This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofCanada articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofpolitics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Appropriateness of the Government of Canada wordmark
It's not appropriate to use the Government of Canada wordmark here. The wordmark identifies communications to the Canadian people from the federal Government of Canada--that's what Canadians identify the wordmark with. Not the Provinces, not the Parliament, not the Provincial Legislatures or the Crown in Right of the Provinces, not the Liberals and the NDP or even the currently-ruling Tories--but the federal government solely.
Using the Government of Canada wordmark here implies and suggests that the only participant in the politics and government of Canada is the Government of Canada. This is very misleading, as it suggests that any player in Canadan politics that is not the Government of Canada is not relevant--which is outrageously untrue. To the extent that there are Wikipedians who find the Royal Arms of Canada--which appears on the cover of Canadian passports identifying individual citizens of Canada, so I cannot fathom why anyone would find it distasteful for this series of articles, I suggest using the regular Arms of Canada without the St. Edward's Crown and without the other elements of the Royal Arms of Canada-even though that is the most widespread and authoritative heraldic symbol of the Canadian state. It's esoteric enough to put the point across as to the authoritativeness of this series of articles, yet has validity to identify the heraldry of the Crown--which is the Canadian state and which, in the final analysis, derives its authority from the Canadian people. Not that the Royal Arms doesn't symbolize that too, but there seems to be some sort of ridiculous and ultimately-inapplicable issue with the status quo and a recognition that the Constitutional order and rule of law prevail in Canadian politics.Paul63243 (talk)17:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The royal arms don't have anything to do with the provinces, the provincial legislatures, or the Crown in right of any province, either. Nor, for that matter, come to think of it, does the national flag.
We cant use the Arms of Canada here as its copyrighted. BUT...Should we not be usingthis version...as its the one on documents and the one seen in The Canadian House of Commons? --Moxy (talk)02:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that heraldic badge represents only the House of Commons rather than the government as a whole. It doesn't even represent the whole parliament which uses a different one.Graham (talk)20:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. And symbols of the House of Commons, Senate, parliament itself, the royal arms (and the shield thereof, which is what's being used now), and even the national flag are all federal, whereas, as Paul pointed out, this navbox covers federaland provincial government/politics. --ĦMIESIANIACAL21:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To add to Miesianiacal's reply, the flag symbolises the Canadian nation (people/culture) and perhaps the country (geography), but not the state (legal entity). Since the machinery of governance and the political system form part of the state, it is the state and not the nation that is supposed to be represented here, which is why all of the other sidebars use their respective coats of arms (to represent their state), and not their national flags (which represents their nation). The problem is that in Canada, the Arms are copyrighted, so cannot be used here. That being said, the Crown itself (located at the uppermost portion of the arms) is a PD element of the arms and can be freely used here. As the Crown represents the sovereign (and the sovereign, legally speaking,is the state) in the same way as the complete arms, we then have a symbol in the Crown which represents the "politics and government of Canada" and can be freely used on the template.trackratte (talk)04:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coats of arms in general are not copyrighted: they are simply defined by ablazon. A heraldist can have their own interpretation of the blazon and so draw the arms arcondingly: such a design is a work of art and can be copyrighted.
Ben, the fact that a rendition is "heraldically" correct is kind of a strawman arguemnt or not really relevant when it comes to state or national symbols. The Canadian Flag for example, follows a blazon that only says "Gules on a Canadian pale Argent a maple leaf Gules", which essentially amounts to a red maple leaf on a white background with two red bars. So, a flag depicting a 3-point stylized maple leaf would also be "heraldically correct", but it would not be the Canadian Flag. I would take issue with a "heraldically correct" rendition of the arms in the same way I would take offence to a "heraldically correct" rendition of the flag which is clearly not the Flag of Canada.trackratte (talk)16:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevent because it is the way heraldry works. It seems difficult to say that these coat of arms is not the coat of arms of Canada, even if the design is not the one currently in used (and which has changed through the time…).
For example, thisflag rendition would be heraldically correct, but it is not the Canadian Flag, and an encyclopedia shouldn't be purporting that it is. Heraldry has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Canada has adopted certain symbols (designs) to represent the state or the nation, whether or not a user-generated interpretive design meets the rules of heraldry is a strawman argument. And the arms you show have been routinely rejected by consensus on pages such as the Canada wiki page.trackratte (talk)17:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The flag and COA are very specific designs, where there is only ever one "real" state or national design at any given time. Taking a symbolic element, such as a broken chain to represent freedom, a maple leaf to represent Canada, or a single crown to represent authority, is not an official state design, but a nearly universal symbol representing a given meaning. We could depict a "natural style" maple leaf instead of the 11-point national design, and it would on its own represent Canada. But taking this same maple leaf and placing it on the flag instead of the official 11-point leaf, you no longer have a simple maple leaf, and you don't have the Canadian Flag, you have an individual interpretive flag, which when placed on an encyclopedia is unnecessarily misleading, or worse could be offensive to many readers when an encyclopedia of knowledge is showing their national or state symbols "wrongly". While I completely realise that this is not how heraldry works, this is not a discussion about heraldry, but about very specific state designs. It would be akin to taking a written description of a corporate logo (such as an apple for Apple) and using it in making an interpretive design, and then saying it is equally valid as the real one based on heraldic principles. Most people would say thatthis apple logo when placed on a phone would not be considered an iphone, but a cheap knockoff, and no one would care whether or not the logo were "heraldically correct" or not, it's simply not the right specific design for the actual Apple logo. The same reasoning applies to a state logo or any other symbol. Which is why they are sorigidly controlled, or whyCanadian law states "No person shall adopt ... any mark consisting of, or so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for, (a) the Royal Arms, Crest or Standard; (b) the arms or crest of any member of the Royal Family; ... (e) the arms, crest or flag adopted and used at any time by Canada or by any province or municipal corporation in Canada ..." I hope that clears up a bit of the reason behind why that specific design has not been accepted on the Canada page amongst others.trackratte (talk)01:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No to fake coat of arms....a national symbol should never be misrepresented. Its to bad other pages have them I guess national symbols dont mean as much to those editing other articles. Our goal here is to have proper info and symbols ...not to have non offical versions passing off as if they are real just to have the image. Just one of the down falls when dealing with many editors...some dont get the point of an encyclopaedia....that is to convey proper info...not original art work.--Moxy (talk)21:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Trackratte andMoxy: Then, why did you choose to use that heraldic depiction of the crown? It is no more an official design than the coat of arms you rejected (and I'm not aware the crown alone is ever used to represent Canada outside of Wikipedia…) --Superbenjamin (talk)21:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While a single maple leaf, of any design, can be used to represent Canada as a nation, in this case the depiction of the Crown is being used to represent the Crown, and all that that entails constitutionally.trackratte (talk)01:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand how you can refuse a design af the coat of arms because it is not official, but use a heraldic design of the crown taken from… the very same design you refuse. It makes no sense. --Superbenjamin (talk)05:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the same way that you can use a rounded 32-point maple leaf to represent Canada, but that same maple leaf on a white background with two red bars would be an inappropriate rendition of the Canadian flag for the world's leading encyclopedia of knowledge. Using a Crown to represent the Crown doesn't take a specific design, but to avoid "butchering" Canada's personal coat of arms does. In any event, this topic is supposed to be about the Government of Canada wordmark, and not about the Crown.trackratte (talk)03:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Superbenjamin, the crown isn't at all intended to "represent Canada". It represents--or, at least aligns with--the subject of the politics and government of Canada, including the federal and provincial spheres, all of which use the crown as symbol of the authority in their respective jurisdiction. As such, the arms aren't even the most appropriate image, since they are the arms of the federal crown, only. --ĦMIESIANIACAL18:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're still being incoherent:
With yourself: you refused a design because it is not in official use then prefer another… that is not in official use either (and is never used alone by any jurisdiction, by the way)
With any other similar template on Wikidia (all of them use the national coat of arms)
Re: TheCrown of St. Edward appears at the top of the navbar. Some argue this is correct because (basically) the government of Canada still technically exists at the discretion of the monarch of the UK. Others argue for use of the Canadian flag instead, since it is obviously more easily recognizable as "Canadian" than the Crown.
I seePolitics of Australia uses their Coat of Arms instead of the Crown of St. Edward.
We could have both (combined into a single graphic file for ease of use): Crown or Coat of Arms first, then Canadian flag either below or to the right of the Crown. Below would be more legally/historically/technically correct, but to the right would be more realistic of the current de facto near total independence of Canada from the Crown and thus elevation of the country symbol to as high as the Crown, but still deferring to the historical precedence and legal position of the Crown in Canada.Facts707 (talk)10:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, no one is arguing that the government of Canada exists at the discretion of a foreign power, as that is obviously not true, and is an ignorant and insulting comment.
Second, this template is not about the Government of Canada, but is inclusive of all provincial and municipal governments, none of which have the Royal Arms of Canada or the maple leaf as their provincial or municipal symbols. However, the federal, provincial, and many municipal institutions all have the Crown as part of their symbols, and it is thus an inclusive symbol representing every level of the Canadian political system.
Third, the maple leaf is a symbol of Canadian nationality, not of the state. As this template is not about nationality, it was determined not to be the most suitable symbol.trackratte (talk)23:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Trackratte, I'll reply to your comments with your numbering:
Firstly, the Government of Canada, including the Parliament (House and Senate), the Legislatures of the provinces (all of them), the Prime Minister, the Premiers of all the provinces, the Governor-General of Canada, and the Lt. Governors of all the provinces DO INDEED serve at the discretion of a "foreign" power, who is the Queen of Canada (right now, HRH QE II). I guess you could argue Elizabeth is not "foreign" since Canada's government is legally under her control. Canada is a constitutional monarchy and while Elizabeth is very unlikely to dissolve Parliament, refuse Royal assent to a passed bill, etc. on her own accord, she is entirely empowered to do so and a future monarch may very well use his or her powers more directly. I am also quite perturbed that you construed my remarks as "ignorant and insulting" - clearly my tone and intent here is that of open and well-intentioned debate, not to insult or make ignorant comments. I assume and hope that you have merely misinterpreted my remarks and perhaps I could make a better effort to repostulate them for you if after re-reading my posts here you stand by your comments.
Secondly, this template is the "Politics of Canada", not "Politics of Canada and all its provinces and all its territories and all its municipal governments, etc." Please note that we are talkingpolitics here, we are not designing the logo of some new government agency or sovereign state, etc. Clearly, the politics of any province or municipality in Canada would not be misrepresented by having our national flag in an infobox. Are you suggesting we also remove the Canadian flag from the grounds of all the provincial legislatures, etc.?
Thirdly, stating that the Canadian flag is "a symbol of Canadian nationality, not of the state" is incorrect. The Canadian flag is indeed very much a symbol of the state (state=country here), the most recognized in Canada and around the world, and heavily used by at least the federal government in Canada. It is the same in the UK, US, and around the world. Anational flag "is a flag that symbolises a country. The flag is flown by the government, but usually can also be flown by citizens of the country."
In conclusion, there is nothing whatsoever improper or incorrect in using a national flag as a symbol when discussing the politics of a country. I'm not even endorsing the national flag to be used, but we should consider it or some variant of it or in combination with some other icon(s) and we should be able to have a healthy normal debate on the subject.Facts707 (talk)04:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with the statement that the Coat of Arms contains nothing representing the provinces and cities and other subdivisions. While strictly true in a literal interpretation, the Coat of Arms of Canada both symbolises all of Canada as a united nation and is the Coat of Arms of Her Majesty The Queen which is the embodiment and faunt of all power and unity in Canada. Per my proposal below, I think that having some form of the national arms would not only be more in line with other national templates, but be more ideal than either just the crown or the national flag.Fry1989eh?15:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Facts, the UK has nothing to do with this discussion, and your argument thatCanada is foreign to itself is nonsensical. Your insistence that Canada is not a sovereign and independent country robs you of a great deal of credibility on the issue.
State does not equal country. A country is a geographic entity. A nation is a group of people. A state is a political entity. TheNational Flag of Canada is precisely that, a national flag, and represents Canada as a nation (group of people). Canada'sstate flag takes precedence over the national flag on all occasions.
The coat of arms in Canada at least, are personal to the Queen as the human embodiment of the state (the Queen and Canada are legally one and the same thing). Subsequently, her personal arms are not a symbol the nation (the Canadian people), but a symbol of state (the Canadian Queen). The Canadian flag, as a national symbol, symbolizes the nation of Canada. A source of confusion for many people centres on the conflation of country, state, and nation as one and the same thing, when they are in fact three separate and distinct concepts.trackratte (talk)16:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll just agree to disagree with you here. You raise some very fine points that appear to be a bit confusing to the average WP reader, if not a history and constitutional scholar. You insist "Canada is a sovereign and independent country" and berate me for suggesting otherwise (at least legally/vestigially historically), but then you say "the Queen and Canada are legally one and the same thing". Cheers,Facts707 (talk)03:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Facts, I'm sorry I do not see the contradiction between the 'Canadian Queen and state being legally one and the same thing', and 'Canada being a sovereign and independent country'. They are both well referenced statements.trackratte (talk)01:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Might I make a compromise suggestion for the image in the infobox? Normally we would use a country's coat of arms, but for technical reasons we can't. The crown, while acceptable, is not distinctly Canadian by itself. The flag also is not preferable. How about we useFile:Royal Shield of arms of Canada.svg?Fry1989eh?17:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's solely federal. The scope of this navbox is federal and provincial. While the crown isn't distinctly Canadian, it is used as a symbol of governmental authority in every jurisdiction of the country. --ĦMIESIANIACAL18:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure I understand. It is the Coat of Arms of Canada, minus the supporters and other elements. You could make the same argument thatFile:Coat of arms of Canada.svg is solely federal as well, but that is the image we would be using if it was free and not under NFCC rules.Fry1989eh?18:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Arms of Canada represent the Canadian state. The personal arms of the Queen in right of respective provinces represent those specific provinces as political entities. I think the whole argument that other countries' pages use their state arms is irrelevant, as most other countries have unitary state apparatuses, which Canada does not. Secondly, many other countries do not have the same political system as Canada, so it would make sense that how the political system is symbolically represented would differ between countries' templates as well.
I think the Crown is the most fitting as it represents all of the relevant political entities within Canada at all levels. I acknowledge that the fact that it is not a symbol unique to Canada could be an issue with some, but there is nothing stopping us from adapting it to suit our needs here a little better, such as placing the Crown on a maple leaf tartan background, or having the crown with a wreath under it or around it like was done for the Diamond Jubilee.
The Canadian "state" as you call it, and the Queen, are one and the same in the Canadian context. The Queen embodies the nation. Her Arms represent the country just as much as the flag does. The issue is not simply "all other templates do this so we should too", or "I don't like the crown", the issue is multi-faceted. The Royal Arms of Canada/Royal Arms of The Queen (one and the same) represent our united nation, that is simply fact whether or not there is representation for the provinces as in the coat of arms of Australia for its states. There is an Crown in Right of each province but not in the same sense as federally. There is no "Queen of Ontario", just "Queen of Canada". IfFile:Coat of arms of Canada.svg was a free image, would we surely not use it?File:Royal Shield of arms of Canada.svg is the closest we're going to get, and there is precendent for the image. It was used on the GG's flag for many years, and is carved into the Speaker's Chair in the Senate Throne (mind you with the helm, compartment and crest, but missing the supporters).Fry1989eh?18:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank youFry1989 for you effort toward a compromise. I'm not going to repeat what I said before about the uselessness of using the crown and the incoherences of using it while refusing other more official and more recognisable images.
But if I may say something: this debate is turning to bereally ridiculous. The principle of the infobox is to use the coat of arms of a country to offer an easily recognisable pictural representation for that country, not to engage in arcane (and not always well documented) constitutional debates.
Canada is not the only federation in the world and in other infoboxes the national coat of arms is used…naturally. Now we have here people saying that the coat of arms of Canada does not actually represent Canada. Well… --Superbenjamin (talk)20:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The principle of the infobox is to use the coat of arms of a country..." Er, no, it's not. That's as nonsensical as the claim anyone here has said the Canadian coat of arms don't represent Canada. Do you have any more red herrings?
The arms of Canada represent the authority of the Crown in the federal jurisdiction. That's it. They have no relevance to any provincial or municipal order of governance. So, if you wish to use the arms of Canada appropriately in this navbox, you'll have to also argue that the content of the navbox be reduced to just that which is of relevance to federal government and politics in Canada. If other navboxes misuse federal arms,that's a problem for there, not here.
One more thing: the "official" rendition of the Canadian arms are not free of copyright. So, if you want to use an image of the Canadian arms, you'll have to use a variant; fair use won't apply to a navbox.If you use that variant, be prepared to fight another battle with the editors who think no variant--only the "official" version--should ever be used on Wikipedia. --ĦMIESIANIACAL16:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the sentiment, but do not see how using a part of the Arms of Canada is any different, symbolically, than using the whole thing, ie it represents only the Federal aspects of the Crown. As for the strawman that has been thrown out about 'The Canadian Arms not representing Canada', no one has said that, so I don't see why that's been brought up over and over again. It's unfortunate that there is no heraldic "maple crown" ha.trackratte (talk)00:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's always this:File:Crown-leaf.jpg. It's only partly official, but, it at least is Canadian while having no bias toward any part of Confederation.
In that case, I suppose each province has their own flower/leaf/tree type symbol as well, I'm not too sure how far we wish to go in that regard. However, looking at the template the wordCanada is quite clearly above the Crown, with "This article is part of a series on the politics and government of Canada" being immediately below. So, the symbol is starkly depicted as being in relation to all levels of politics within Canada, and not any other country, so I can't see how any reader could possibly be confused as to what the template is speaking to.trackratte (talk)16:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fry, the shield represents the English, Scottish, Irish, and French nations united into one Canadian nation under the Crown. Yes, it represents the entire Canadian nation, but the template isn't about nationality, and so the shield fails to incorporate the provincial and municipal levels of political authority. The crown itself very clearly represents state authority at all levels throughout the country. The crux of the argument against the St Edward Crown, as I understand it, is that it is not uniquely Canadian (although the wordCanada and "This article is part of a series on the politics and government of Canada" makes things abundantly clear), so I think having a unique Canadian crown would alleviate this concern, particularly as it has now been in official heraldic use for quite some time. That being said, I still prefer the St Edward's crown, as it is this crown which is depicted at federal, provincial, and municipal levels, and all crown organizations, however it does offer a compromise in that it depicts the crown as the fount of all political state authority while being a uniquely Canadian symbol.trackratte (talk)15:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The coat of arms of Canada are both (A) the coat of arms of the country and (B) the personal coat of arms of the Sovereign from which all legal authority and justice and other matters come. You are treating the coat of arms as if they are only A but not B. It's a very bizarre literal interpretation of the heraldic symbols inside the shield piece by piece instead of what the entire arms in their arrangement together symbolise, that you are using here to keep them off the template. It makes no sense to me.Fry1989eh?01:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fry, the coat of arms represent the state/sovereign as they are legally one and the same. Canada is not a unitary nation-state, so the sovereign has different capacities in different realms of political authority, and these state authorities are made manifest in various state symbols, ie the Queen of Canada in right of 10 different provinces (as Mies points out), as well as the federation as a whole. It would be symbolically inappropriate to employ just one of these 11 state symbols to encompass all levels of politic activity ("the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area") within Canada. However, once again, the common element throughout these various state symbols is the Crown itself as this symbolizes the political authority of the state (sovereign) at all levels and in all capacities. Subsequently, it is this root symbol which is all-inclusive in graphically representing the topic being discussed, and most appropriate to the template. I think what is left to decide is do we continue to employ the St-Edward's Crown by itself, the Crown with maple leaves as per Mies suggestion, or the Canadian diadem. As for reasons already outlined, I believe the second choice to be the most suitable.trackratte (talk)00:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given trackratte's approval for the lieutenant governors' emblem on the loyal address and no expressed objections to same, I've altered the image toFile:Can-Crown.png. It uses the wreath of maple leaves fromPrince Charles' Canadian banner rather than the one in the loyal address, since the latter contains 10 leaves, one for each province, and we don't want the image to be exclusive of the federal jurisdiction. I'm not sure how the Canadian Heraldic Authority settled on 24 leaves for the wreath on Charles' flag, but, it is also on Anne's, Andrew's, and Edward's flags. (Curiously,Prince William's flag has exactly half the number of leaves...)
The template uses the term "King-in-Parliament" to describe the legislative branch of government, which is not correct. The legislative branch is theParliament of Canada, consisting of the King, the Senate, and the House of Commons. "King-in-Parliament" describes the role of the Crown in the legislative branch, but is not the legislative branch itself.
The term "King on the Bench" is a relatively obscure way of describing the judicial branch of government. I'm not sure why it is given such prominence in this template.--Trystan (talk)04:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Those two phrases are the correct and recognised terms within the body of knowledge representing the subject as can be seen in the Wiki articles that they are blue-linked to. 2nd, they represent an extremely long-standing consensus. 3rd, they are portrayed or explained using those terms within Wiki articles themselves. 4th, they add to consistency by using the same constitutional terminology and framework for all three spheres (council, parliament, and the bench).
As an aside, there is no strict division of powers in the Canadian constitutional framework like there is in, for example, the United States. Members of the executive (prime minister, cabinet members) are almost always also members of the legislative as well (the House of Commons and/or the Senate). Formerly, the Solicitor General of Canada has a role to play in the judicial system, but was also a member of Cabinet (executive) as well as the Senate or Commons (legislative). And of course, the Sovereign also permeates all three as all three branches execute their functions under their authority and in their name.trackratte (talk)01:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it is difficult to overstate the role of the Crown in Canada's system of government, but somehow we have managed it. Describing the legislative branch as being just the King-in-Parliament is just plain wrong, and has been wrong in the Westminster parliamentary tradition sinceCharles I got his head chopped off. The legislative branch is the whole institution of Parliament, of which the King is one part.
The phrase "King on the Bench" does indeed occur in theCourt system of Canada article, in the section on court customs and symbols. The best available citation appears to be page 17 of an out-of-print government pamphlet. The claim that it isthe term to describe the judicial branch, over simply "Court system of Canada", is entirely unsupportable with even the most cursory review of available sources.--Trystan (talk)03:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you make the logical jump from using the appropriate term to somehow meaning that Wikipedia is describing the legislative system as simply the King (in parliament). From that Wiki article: "King-in-parliament ... is a constitutional law concept used within Commonwealth realms that refers to the Crown in its legislative role, acting with the advice and consent of the parliament (including, if the parliament is bicameral, both the lower house and upper house). Bills passed by the houses are sent to the sovereign or their representative (such as the or governor-general, lieutenant-governor, or governor), for royal assent in order to enact them into laws as Acts of parliament."
Or, in other words, the role of the legislative system is, as its output, to create laws. In a Westminster system, the only way to create legislative law is through Royal Assent. Subsequently, the formal constitutional term denotes that laws are created by the King in Parliament.
Finally, personal opinion is fine, but that the term exists and what it means in Canadian constitutional politics and law is a concrete fact. As is the fact that it has been used and has had wide-ranging consensus within this Encyclopedia for an extremely long time (14 years for this particular template under discussion). Subsequently, according to the editorial norms of Wikipedia, it would generally take something extra-ordinary to overturn a 14-year long standing consensus. This is not only for reasons of stability, but also a reflection that potentially hundreds or thousands of editors would have explicitly or implicitly endorsed a particular item given the number of views on an article, or in this case a template which spans a great many articles, and therefore that this stable consensus over a decade and a half by thousands of editors should not be able to be easily overturned on the whims of one or perhaps several editors.trackratte (talk)17:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accepting that "King in Parliament" refers to the entirety of Parliament, including both houses, and not solely to the role of the King as one component of Parliament, the phrase is still not how the legislative branch of Canada is most commonly described in reliable sources, which is simply asParliament:
Justice Canada - The Canadian Constitution:Parliament is the legislative branch of the federal government. Parliament consists of the Queen (who is usually represented by the Governor General), the Senate and the House of Commons.
Constitution Act, 1867:IV. Legislative Power - Constitution of Parliament of Canada - 17 There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons.
Where "King in Parliament" is used in a Canadian context, it often referring to the British Parliament specifically, with contrasting language to refer to the Parliament of Canada. (Possibly becauseParliament of Canada is explicitly defined in the Constitution as being inclusive of the King.)
Describing the judicial branch as being “the King on the Bench” is even more obscure; reliable sources overwhelmingly describe Canada’s judicial branch as simply consisting of theCourt system of Canada.
Your claim that “something extraordinary” would be required to change this wording is not consistent withWP:CONSENSUS, particularly given that this issue has not been previously discussed. An implicit consensus is the weakest form of consensus, even if longstanding. Even if there were an explicit consensus for the wording (which there does not appear to be), consensus can change, and a new consensus, achieved through ordinary discussion, would supplant it.--Trystan (talk)01:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are not talking about naming a title for a Wikipedia article, so COMMON NAME doesn't apply. We are talking about a specific term within Westminister constitutional law and politics, which have their own Wikipedia articles themselves, so their existence or what they mean is not up to dispute in this case (I don't think we are arguing on that point).
No one is saying that Parliament only consists of the Sovereign, so I don't know why you are pressing on that point as it's a strawman.
Beyond the Wikipedia article, the Parliament of Canada itself ([1]) provides a description and infographic showing that legislated Bills only become Laws (i.e. the purpose of the legislature) when given Royal Assent by the monarch or their representative, which is to say it is the House of Commons and the Senate that create and debate bills, but only the King can create laws, and so, laws are created (the output of the legislative process) by the "King in Parliament", which is why that that term is the most accurate and correct term when it comes to the subject of Canadian constitutional law and politics.trackratte (talk)16:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles should be reflective of the language used in the body of reliable sources. The sources overwhelmingly describe Canada's legislative branch as Parliament and judicial branch as the consisting of the courts. We should follow the sources, and not substitute language we prefer cherrypicked from a tiny minority of sources (nor give more weight to the terminology used for the UK Parliament as distinct from the Canadian one). It's not aWP:COMMONNAME issue, it's one ofWP:NPOV andWP:OR.
At any rate, it's clear we won't come to a consensus on this, and no one else has jumped in, so I will leave it for now.--Trystan (talk)13:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so then your proposal would be to change the heading from "Legislative" to "Parliament". The term linking readers to the Constitutional concept isin parenthesis as a supplement to provide readers with ready access to a deeper understanding of the fundamental or core concept. It is not the title or heading in the table itself, nor does it purport to.trackratte (talk)11:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest taking "King-in-Parliament", "King-in-Council" and "King-on-the-bench" out entirely, and just use the well-established terms "Executive", "Legislative" and "Judicial". These "King-in" terms are fundamentally misleading in modern Canadian constitutional law and politics, because they overstate the role of the monarch. The average reader may think that the king has a more active role in the daily politics of the country, and in the court system, than is the case. I don't think it's helpful to do call-backs to old British constitutional history to justify including them here, as a template about modernCanadian politics.
The starting point has to be the Constitution of Canada, not old British history. The terms are not used in the Constitution of Canada. TheConstitution Act, 1867 uses the terms "Executive Power" (Part III), "Legislative Power" (Part IV), and "Judicature" (Part VII).
The legislative branch is defined as "Parliament" by s. 17, not the "King in Parliament". Emphasising the king as a component of the Parliament is misleading, in my opinion, as it does not reflect modern constitutional reality. The House of Commons is by far the most important part of the legislative branch, and mentioning the king ignores that political and constitutional reality.
The king is the formal head of the executive (s. 9), but the executive branch is much broader than the King-in-council. By statute, executive functions can be given to the Governor-in-Council, and the King has no legal role in the exercise of those statutory powers. Statutes can also give powers to individual ministers, or agencies, boards and commissions, all acting within the executive, but with absolutely no role for the king. It's also a misleading term, as it suggests that the king is involved in the meetings of the Privy Council. There's only been one occasion when the monarch met formally with the Privy Council and exercised her powers: back in Diefenbaker's time. We shouldn't use terms that are confusing to the average reader and overstate the formal constitutional function of the monarch, making it sound like the monarch is actively involved in the government of Canada.
The king has no role in the courts, other than the function of appointing judges (s. 96). Here I will rely on ancient English history: in theCase of Prohibitions in 1607, Chief Justice Coke held that the King can no longer sit on the bench. Only judges can determine contested points of law. Again, in my view it is fundamentally misleading to suggest that the king has any real role in the court system. I don't think we should have any suggestion that the king is involved in deciding court cases; the monarch lost that power 400 years ago, and it would not be consistent with the rule of law to give that kind of power to the king. We should not be suggesting it in the infobox. I also note that the link given simply links to theCourt system of Canada, with no discussion of the concept of the "king-on-the-bench". Why link to an article that doesn't even use the term? That's pretty Easter-Eggy.
Unless someone can come up with cites, to modernCanadian usage of these terms, in law texts, political science texts, court cases, or the governments themselves, I think all three terms should be deleted, as fundamentally inaccurate and misleading for the average reader.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk)16:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree, especially about pipingCourt system of Canada being anWP:EGG. (There is a very brief discussion at the target article, but not one that justifies obfuscating the target article title.) I would add that there are a handful of citations out there using these terms in a modern Canadian context (often to make a specific contextual point), but overwhelmingly, these terms are not how reliable sources describe the branches of government. There are entire foundational constitutional texts that don't use them, and no reason why this template would favour relatively obscure characterizations over the overwhelmingly dominant terminology, especially when the latter matches the actual constitutional langauge.--Trystan (talk)17:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I edited that passage in the Court system article. I removed the completely inaccurate statement that the courts derive their authority from the monarch, and did a light copyedit on the rest of that passage.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk)03:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
.svg){kind=link}
