmark, and the Government of Canada Signature are normally reserved for use by the Government of Canada" as the prime minister is the leader of the Government of Canada and head of the office of the Prime Minister which uses the royal arms as its department symbol see ] and ]<nowiki/> therefore it is improper to not have the royal arms on the prime ministers page. ] (]) 15:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
	== Mandate ==

			== New edit ==
	I have an issue with this section referring to the GG avoiding contradiction with an Act of Parliament. An Act of Parliament which would interfere with the GG's/HM's power to appoint a Prime Minister or drop a writ, would be Unconstitutional. This is exactly why the Canadian Elections Act 2007 stated that nothing with in the Act would remove any ability of the GG/HM to do so. This has also been the opinion of several Constitutional experts (Professor Ned Franks for one) and a Court Case brought against Harper for requesting the dropping an "early" writ was dismissed for lack of understanding of the separation of powers.

	I ~~plan~~ on ~~removing~~ ~~the~~ ~~reference~~ to this ~~unless~~ ~~someone can come up with a better argument?~~ ] (]) 16:05, 4 ~~December~~ ~~2009~~ (UTC)		Justin Trudeau just resigned, so i decided to add this to the page. ] (]) 20:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

	== ~~Infobox~~ ==		== JANUARY 6 2025 ==

			Prime Minister has not resigned. The current Prine Minister is Justin Trudeau.
	I think the infobox should be changed to the one that the Prime Minister of the UK and the President of the US have. It look much more professional and has more info, like the residence and website. I have tried to change it but someone keeps cahnging it back so I would like to disscuss it here and see what everyone thinks. Tell me if you like it or not. (To see what it would look like see the President of the US or Prime Minister of the UK page.)

	] (]) 22:25, 16 January ~~2010~~ (UTC)		STOP EDITING IT. ] (]) 20:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:If you wanted more information in the box, all you had to do was change the template or ask someone to do it for you. I have put into the template used here the additional slots the other one has.
	:The template you keep deleting was designed so as to use a colour coding system to differentiate between ministers in simple states and federations, as well as between federal and provincial/state ministers in the latter. You are not entitled to bulldoze all of that out of the way because ] or because of ] (though, the infobox employed here is used on other articles as well). --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 22:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

			:CNN reports he has resigned and he was quoted saying "“I intend to resign as party leader, as prime minister, after the party selects its new leader,” as long as it is mentioned he is remaining a caretaker till someone is chosen to replace him but he has resigned nonetheless https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/canada-justin-trudeau-resignation-01-06-25/index.html ] (]) 21:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Okay... I still don't agree. The Prime Minister of the UK has almost the exact same job as the Prime Minster of Canada so they should have the same infobox. It makes no difference. It would look better and more professional and the info it the same. I don't care if it was designed for whatever. When something needs to be changed to something more modern and better looking we should change it. I am willing to change all the provincial and federal position that have that. I will do it because i believe it looks much better. Lets just see what everyone else thinks befopre you change it back.
			::The office of Prime Minister is not vacant. Also if youre going to use a news source about a Canadian topic, use a Canadian news source.
	] (]) 22:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
			::THE OFFICE IS NOT VACANT. THERE IS NO CARETAKER GOVERNMENT. The government has not fallen nor is it in an election THUS there is ZERO caretaker talk. ] (]) 03:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::You've already seen what I think; per ] it is '''you''' who should cease and decist with the reverting and discuss your changes ''before'' they are implemented. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 23:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
			::@]: IP is correct. If you take the time to read the CNN article, you can see that he has not stepped down yet (emphasis mine): {{tq\|Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced Monday he '''intends '''to step down as the country’s prime minister, leaving office '''once a new ruling party leader is chosen.'''}} ] (])<sup><span style="color: green"><small>Ping me!</small></span></sup> 05:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Understood thank you ] (]) 15:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:43, 8 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Prime Minister of Canada article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: Governments High‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

]
]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Infobox: Term length

Wouldn't that be at the governor general's pleasure? as the governor general appointed the prime minister? Just wondering. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

No. The Governor General is the representative of the Crown, not the Crown itself. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed that "Governor General's Pleasure" is used in the infoboxes at Prime Minister of Australia, Prime Minister of Bahamas & other forms or no forms at all, at other non-UK Commonwealth realm prime ministers' infoboxes. So, kinda thought it somewhat out-of-sync, at this page. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Can't assume that all Commonwealth countries are the same. In Australia, there is a dispute over exactly who is the head of state, the monarch or the GovGen, which could explain that usage in the wikipedia article: Australian head of state dispute. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

There's no dispute in Australia, as their head of state is the monarch. The latter page you mention, was basically created to promote the false dispute & should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Coat of Arms of Canada infobox

The Royal arms should be added to the info box, Firstly this was commonplace on this info box until recently, secondly the royal arms are widely used to symbolise the office of Prime Minister as they are the King of Canada first minister and chief advisor (on Canadian state affairs) see https://www.pm.gc.ca/en secondly on the page of the Canadian government website canada.ca referring to the use of the Royal arms and other symbols of state "Symbols such as the Coat of Arms of Canada, the “Canada” Wordmark, and the Government of Canada Signature are normally reserved for use by the Government of Canada" as the prime minister is the leader of the Government of Canada and head of the office of the Prime Minister which uses the royal arms as its department symbol see Office of the Prime Minister (Canada) and Coat of arms of Canada therefore it is improper to not have the royal arms on the prime ministers page. Knowledgework69 (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

New edit

Justin Trudeau just resigned, so i decided to add this to the page. WHEOOButEncyclopedia (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

JANUARY 6 2025

Prime Minister has not resigned. The current Prine Minister is Justin Trudeau.

STOP EDITING IT. 2605:B100:352:1D32:101A:6A67:3422:D736 (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

CNN reports he has resigned and he was quoted saying "“I intend to resign as party leader, as prime minister, after the party selects its new leader,” as long as it is mentioned he is remaining a caretaker till someone is chosen to replace him but he has resigned nonetheless https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/canada-justin-trudeau-resignation-01-06-25/index.html Ticketthedog (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The office of Prime Minister is not vacant. Also if youre going to use a news source about a Canadian topic, use a Canadian news source.

THE OFFICE IS NOT VACANT. THERE IS NO CARETAKER GOVERNMENT. The government has not fallen nor is it in an election THUS there is ZERO caretaker talk. 24.244.89.112 (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ticketthedog: IP is correct. If you take the time to read the CNN article, you can see that he has not stepped down yet (emphasis mine): Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced Monday he intends to step down as the country’s prime minister, leaving office once a new ruling party leader is chosen. ARandomName123 (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Understood thank you Ticketthedog (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: