Talk:Structure of the Canadian federal government

FAC-ITC Amalgamation
The Government of Canada has officially re-merged Foreign Affairs Canada and International Trade Canada into the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade/Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada (see here). This page will need to be changed to reflect that development. Escheffel 21:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

HRSDC/SDC Merged
HRSDC and SDC were merged in March 2006 to form Human Resources and Social Development (HRSD). The merge is explained vaguely here --Waterspyder 16:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Can-pol w.jpg
Image:Can-pol w.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, 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 fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia 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 criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Status of Men Canada
I don't understand why there's a ministry for "Status of Women Canada", but for some reason there is no "Status of Men Canada". If nowadays everyone is so worried about equality, why not have men on the list too. Its not equality having a women status ministry and not one for men. JoJaEpp (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Queen’s Privy Council for Canada
The Privy Council is missing from this page, this seems like an oversight since Cabinet members must be sworn in to this entity to do their work.

Also both the PCO and Treasury Board are technically and in some way originated from this entity. Pumpernickel &#38; Spinach Dip (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, and then the Cabinet office should be there as well. trackratte (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes but I think there is some confusion from the Crown heading because technically the PCO and Treasury Board are derived from the Privy Council but currently they’re listed as Departments which I believe isn’t technically true. Pumpernickel &#38; Spinach Dip (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Structure
Is this page about the structure of The Government or the Cabinet? I ask the question because there is no Department of National Revenue (the CRA and Taxpayer Ombudsman are technically standalone entities), further not every Minister corresponds to a Government Department, and some larger Departments have multiple ministers that take up the responsibilities of the Department. What I’m pointing to is that there are several examples when Departments or Subsidiary units are being made up to fit the description of a particular Minister.

Is there a better way of organizing the page to not just reflect the structure of the government, but also reflect the minister or ministers responsible for overseeing each department, agencies etc.?

One example look at the Australian equivalent of this page. Pumpernickel &#38; Spinach Dip (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say small and large G government which includes Government (corporate entity, ie civil service organizations) and Government (ministry and the executive) and government (system of governance), if at all possible. I like the idea of breaking it out into sections to make it much more intuitive and easier to simply click on a blue link in the table of contents vice having to scroll through a massive list. Notwithstanding any contrary well-reasoned opinions here on the Talk, I don't see why you can't restore much of your work to show us what it looks like and allow for editors to improve from there, and discuss as necessary. trackratte (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree it’s much easier to edit and find a specific area if the information is broken down into sections.

It could be by department, but the Standalone list could also be divided as well particular the Parliament of Canada and the Judicial Courts. Pumpernickel &#38; Spinach Dip (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What about with broad categories and sub cats like 1) Crown, 2) Civil service (with depts and other agencies as two separate sub categories, 3) Crown corporations 4) others (RCMP comes to mind as aren't civil svc or crown corp) 5) judiciary 6) military. I think that provides a neat division based on function, while preserving current departmental structures, etc. What do you think? trackratte (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Would this be for each department? For instance, we could have a broad heading like Agriculture with the Department and minister, then crown Corp. sub heading with agencies that are under that umbrella and if we get to entities like RCMP we use a subcategory like ... civil agencies and offices or something? Is that like what you mean? Pumpernickel &#38; Spinach Dip (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I prefer this structure --99.245.168.121 (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Why? Elaborate, what is it specifically about the current structure that you don’t like besides “it looks worse”? Pumpernickel &#38; Spinach Dip (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Should we not attempt to accurately and honestly reflect the structure as is exists in the real world? Again I know the current model isn’t perfect, but we shouldn’t impose or level out elements because they don’t fit neatly into the list format. Pumpernickel &#38; Spinach Dip (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know? I guess it just... creates more categories which I think are unnecessary? I'm more towards a simplified structure... if that makes sense. --99.245.168.121 (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Also why did you move the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP, Office of the Veterans Ombudsman, and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board from their respective departments to independent agencies? They're not independent. I added them after checking them from their respective department websites which they were listed on. And what's the point of putting another sub-military category? --99.245.168.121 (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/bt/index-en.aspx &https://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/about-vac/who-we-are/organization - applicable reference links for the appropriate listing --99.245.168.121 (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree partially,but if we simplify too much we can start to imply something that isn’t true. For instance, The Civilian Review Commission you mentioned isn’t apart or subsidiary to Public Safety and it is independent although it’s function is related to the department, it is separate. That’s just one example not of many, somethings there aren’t neat simply categories for every entity, and trust I would like their to be. Pumpernickel &#38; Spinach Dip (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Should the military be added to the National Defence Portfolio? Pumpernickel &#38; Spinach Dip (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The Canadian Forces is actually completely separate from the Department of National Defence (reference the note at the bottom of the page), so no I don't think so. Regarding the rest of your points, fine whatever. It's still kind of bothering me, but I'll get over it. >___<. --99.245.168.121 (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree re: Canadian Armed Forces.
 * I think it is useful to place most of the current categories as sub-categories. I.e. have Departments as a category, with all of the Departments and subsidiary agencies as sub-categories within it. (change added at mainspace to kick off).
 * I don't think that "partner agencies" is an accurate term here.
 * Since we have the heading of "Civil Service Departments" and then sub-categories by functional area (i.e. "Public Saftey"), I think the term "other agencies" is more appropriate (i.e. covers special operating agencies, subsidiary or supporting agencies or bodies, etc).  trackratte (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Is Review Bodies okay for those entities that have oversight responsibilities?


 * I’m not married to Partner Agencies, however going through the government websites some of them offer different and specific descriptions, for instance, Natural Resources Portfolio. I tried to use some of the categories they used. Also in Justice Portfolio I thought it important to distinguish that the one agency seems to be specifically under the Attorney General, even though the Minister is both of Justice and Attorney General. Pumpernickel &#38; Spinach Dip (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I personal prefer keeping the “portfolio” (not necessarily the term) distinction to separate them in order to make it simpler to edit. Pumpernickel &#38; Spinach Dip (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Review body and distinction for AG makes sense to me.
 * PMO shouldn't be within Civil Service or Crown categories as it's a partisan political office. Both the PMO and the PCO support the PM, but the former in their political capacity and the latter in their head of government capacity. trackratte (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, might be worth considering removing the ministers as often seems redundant (ie X Canada - Minister of X Canada) which a lot of times seems like the same thing repeated over and clutters the list. Especially as if you click on any of the entities, the "Minister Responsible" is right there in all of their article Infoboxes. trackratte (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with all of this. Pumpernickel &#38; Spinach Dip (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that the parliament section has been inadvertently removed. trackratte (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Returned. Pumpernickel &#38; Spinach Dip (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The Canadian Secretary to the Queen is now the Minister of Canadian Heritage, and this is in the Culture sections, so should we remove it from one or keep both? I’m not invested in either outcome. Pumpernickel &#38; Spinach Dip (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Canadian Secretary to the Queen is a separate position. Currently the Director, Machinery of Government in the PCO has been double hatted with both positions. It is still a separate office though. trackratte (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I’m going to added special operating agencies to the appropriate sections to differentiate them from Agencies.

Could we use Enforcement as a description for the appropriate Agencies? When it comes to Csis and Cse we could use intelligence Agencies (and the others I’m forgetting)? Pumpernickel &#38; Spinach Dip (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thats the trouble with these types of lists as CSE and CSIS (RCMP, CAF, CBSA have capabiyas well) are security agencies but are in different portfolio areas (defence and public safety in this case). You could list as a SOA (if they are), or as a security agency.
 * I like the more detailed divisions.(ie Crown Corps). I wonder if it's worth it to add depatarent sub-categories then to make it clear, as currently they're just kindof at the top without being clearly defined. trackratte (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

trackratte (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Most of the Department subcategories and offices are on their respective Wikipedia pages, we could make the actual department name the heading and then add a reference underneath to the departments article. The only thing is it breaks up the list format we’re using. Pumpernickel &#38; Spinach Dip (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I really want to avoid putting a link in the heading or subheadings. Pumpernickel &#38; Spinach Dip (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Should the Independent category be divided into Independent Agencies and Independent Review bodies? Pumpernickel &#38; Spinach Dip (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 2 February 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Structure of the Canadian federal government → Structure of the Canadian federal state – I'm making this a discussion since a similar move seemed to be controversial for another page. I think the predominant usage in Canada is that the exact expression "federal government" refers to the executive branch (and thus excluding the legislative branch, and the judicial branch even more so).


 * The Canadian Encyclopedia: "The federal government is the national government of Canada, centred in Ottawa. The term can refer narrowly to the Canadian Cabinet, or more broadly to the Cabinet and the public service."
 * The Canadian Style: "Short forms are normally written in lower case when used in a non-specific sense, when preceded by a possessive, demonstrative or other type of adjective, and when used adjectivally or in an adjectival form" —— speaking of the short form of the "Government of Canada", which certainly refers to the executive branch.
 * Britannica: "The prime minister is the head of the federal government and usually the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons that is able to maintain the confidence (or support) of Parliament."
 * "Get to know Canada": "The Prime Minister heads the federal government based in Ottawa."

And the expression "Canadian state" is well attested: " Under the Constitution, Canada has three branches of state. The executive branch (the Prime Minister or Premier and Cabinet) decides policy. The legislative branch (Parliament or legislatures) makes laws. The judiciary (the courts) interprets and applies laws. Each branch has a different role." (SCC Case in Brief)

 Kudu ~I/O~ 19:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * not supported. Title page is non capitalized, i.e. not the Government of Canada, but of the organization of federal governance in Canada."structure of the Canadian state" is not something in common usage. trackratte (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't think there is a problem, and if there is your solution is worse. First, the current title is easily interpreted as referring to the permanent parts of the federal government and not simply the folks currently in charge of it (the ministry). Yes, the latter is called the government, but I think the word "structure" is sufficient tip-off for what we mean here. Second, the proposed title sounds like it's about the structure of the federation (i.e., the provinces plus the federal government). Srnec (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I support the title change. It’s a more precise description of the information and links provided. Pumpernickel &#38; Spinach Dip (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)