"noun Canada" naming policy for (part of) Canadian government departments

[Mops]

The naming of a lot of Canadian (federal) government departments/agencies seem to follow a naming convention that I have not heard of with institutions of other countries, e.g. “Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada”, “Passport Canada”, “Transport Canada”, etc.

Some other departments observe a related “Canada noun” (as opposed to “Canadian noun”) nomenclature, e.g. “Canada Industrial Relations Board”. But that does not seem to be universal - there is e.g. also the “Canadian Biodiversity Information Facility”

(government department list from the government’s web site)

What’s the origin and stated rationale of that idiosyncratic nomenclature policy, and will it eventually be applied across the board?

[xnylder]

I’m an intrigued former Parks Canada employee, so I’ll post to subscribe and mention the following: In some cases, the convention creates homonyms in French: Parcs Canada, Transports Canada…

[wolfman]

I would guess because it is a natural word formation in language French.

[Cerowyn]

It may well be due to the English/French naming issues. Canada is the same in both official languages, but the adjective form is not. Transport Canada, for instance, is Transports Canada in French. Some agencies, such as Service Canada, have the same name in both languages, which the choice of the “noun Canada” form described by the OP allows.

[Acsenray]

I started a thread asking this very question a while ago. I find the practice annoying because it results in a name that’s literally false. “Industry Canada” is not “the collective industrial activities of Canada,” which is what its name implies. It’s a government agency that administers policy relating to industry, so its name should reflect it – the name should include “department” or “agency” or some other term indicating that it is a government entity.

[Manduck]

The earliest instance I can remember is Team Canada for the hockey team that played the Russians in '72.

I wonder if the point is that it’s equally awkward in both official languages, but then you would still need to translate the noun (Equipe Canada e.g.), so I don’t know what is gained.

[MikeS]

Apparently this is the doing of the Federal Identity Program, which is essentially a program that manages the Canada “brand” in all sorts of ways. Specifically, government agencies are required to have an “applied title”:

FIP policy requires institutions to adopt an approved title for use in their signature. Referred to as “applied titles”, these names have a dual purpose: to express the function or nature of the institution to the public and to identify it as an institution of the Government of Canada. The requirement for applied titles stems from the development of FIP policy in the mid-seventies when existing legal titles were often long and sometimes convoluted.

Why the particular “[foo] Canada” form became so prevalent, I couldn’t tell you (the “bilingual-friendly formation” seems as good as any), but if you’re truly curious you might try contacting the FIP and seeing what they say.

[Sunspace]

I suspect it’s to create names that sort of work in both English and French, as others have said.

This can be done in a slightly-different way: on the road signs in Ottawa, you see things like “Ch. Heron Rd.”, where Ch. is short for “chemain”, which means “road” in French. Thus, “Chemain Heron” in French overlaps “Heron Road” in English.

In Toronto, they do that differently. The word “road” is considered part of the actual name of the street, and is not translated, so the signs on (bilingual) provincial highways say things like “[5] Dundas Street Exit/Sortie” but they don’t add “Chemain”. This may be partly because the street mentioned is a municipal road, and Toronto is not an officially-bilingual municipality.

[Johanna]

Because you can do that in English, and have it read as acceptable English syntax, if a bit affected. But you can’t do it the other way around in French. So French syntax wins.

[phreesh]

I can get with the French/English idea, but I wonder about the exceptions such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. The former is relatively old, so I can understand wishing to retain the history of the name, but CEAA must be relatively new. Why not use the usual [noun] Canada?

[Northern_Piper]

@acsenray

I started a thread asking this very question a while ago. I find the practice annoying because it results in a name that’s literally false. “Industry Canada” is not “the collective industrial activities of Canada,” which is what its name implies. It’s a government agency that administers policy relating to industry, so its name should reflect it – the name should include “department” or “agency” or some other term indicating that it is a government entity.

But then it gets too cumbersome under the bilingualism requirements. For example, “Justice Canada” works equally well in either language. If it had to have a reference to a ministry, it gets complicated: “Canada Department of Justice / Ministère canadien de la Justice”. Better to have a short name that works well in both languages for things like letterhead.

Plus, it’s a long-standing naming convention here in Canada, so it’s easily understood. That’s the usage here. When I’ve been in the States, I’ve found the practice of having “bureau/office/department” on all the signage, letterheads, etc to be cumbersome.

[Acsenray]

@Northern_Piper

Better to have a short name that works well in both languages for things like letterhead.

Why? Letterhead is created once at a central location. Or is each employee required to create letterhead anew each time it’s needed?

Plus, it’s a long-standing naming convention here in Canada, so it’s easily understood.

I understand that. That doesn’t reduce its annoyance factor to me.

When I’ve been in the States, I’ve found the practice of having “bureau/office/department” on all the signage, letterheads, etc to be cumbersome.

It was cumbersome? Because you had to carry the signs yourself?

[Northern_Piper]

@phreesh

I can get with the French/English idea, but I wonder about the exceptions such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. The former is relatively old, so I can understand wishing to retain the history of the name, but CEAA must be relatively new. Why not use the usual [noun] Canada?

Because the “[noun] Canada” form is used for the top-level government departments, which are headed by a Cabinet Minister, such as Environment Canada / Environnement Canada. The CEAA is a separate agency, not headed by a Minister, so it doesn’t get a top-level domain name.

Similarly, the CBC is not a government department, but an arm’s length Crown corporation. There is a minister who is responsible for it in Parliament, but it has its own board of governors.