Talk:28th Canadian Ministry

Canada: Governments / Politics High‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. 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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada.

Merging articles?

This list is also compiled on the Cabinet of Canada article. Perhaps this page should be merged with the the other article because of that ... on the other hand, this article goes more in depth over the selection of this cabinet and the controversy surrounding some of the cabinet appointments vs. the other article that gives a general overview of what a Cabinet in Canada is (ie: a "Stephen Harper" article vs. "Prime Minister of Canada" article). I'd like to put this proposal up for debate. Amchow78 02:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page should stay seperate because, as you said, the article goes into depth about the Emerson and Fortier appointments. Also since this is an ongoing news story there will certainly be much more to add to this page in the next weeks and months that would feel out of place on the Cabinet of Canada page. --M vopni 06:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page should stay separate, but be renamed, as this name is a little too informal. The Governor General's press release referred to it as the 28th ministry [1]. --142.242.2.248 14:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I like it - and I'd actually enjoy seeing articles about the various ministries in Canadian history (similar to the parliaments). I might do some work on such a series, but I don't have a heck of a lot of time to contribute. --Otter Escaping North 15:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The previous Parliaments of Canada and Congresses of the USA get articles, cabinets and their non-Canadian equivalents warrent articles as well.

Re: "28th ministry" - I've just created a "The 28th Canadian ministry" article as a redirect to "The Harper cabinet" article for now. If you want to move "The Harper cabinet" to "The 28th Canadian ministry", I'm in favour of it. Amchow78 22:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the redirect should go the other way because the 29th ministry could also be a Harper Cabinet if he gets re-elected. I know Chretien had two ministries in his reign as PM. --M vopni 05:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just created a redirect called "28th Ministry of Canada" if that sounds more appropriate than "28th Canadian Ministry" Amchow78 00:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see it seperate as to not delute the information about the surprise appointments, reactions and outcomes of the appointments.--Thax 18:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a new nth ministry was created during Chrétien's big cabinet shuffles, but it is possible for the 30th ministry to be a Harper cabinet: if Harper is replaced and he then makes a comeback and is appointed again. Also, the title of the article should not include "The". It should simply be "Harper cabinet" or "28th Canadian Ministry". Indefatigable 20:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The articles should not be merged. Not all members of the Ministry are necessarily members of the Cabinet. By way of example, the Rt. Hon. Jean Chrétien appointed several Ministers of State who, while members of the Ministry, were never made part of the Cabinet. They are two separate entities which, since they often share membership, are often erroneously referenced interchangeably. Paradokuso 22:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Issues

Was there actually a legal requirement for Emerson to switch parties and Fortier to get appointed to the senate in order to become a cabinet minister? I was under the impression that the prime minister could pretty much appoint anyone to cabinet without some kind of senate appointment loophole.

Speaking from a strictly constitutional standpoint, there's really no criteria at all for who may or may not be a member of cabinet. Then again, the constitution is completely silent about things like the executive branch of government (save the Queen and GG), parties, etc. Technically, Harper could have appointed Emerson to cabinet without requiring him to switch parties. Realisticly, though, Canadian political parties simply don't get along well enough that it would have been acceptable for a member of the official opposition to be a cabinet minister. My own personal bias would have preferred Emerson to sit as an independant. I doubt there's any precident for including an independant MP as a member of the cabinet, but I don't think it would have gone down any worse than the current situation.

As for Fortier, it's a matter of convention that all members of cabinet be parliamentarians. Generally, all cabinet ministers, with the exception of the Leader of the Government in the Senate of course, are expected to be members of the House of Commons. This is because the executive branch is accountable to the House. A new cabinet minister (or a new Prime Minister, for that matter) that is not already an MP is expected to run for a seat in a by-election to legitimize their position. Where regional representation is an issue, however, it's not unheard of for a senator to be appointed to cabinet. There are also a couple of cases where the Prime Minister ruled from the Senate. Both were over 100 years ago, though, and both came into power after the sudden death of the current Prime Minister. --68.146.186.92 01:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cabinet Capitalized?

Should Cabinet not be capitalized in the title since it is the proper title of a group? --M vopni 03:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Forgot to sign this.Jeremicus rex 18:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title

The title of this article seems to be a bit PoV. Would it not make more sense to call it "The 28th Canadian cabinet" or "28th Cabinet of Canada"? -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 03:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the GG's press release calls it the 28th ministry [2]. So it would be less POV if were to go by convention, and not by who lead it. It makes it sound too American like (the Bush Administration, the Regan Administration, the Harper Cabinet). It would be better to keep the PM's name out of it. I'll set up a poll here. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 17:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The Harper cabinet → 28th Canadian Ministry — Per the above reasoning. The GG's press release also calls it the 28th ministry. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Support as the proposer. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose. I would be happier with 28th Canadian Cabinet. Deet 11:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Changing my vote to 28th Canadian Ministry per Arctic.gnome Deet 23:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Change to 28th Canadian Cabinet.. Ministry sounds like its something religious. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 17:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support change as proposed and oppose amendment to move to "28th Canadian Cabinet". The PCO uses the term "28th Ministry", so keeping in line with official titles, we should use either 28th Canadian Ministry or 28th Ministry of Canada. --Arctic Gnome 00:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To 28th Canadian Ministry/28th Ministry of Canada

Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

To clarify, I've split it up into the two options for supporting. This way it'll be an easier survay to read. I still support 28th Canadian Ministry. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ya on second thought, let's stick with the official naming... 28th Canadian Ministry. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 04:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support this option; agree that the current name isn't really appropriate. Bearcat 02:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To 28th Canadian Cabinet

Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Opening sentence

If we are changing "cabinet of Prime Minister Harper" to something like "cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Harper", we should choose a phrase that works for historical ministries too. A sentence like "The Second Canadian Ministry was the cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Alexander Mackenzie" sounds a bit off to me. What do others think? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cabinet, a part of the ministry, is chaired by the PM, but it doesn't really belong to him, per say, as though the ministers in the ministry are meant to minister the prime minister. Technically the cabinet belongs to the sovereign or viceroy whom they minister, but "cabinet of Governor General Michaelle Jean," I figured, would just be too confusing. Perhaps it's not, but I thought "the cabinet chaired by Prime Minster Stephen Harper" didn't confuse and isn't inaccurate. --G2bambino 00:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's better than anything I can think of for this article. Do you think we should use the same wording for all of the articles on historical ministries? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the historical articles, but I don't see why the wording shouldn't be similar. --G2bambino 16:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal - repurpose

Further information: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Government of Canada#Proposal to standarize coverage of PMs

An image on this page may be deleted

This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image File:20060206 cab01.jpg, found on 28th Canadian Ministry, has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact this bot's operator. STBotI (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

I think this article should be named the Harper Government because that how it referred to in the news and to me, it makes more sense. Ministry sounds religious or to formal. It's the 21st century. We should change it. We could at least change it to The 28th Cabinet. I just think it should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.14.105 (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be looking for Premiership of Stephen Harper if you want to read more about him and his policies while in government. The name "28th Ministry" is the official name that the organization calls itself, even if it is a bit religious or formal. Changing it would be a contest of official name vs. common name. The naming convention is vague enough to let us go either way. I personally prefer this name, though we should probably have the name "Harper government" in bold in the first line. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]