Talk:Monarchy of Canada

De jure and de facto heads of state

Looking at the history of this article I see that at one time it referred to the Queen as the de jure head of state and the governor general as the de facto head of state. At some point this was removed. I have found two solid references - the Commonwealth of Nations website, which refers to the GG of Canada as the de facto head of state[1] a BBC News article referring to the late Queen as the de jure head of state[2] Wellington Bay (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Please, no. "De jure" and "de facto" are Latin terms (strike one); which have no defined meaning in Canadian constitutional law in relation to the Gov Gen (strike two); and in some cases mean an illegitimate arrangement, not sanctioned by law (strike three). See, for example, the entry in the De facto article under "Governance and sovereignty":

"A de facto government is a government wherein all the attributes of sovereignty have, by usurpation, been transferred from those who had been legally invested with them to others, who, sustained by a power above the forms of law, claim to act and do really act in their stead."

Is that what you are referring to if you suggest that the Gov Gen is a "de facto" head of state?

I do not think that either of those sites counts as a "solid" summary for the purposes of Canadian constitutional law. Unless you have something from a Canadian constitutional law or poli sci text, I strongly suggest we not use such confusing terminology. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you can make your objection to the Commonwealth of Nations since that's the language used on their website?[3] Or do you believe the Commonwealth of Nations is not a reliable source when it comes to Commonwealth realms? Wellington Bay (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Not for Canadian constitutional law, no.

I should add that there is a use of "de facto" in Canadian constitutional law, meaning someone who is holding an office in good faith but with some flaw in their appointment that no-one is aware of. When the flaw comes to light, the past actions of the de facto officer are nonetheless valid, but from that point on the de facto officer must cease to exercise the authority of the office. Best case on point is Reference Re Manitoba Language Rights. But that is not the case with the Gov Gen, an office created by law under the Constitution Act, 1867, whose powers are defined by law, and who are validly appointed. We should not be using a term which indicates an invalid appointment and lack of authority.

Since that is the meaning of "de facto", as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada, that governs, not a website from out of the country. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Let me flip the question around. If you add "de facto", what do you mean by it? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

See also The Efficient and Dignified Roles of the Crown in Canadian Foreign Policy by Richard Berthelsen and Philippe Lagassé (who is a recognized constitutional scholar and expert on the monarchy), which says in regards to the GG making foreign visits: "Visits which are undertaken benefit from the rank of the governor general as the de facto head of state in the international context."[4]. To answer your question what I mean by it is irrelevant, the point is these are terms used by reliable sources, including in this case by a constitutional scholar who is a recognized authority on the monarchy and is already quoted in our article. Wellington Bay (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

"I should add that there is a use of "de facto" in Canadian constitutional law, meaning someone who is holding an office in good faith but with some flaw in their appointment that no-one is aware of." You're thinking of the "de facto officer doctrine"[5]. The term de facto itself means "Existing as a matter of fact rather than of right."[6] or simply "in fact"."[7] Wellington Bay (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The first sources states "... functions as the de facto...", which is two degrees of separation in one. And somewhat similarly, the second one scarequotes de facto. I don't think we should state that in wikivoice in any strengthened form, and I think it's better to state the facts as they are in terms, rather than using rather vague but fancy-sounding terms to characterise them. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

This article doesn't say the King "is the de jure head of state" or the GG "is the de facto head of state", it says the offices "have been described as" de facto or de jure, which is factual and sourced and more sources can be provided if necessary. Wellington Bay (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this radical change. There are numerous WP:RS which describe the monarch as the head of state without the qualifier of "de jure". I further disagree that it is proper to simply apply the term "de facto" without explaining what it means in this context. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz's question should be answered. Also it seems to be a stretch to say it is "often" described this way, and saying that "it is described as" is WP:WEASEL. You might as well say "some people say...". Let's just not do this.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

If anything, this seems like more of a fit for the GG page, where there's space -- and aptness -- to go into the '[named commentators] have said the GG's role has elements of that as head of state' minutiae. WB, as I've said two of those quotes don't support that text, and if the third isn't just an outlier, I'd have to see these others and judge if there's any case this is to him them due weight. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The monarch is the head of state, period. The governor general is merely a representative of the monarch. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I shall have to oppose your proposed changes on this matter, both here & at the Governor General of Canada page. As long as Canada is a constitutional monarchy? the monarch is its head of state. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Darryl, it's not a radical change, its a reversion to the status quo ante before WP:OWN issues developed in the article. It is also well sourced so whether you agree with the terms or not, there is ample evidence that these terms have been used. For instance, there's the fact that previous governors general referred to themselves as the "de facto head of state": "The present Governor General, Michaëlle Jean, has adopted a somewhat different position, preferring instead to refer to the Governor General as Canada’s “de facto head of state” in a September 2006 media release"[8]

as well as the public broadcaster: "The Governor General acts as the Queen's representative in Canada and Canada's de facto head of state. (The Queen is the official head of state.)"[9] "The governor general is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the prime minister and acts as the Queen's representative in Canada and Canada's de facto head of state."[10]

Constitutional scholar C.E.S. (Ned) Franks: "Should the Governor General explain that she fulfills the same role as head of state in Canada as the Queen does in England, and although her position is described as being the Queen’s representative in Canada she is in practice the de facto head of state in Canada, and that Canada is really a country unto itself completely independent of Britain? "[11]

"Constitutional Monarchs in Parliamentary Democracies": "Constitutional monarchy is often associated with a history of British rule and still exists in the 16 Commonwealth realms where the British monarch continues to be head of state. Outside the UK, the Queen is represented by a viceregal official, called the governor-general, who acts in place of the monarch and serves as the de facto head of state."[12]

Richard Myers in the Dalhouse Review, ""The Crown in a Democracy" Revisited": "There is no reason to suggest that these particular individuals were not qualified for the position of Governor General. In fact, all three served with distinction. The problem, however, is that a precedent has now been established: the office of Governor Gener1l, which in MacKinnon's theory is supposed to have enough prestige to outshine the office of Prime Minister, can henceforth be handed out as a patronage plum to the party faithful. 1bis means that our de facto head of state now has about as much prestige as our appointed senators"[13]

Tim Sheaff, Ministry of Attorney General in the Government of British Columbia writing in Constitutional Forum "A Minimalistic Approach to Severing the British Royal Family from Canada’s Constitution": "As a result of the creation of a fictitious monarch, there would be no individual to exercise the Sovereign’s power to appoint or remove a GG. To address this gap, this article makes sug-gestions to mimic the current practical exercise of appointing the GG and maintaining the chain of hierarchy within the constitutional order. It suggests that the combination of these elements would retain the GG’s status and role as de facto head of state, guarantor of respon-sible government, and representative of the Crown in Canada, and to this extent, the legal theory of the office would not be undermined."[14]

To name a few. As for the monarch as de jure head of state, there's:

Studler & Christensen in the journal Political Science & Politics, "Is Canada a Westminster or consensus democracy? A brief analysis": "Having a monarch as de jure head of state can constitutionally reinforce executive dominance."[15]

Now yes, monarchists disagree with these terms, but even Toffoli, while railing against it, concedes that "The Queen is often described as the de jure 'head of state' of a Commonwealth country while the Governor General is described as the de-facto head of state"... but then he also argues that "In British and Canadian constitutional law there is no such thing as a 'head of state'" and that the Queen is "the legal embodiment of the state" which I think most people aside from ardent monarchists would think is romantic and esoteric nonsense. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Clearly it's not the de jure position that's in any way controversial or remarkable. There's literally a law saying who the monarch is. Unless that's being used as an express or clearly implied contrast, let's not divert ourselves down that avenue. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

" Mr Serjeant Buzfuz's question should be answered." - I answered his question earlier. He was confusing the "de facto officer doctrine" with all uses of the term de facto in law. As you can see from my above citations, many of which are by constitutional scholars, the term "de facto head of state" is in wide usage. Also, if you search canlii there are plenty of instances of de facto being used without the impugned meaning of the "de facto officer doctrine" which is one specific usage. Quite simply, the Serjeant's argument is a red herring. Wellington Bay (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

You stated: To answer your question what I mean by it is irrelevant, the point is these are terms used by reliable sources, including... a... scholar. This is not an answer to Buzfuz's question, it is a claim that his question does not need to be answered. I understand your statement that you don't mean de facto officer doctrine but that doesn't tell us what you do mean, nor what it adds to simply say some have "described" it that way.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, it's not a "radical change", in fact it's not a change at all. The article already said: "Some governors general, their staff, government publications,[222] and constitutional scholars like Ted McWhinney and C.E.S. Franks have,[253][254] however, referred to the position of governor general as that of Canada's head of state;[255][256] though, sometimes qualifying the assertion with de facto or effective;"[16] and has said so for years. Indeed, there has been a reference to "de facto head of state" since the article was created. The only thing I did was bring back the reference to the monarch as "de jure" which was removed at some point. So please, Good Day and Darryl, explain how it's a "radical change" when a reference to the GG being called the "de facto head of state has always been in the article? Wellington Bay (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

If you're going to continue to push these changes into this page & the GG's page? Then, I recommend you have a straw poll or an RFC, on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

See the Head of State section of the article. The sources there clearly establish that official government sources, judges, constitutional scholars, and pollsters view the monarch as the head of state, and the GG as only a representative. There may be a minority that apply the term "de facto" to the GG, or say that we "should", but they are a small minority which hold a view contrary to the much stronger majority view. Representing the minority view as the correct one, or as a widely accepted view is unwise, and WP:UNDUE.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Darryl Kerrigan: "that doesn't tell us what you do mean" - Please see the post I made earlier where I say "The term de facto itself means "Existing as a matter of fact rather than of right."[17] or simply "in fact"[18] [19] Wellington Bay (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Read the article. It has had a reference to de facto all along. As I asked earlier, what, exactly, is the "radical change" you're referring to? It can't be the use of de facto as the article has used the term for the past 22 years. Wellington Bay (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I would support removing the reference you're pointing out. It's best we not promote confusion over who's head of state. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

You're confusing your personal opinion with reliable and verifiable sources. There is no reason to remove information that is supported by high quality sources such as academic articles written by experts in the Canadian Constitution. Wellington Bay (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay: can you concede that using the term "de facto" is not a "radical change" as you previously claimed given that the term has been in the article for the past 22 years? Check for yourself, click on any version of the article from 2002 until now and search for the term "de facto". Wellington Bay (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:WEIGHT, your changes are in error & shouldn't be accepted. I recommend the 'defacto' bit be removed. PS - I don't think you're going to get a consensus for the changes you want to make, concerning this matter. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

They're not "in error". They say that the GG "has been described as the de facto head of state" and use several sources (and I can add several more that I've stated above). These are reliable and verifiable, high quality sources. Do you deny that the GG has been described as the de facto head of state and the monarch as the de jure head of state? If you deny that how do you explain the various sources ranging from the CBC to academic journals which use the term de facto head of state? Are these forgeries? You are confusing things you don't like or disagree with with things that are are not reliably sourced. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wellington Bay (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

This is pretty a non-existent debate within Canada. I have seen something similar with Australia. Within the context of Canada the debate is generally about a ceremonial position over who's actually de facto head of state. We've dealt with this a few times. Moxy🍁 21:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay: And you haven't answered my question. How is it a "radical change" when the term has been in the article all along? Wellington Bay (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

You made changes to this & the GG article's intros, on a matter that (as you can see) is already settled. The monarch is the head of state. I'm asking you to drop this topic. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you see the difference between "the governor general is the de facto head of state" and "the governor general has been described as the de facto head of state"? Do you acknowledge that multiple sources describe the GG as such? If so, how is it an error to state "the governor general has been described" in a way that the governor general has been described (and in the case of Jean, has described herself)? Wellington Bay (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

We're going in circles on this. Therefore, I've requested more input from members of WP:CANADA. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

It may clarify things if you answered my question. Do you agree or disagree that "the governor general has been described as the de facto head of state" by various scholars and by at least one governor general? Wellington Bay (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:WEIGHT, the monarch is Canada's head of state. I can't support the changes you wish to make. The governor general is merely the monarch's representative. Canada doesn't have two heads of state, no matter what a few people believe. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question. Has the governor general been described as the de facto head of state by various scholars, prominent media, and at least one GG herself? Wellington Bay (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant, as it doesn't change the fact as to who the head of state is. The monarch. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

No one has said it does. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's at all radical to call the GG the de facto head of state... and certainly even less radical to note they have been described as the de facto head of state. de facto basically means "in practice" and, c'mon, in practice the GG does not ring up the monarch every time there's something that requires royal assent or for the GG to do something official and say "your majesty, is it okay that I do this in your name for your unimportant little colony called Canada?" So, in terms of practicalities, the GG performs as the head of state even though by law (i.e. de jure), it's the monarch who holds that title. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be radical to do it in our (Wikipedia's) voice, or as WB proposed in the lede. The article already contains discussion of this in the Head of State section. The issue is whether these edits or these ones were appropriate. I think the entries in the Head of state section are appropriate, they appear to be balanced showing that nearly all identify the monarch as the head of state, but then also discuss this "de facto" claim with proper attribution to those making it. The problem of including the "de facto" claim in the lede is one of WP:WEIGHT (it give too much prominence to a minority view) and of avoiding weasel words like "some people say" or "it has been described by some". Furthermore, we are trying to shorten this article at present, so adding more content to the lede (that is already dealt with elsewhere) is unnecessary. Anyway, hopefully that focuses us on what the issues really are.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, the article is so long that I did not see there was an existing reference to the "de facto" head of state issue in the body of the article. I had noticed looking at earlier versions of the article that there had been a reference to the Queen being the de jure head of state and the GG being de facto head of state in the lede. I might not have re-added these references in the lede had I seen them in the body. I'm wondering though if the reference in the head of state section needs to be updated or clarified? Wellington Bay (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

To me it seems resonant with comments about the UK -- never mind the viceregal- and vice-viceregal-rich realms -- being a 'crowned republic'. Slightly fatuous if taken entirely literally, but one can follow the point being made by the turn of phrase. Certainly zaniness like the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis has much the same quality as do wheel-wars between appointed presidents and elected governments elsewhere. But again I'd say getting into the weeds of that are better dealt with at the GG and GGoC articles. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Who's the head of state of Canada? The monarch or the governor general?

An RFC might be the next step. But for the moment, perhaps a straw poll on this topic, should take place. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Monarch - Per WP:WEIGHT. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• wrong question You are misframing or perhaps misunderstanding the issue. The question should be should the article state that the governor general has been described as the de facto head of state and the monarch described as the de jure (or official) head of state. No one disagrees that the monarch is the official head of state. Wellington Bay (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Monarch G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• Monarch...... But I agree the question is phrase wrongly. "The Governor General acts as the Queen's representative in Canada and Canada's de facto head of state. (The Queen is the official head of state.)" ..... This is easily sourced.... Just simply need to say how this is related to the debate about the monarchy itself in Canada... Those four and against the monarchy itself... that is that Canada's is a de facto "Republic" already..... This is simply so rarely talked about in Canada that it's a shock when it comes up.Moxy🍁 01:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy close and strong give these antics a rest to the poll-starter. This is a complete misrepresentation of the point at issue, whether one engendered of a good-faith lack of comprehension of it, or otherwise. Given the pattern of behaviour though... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy close per Moxy and 109.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• Head of state was a term coined in the 1960s to encompass both monarchs and presidents. It's always going to be a problem to fit Canada's square peg into this round hole. Of course the discussion should be covered but the article should not come down on one side or the other. TFD (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Frankly, Toffoli's ultra-monarchist view that the monarch is the "embodiment of the state" is too reminiscent of Louis XIV's apocryphal L'État, c'est moi for modern tastes. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - I could see this argument having developed (as it has before sorta, years ago), concerning Australia. But, didn't think I'd see it develop in any form concerning Canada. Maybe I'm fatigued, with the whole "head of state" topic-in-general. Anyways, if anybody wants to close down this straw poll? Go for it. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah we've seen this in Australia article ... with a few shockpuppets along the way.... simply not a big debate in Canada. The debate Canadians have is for or against the monarchy as an institution. We generally don't discuss the constitutional runaround as they have in Australia to minor extent. As by the sources provided for this it's just obscure not really covered by scholars in Canadian academia. Moxy🍁 02:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  Probably because Canadians haven't had their government fired by one. Yet! As I've suggested elsewhere, ideally we'd factor out elements that aren't particular to Canada, or aren't particular to the monarchy per se to other articles. The role of a GG isn't really either of those things. In theory uniquely Canadian commentary on the role is in-scope, but given size and weight considerations, seems a hard case to make for inclusion. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment The head of state is the King, CRIII, who will be appearing on money as they roll out. The head of the military, the C-in-C, is the GG. The head of government is the PM, currently Justin. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

---

References

Obscure and arcane language

There is a passage of the article that reads: "Monet and Frank MacKinnon discerned in that decade that the Crown, as a legal and constitutional entity, had, instead, become the cynosure." No page number is given for the sources but conducting a quick search of both it doesn't appear that the term "cynosure" appears in either. Given that the term is obscure, to put it mildly, can we find a more accessible term to use? Frankly, there is a lot of arcane or obscure language used in this article. Wellington Bay (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I've removed it. It's unnecessary. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)