Talk:Canadian Heraldic Authority

Hierarchy

Here it is http://www.heraldry.ca/top_en/top_cha_about.htm. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I had seen the page before and I used quite a lot of information from it when writng the article. --Mb1000 18:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I also think we should explain that section in the history/creation of the CHA. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Another link: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F-11/SOR-91-168/text.html. This prescribes the payment and to whom it is made to. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. --Mb1000 21:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I really appreciated the additions! --Mb1000 17:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Is this really any cheaper than the Lord Lyon? User:Shran 16 Aug 2005

It depends on the currency exchange rate, but most likely, going through here will be cheaper than going through Lord Lyon. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

South Africa's herald is supposed to be the cheapest legit herald. (for what that's worth) Shran 04:02, 17 August 2005

Well, if your South African, that is who you see. If your Canadian, you have to see the CHA. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Not always. The South African herald is a Commonwealth herald (since SA rejoined the commonwealth in 1994) and accepts registration of arms from all over the world. So Canadians don't have to use the Canadian herald. Best Wishes. Shran 00:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Offices of Arms Template

Hello. I'm working on a template of the different offices of arms in the CHA (similar to the College of Arms and Lord Lyon ones). If you can help me get rid of all the red links, then I think we can give it a go. The sandbox version is HERE. Thanks.--Eva ^db 11:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Constitutionality

The constitutionality of the CHA has been questioned here. Does anyone know anything else about this argument? It seems pretty POV to me.--Eva ^bd 19:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Not POV. The Charter bans discrimination by government agencies, whereas the CHA obviously discriminates, since it only grants/registers to those persons whom the Chief Herald views as suitable. The position of the CHA is that the Charter does not apply to it because the Office of the Governor General is not a government department. This position is legally dubious, but so far no one has challenged it in court.

Please sign your posts. Perhaps you could back up your claims with citations. Does the Chief Herald ever lay down the qualifications for obtaining a grant? It seems like it will be difficult to prove that he's being unconstitutional unless you can prove that he's rejected an applicant because of something besides money. From what I understand, in practical terms, the only reason that one might be rejected (at the CHA, Lord Loyn, and the CoA) is because they cannot pay the fees. I would be rejected because I'm not Canadian and do not live in North America. --Eva ^bd 20:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the Chief Herald does not publish the criteria for receiving arms, that's the problem. It's up to his personal discretion. Since Canada has a Charter of Rights that prevents discrimination by government, what the CHA is doing (i.e. discriminating) is unconstitutional, unless it isn't a branch of the Canadian government. See Lorne Gray's comments here: [1]. Also see here [2] where Rafal Heydel-Mankoo writes: "I have also spoken with the heralds about this and petitions have indeed been rejected/denied. Several fairly recently as a matter of fact."

BB posts aren't sources wiki recognises as credible . Everyone not being granted something is not even vaguely a legally credible argument on discrimination the law is a much more subtle creature than that. Whatever next legal action unless every citizen is awarded the Order of Canada! As I'm hear the wording needs tightening on para 4 as Ireland had it's own heraldic authority for a while until it left the commonwealth in '49 Alci12 17:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's take another government department, say the Passport Office. The requirements for receiving a Canadian passport are listed on the Internet and elsewhere; they're certainly not kept secret. If an applicant meets the published requirement (Canadian citizenship) and pays the required fee, (s)he is granted a passport. Now we come to the Canadian Heraldic Authority. The requirements for receiving a grant of arms are not published (just some nebulous wording about contributions to the community) and the director of the department can say yea or nay based on his own personal view of the applicant. While everyone knows before applying for a passport whether they are eligible (Canadian citizen? yes....eligible) no one applying for a grant of arms can say with any certainty until they are scrutinized by the Chief Herald. I quote from the CHA procedures manual : "The background information is therefore an important tool for the Chief herald of Canada to assess the eligibility of the request." In other words, eligibility is "assessed" by the Chief Herald without any publicly-available standards of eligibility! (The standards are what the Chief Herald says they are.) Would Canadians stand for an official at the Passport Office deciding which Canadian citizens are worthy of receiving a passport? Of course not! So, how could anyone think that such a system of one-man rule at the CHA would pass muster in a Canadian court? The only reason this has never reached a court is that, unlike the Passport Office, it is a government department that is little used or even known about by the general public. (Add to that the fact that most people who are refused arms would not want it publicized, and entering into litigation, especially against the government, would be quite expensive.) The only out for the CHA is their claim NOT to be a branch of the Canadian government, but rather a vice-regal office that is beyond the reach of the Charter of Rights. Yet, throughout this Wikipedia article there are claims that the CHA is part of the government. Example: "The Government of Canada requires that the above processes be financed by the petitioner..."

Using the example of the passport is very helpful as it well illustrates why the honours comparison is wrong. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and a whole stack of international law enshrines a fundamental right to nationality in general (and a by inference a passport as a means to demonstrate and move by it - Articles 13&15). Just as there are rights protecting against torture and unlawful imprisonment so on. There is no right to be given honours, it's not a basic necessity of life to have a coat of arms. Nor is there are specific mentions in UDHR on making a decision using discretion. That wiki calls CHA part of the government is neither here nor there as wiki isn't writing Canadian law only an encyclopaedia.(Ed.) However I don' think this is getting us anywhere. What we need is sources. If you can provide an authoritative source(s) essentially making the case you have then it can be included in the article and more detail of his issue added. But I don't see how we can do anything without such source(s)Alci12 19:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Alci12, I don't know whether you are a Canadian, but perhaps you don't understand the importance of the Charter of Rights in Canadian law. I don't imagine that there's any international law guaranteeing the rights of gays & lesbians to be married, but we have it in Canada. Why? The Charter of Rights. You say you want documentation. Well, the Procedure Guide of the CHA is the documentation. It states clearly that the Chief Herald assesses whether a person is qualified for a grant of arms. Yet, the CHA does not provide to the applicant (or to anyone else) the qualifications that any applicant has to meet. Therefore, the Chief Herald basically makes it up as he goes. Is the Chief Herald discriminating against Methodists? Unlikely, but no way of knowing, since his decision-making is done in secret. I'm sorry, but I think it's rather obvious on its face that this make-it-up-as-you-go, do-it-in-secret process just would not meet the non-discrimination requirements for a CANADIAN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT. If, on the other hand, the CHA is NOT a Canadian government department, then, yes, it can do as it pleases. All I've done is raise the issue of the CHA's constitutionality; I did not state that it is unconstitutional, because it may, indeed, be beyond the reach of the Charter and other federal laws. That is for a Canadian court to decide.

You may 'think it's rather obvious' but wiki really needs a legally authoritative source saying this. So for instance my broad point about honours and rights has been before the Canadian Courts (Black v Chrétien - Court of Appeal for Ontario) "The refusal to grant an honour is far removed from the refusal to grant a passport or a pardon, where important individual interests are at stake. Unlike the refusal of a peerage, the refusal of a passport or a pardon has real adverse consequences for the person affected. Here, no important individual interests are at stake. Mr. Black’s rights were not affected, however broadly "rights" are construed. No Canadian citizen has a right to an honour."[3] Alci12 16:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That seems clear as day to me. Unless the unsigning poster has some proof with which to back up his claim, Alci has pretty well proven that the CHA is completely constitutional.--Eva ^bd 19:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the CHA claims that the registration of foreign arms is not an honour. However, the CHA has been known to deny this non-honour. That strikes me as constitutionally suspect. However, I think the section is inaccurate in claiming that the Chief Herald is the sole arbiter of anything. Both the Governor General and the Queen could overrule the Chief Herald. BTW, Canadians frequently use the expression "Government of Canada" in the U.S. American sense of the word "goverment." However, the Governor General is technically not part of the Government of Canada. That's why you don't see the Government of Canada logo on her Web site and why her Web site isn't in the "gc.ca" domain. The Government of Canada is everything that reports to the Prime Minister of Canada. Jonathan David Makepeace 21:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Canadian Heraldic Authority/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

General Comments

This article appears to be very well written; it is clear, concise and to the point. It uses language which is understandable and needs very little explanation thanks to the significant use of references and external links.

Article Issues

There are no outstanding article issue templates, and this article has not been the subject of an ongoing or past edit war.

Footnotes, references and external links

All accurate, properly sourced and active. No issues in this area.

Any outstanding problems to resolve?

Section 2.1 - 2 areas of duty missing from the table

•  Done

Section 2.2 - 4 badges missing from table denoting holders of honorary positions.

•  Done - no images were available //roux  

Section 3.2 - The processing fee for all petitioners is $435 CAD[12] (plus GST), with the cost of one preliminary design ranging from $200 to $1,000. The cost of the final design, as illustrated on the letters patent, ranges from $900 to $3,500. It should be noted that the petitioner does not "buy" a coat of arms: the arms themselves are freely given to qualified individuals, but fees must be paid to the heralds and artists for the services rendered.[10]

• On first usage, all abbreviations should ideally, be lengthened to their full form and linked thus: Canadian Dollar instead of CAD

• MOSNUM seems to say that the abbreviation is fine, I think? //roux  

Image Issues

INFOBOX: The blazon used here is the same as the image used in Section 4.1 - please see below.

Section 2.2 - The 4 badges used in this section are marked as fair use, but no rationale has been added for any of them. This must be resolved.

•  Done

Section 4.1 - The blazon image used to the right is marked as fair use, but no rationale has been added. This must be resolved.

•  Done

Section 4.2 - The "badge of authority" image used to the right is marked as fair use, but no rationale has been added. This must be resolved.

•  Done

The image issues mentioned are violations of Section 6 (Part A) of the Good Article Criteria - "(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content".

Final Notes

Based upon this review, I have decided to place this article ON HOLD for a period to await modifications before a re-review takes place. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(As a first review, assistance has been given by users [Roux] and [Sky2042] from the #wikipedia-en IRC channel on Freenode.)

Additional Notes

Following completion of all tasks outstanding against this GA, I am pleased to confirm its acceptance as a Good Article. It will be marked accordingly. Congratulations to all of those editors who have contributed to the workings and creation of this article.

Thor Malmjursson (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Canadian Heraldic Authority. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090226154850/http://www.monarchist.ca/cmn/2004/Sum04PDFHeraldic.pdf to http://www.monarchist.ca/cmn/2004/Sum04PDFHeraldic.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080430041118/http://www.gg.ca:80/heraldry/info/index_e.asp to http://www.gg.ca/heraldry/info/index_e.asp#protection

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canadian Heraldic Authority. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100211042131/http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0003350 to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0003350

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)