IS the PM meddling with Canada's honour system?

[Topaz]

Harper wants to create the Prime Ministers Volunteer Awards for 17 Canadians each year, from non-profit organizations. All honours and awards including the Order of Canada, is under review to see which are more closely connected to the PMO, and which new ones could be created to that office. Question? Is Harper feeling unloved? This story once you read the whole thing, seems more about HIM , than about Canadians. I don't think Canadians will like his idea of taking the services of the GG and giving it to the Harper. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/jeffrey-simpson/yes-the-pms-now-meddling-with-the-honours-system/article1871069/

[Keepitsimple]

The GG is an anachronism - a leftover from colonialism. Not so long ago, this very board had a lively debate over the relevance of the GG. In general (pardon the pun), the GG is only looked at in some favour by the older generation who still understand the tradional roots of the position. New Canadians can only wonder and say "say what?". The Queen is still relevant in England and thus their awards in her name carry some distinction. But the representative of the Queen in Canada - really - how relevant is that today. Jeff Simpson seems to have a lemon up his butt in forgetting that the Prime Minister and his Office is a position that is only temporarily on loan to the Conservatives - as it was to the Liberals before them......and each party has the honour of representing Canada. By Mr. Simpson's standard, there would be no Presidential awards in the US. All told, it's just another example of the media politicizing what should be just a quiet, worthy review of a process that has become outdated.

Edited January 15, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[Smallc]

The GG is an anachronism - a leftover from colonialism.

No it isn't. Like with so many other subjects, you display a profound lack of understanding when it comes to the office of the Governor General of Canada. It is not a relic, nor does it today have much of anything to do with a colonial past. The Governor General, like the President of Germany, for example, is a real, relevant, and important part of this country's system of administration.

What you misunderstand most of all, is this: the Prime Minister of Canada cannot represent the Canada itself. He simply represents Canada's appointed government of the day on behalf of Canadians. The Governor General, in the name of the Queen, can represent the entire county of Canada, much like the German President, French President, or the President of the United States of America.

Edited January 15, 2011 by Smallc

[waldo]

really... c'mon... just what weight will a knighthood from Harper carry - anyway?

[Keepitsimple]

No it isn't. Like with so many other subjects, you display a profound lack of understanding when it comes to the office of the Governor General of Canada. It is not a relic, nor does it today have much of anything to do with a colonial past. The Governor General, like the President of Germany, for example, is a real, relevant, and important part of this country's system of administration.

What you misunderstand most of all, is this: the Prime Minister of Canada cannot represent the Canada itself. He simply represents Canada's appointed government of the day on behalf of Canadians. The Governor General, in the name of the Queen, can represent the entire county of Canada, much like the German President, French President, or the President of the United States of America.

You make a solid technical argument which I'm well aware of.....but ask a newcomer from Sri Lanka or Bulgaria about the Governor General.....ask them if they understand this technical argument. Ask them what power the GG has in the day to day running of Canada. Heck, ask anyone who's uner 30 years old. If their eyes don't glaze over, I'll be flabbergasted. And I'll ask you - other than the proroguing issue (which the GG allowed to proceed), when was the last time a GG had an impact on legislation - or anything that the "common man" might be able to relate to?

[Smallc]

You make a solid technical argument which I'm well aware of.....but ask a newcomer from Sri Lanka or Bulgaria about the Governor General.....ask them if they understand this technical argument.

Now, ask me if I care how they feel. They're coming to Canada, in general, they should adapt to the way that we are when it comes to things like government system.

Ask them what power the GG has in the day to day running of Canada.

The GG doesn't have real powers to govern Canada day to day because that isn't their job. They are an administrator, not a governor. That's another thing you don't seem to understand. They do sign documents allowing this to happen, but they do that, by convention, on the advice of their government.

Heck, ask anyone who's uner 30 years old. If their eyes don't glaze over, I'll be flabbergasted. And I'll ask you - other than the proroguing issue (which the GG allowed to proceed), when was the last time a GG had an impact on legislation - or anything that the "common man" might be able to relate to?

First, I'm 21, and second, just by asking the question, you display that you don't understand the office. The office doesn't impact day to day legislation, nor does it gen involved in political debates.

[g_bambino]

[A]sk a newcomer from Sri Lanka or Bulgaria about the Governor General.....ask them if they understand this technical argument... Heck, ask anyone who's uner 30 years old.

If they don't, they should. Because to not understand the Queen and her representative is to not understand the entire system of government.

For us, honours stem from the Crown, not only because this is the ancient tradition, but also because the monarch is the one body in our government that doesn't care what party someone supports or how much money they donated to an election campaign; that way, all Canadians can be considered for an honour from the nation. A prize from the prime minister will always reek of political favouritism.

That said, Simpson hasn't got his facts straight. This new award isn't a part of the Canadian honours system; just like the Caring Canadian Award or the Governor General's Medal isn't. Only honours that stem from the Queen - the orders, decorations, and medals - make up the national honours system. The rest are just awards, often named after specific individuals, like the Clarkson Cup or the Prince Andrew Cup. Further, there are already prime ministerial awards in Canada: the Prime Minister's Award for Teaching Excellence or the Prime Minister's Awards for Excellence in Early Childhood Education, for example.

I frankly think these awards from the prime minister are redundant and, as I said, politically tainted. But, this new one is not what Simpson makes it out to be, as though Harper is taking honours away from the Queen (though Simpson, as a republican, can't bring himself to admit Canada's honours are hers).

[c/e]

Edited January 15, 2011 by g_bambino

[Smallc]

I frankly think these awards from the prime minister are redundant and, as I said, politically tainted. But, it's not Harper taking honours away from the Queen (though, he, as a republican, can't bring himself to admit Canada's honours are hers), the way Simpson makes it out to be.

Are you saying that Harper is a republican? I don't think he is.

[g_bambino]

Are you saying that Harper is a republican? I don't think he is.

No. You must have been responding while I was editing my comment to be more clear.

[Smallc]

No. You must have been responding while I was editing my comment to be more clear.

Yeah.....thanks for the clarification.

[Keepitsimple]

First, I'm 21, and second, just by asking the question, you display that you don't understand the office. The office doesn't impact day to day legislation, nor does it gen involved in political debates.

That's precisely my point - it's largely ceremonial and not really tangible to the majority of Canadians.....a "representative of the Queen" doesn't feel very Canadian.

I'm glad you understand the office - especially at 21. I'm much, much older than that and have a different perspective. My Dad came over from England when he was 6. My wife is a descendent of the United Empire Loyalists. The Monarchy runs deep in our families - and by extension, the Queen's Representative is a respected position. I've seen the introduction of our own flag in 1965 and the failed attempts of Meech and Charlottetown. The only point I was making is that maybe - just maybe - it is time for a review of these awards in that we are a completely sovereign country and it might be more appropriate that the award come from the Prime Minister. Do you feel that such a review should never be considered until the Constitution is altered to do away with the final ties to the Queen? It's a valid position to take....but I'm comfortable with a review being done and see what comes out of it.

[Smallc]

The only point I was making is that maybe - just maybe - it is time for a review of these awards in that we are a completely sovereign country and it might be more appropriate that the award come from the Prime Minister.

And again, that doesn't make any sense at all. There's no way for the awards to come from the Prime Minister, as they have nothing to do with government and everything to do with Canada and the Queen of Canada. The awards are given in the name of the Queen.

Whether or not the monarchy runs deep within your family, you still don't seem to understand this office very well.

[Keepitsimple]

And again, that doesn't make any sense at all. There's no way for the awards to come from the Prime Minister, as they have nothing to do with government and everything to do with Canada and the Queen of Canada. The awards are given in the name of the Queen.

Whether or not the monarchy runs deep within your family, you still don't seem to understand this office very well.

It's pretty simple to understand.....it's a question of its practical application. You've studied your textbooks very well but you can't just live by rote.....sometimes you have to step back and see whether something still makes sense - in a practical way. Anyway, you're entitled to your opinion and my parents and in-laws would be pleased to see that you think of Elizabeth as The Queen of Canada.

[Smallc]

Anyway, you're entitled to your opinion and my parents and in-laws would be pleased to see that you think of Elizabeth as The Queen of Canada.

How I personally feel is irrelevant. She is the Queen of Canada. As to whether or not the GG is relevant, as I've already said, the office is as relevant as the office of any parliamentary president in the world.

[Saipan]

Is Harper feeling unloved?

No. Ignatieff is.

I don't think Canadians will like his idea of taking the services of the GG and giving it to the Harper.

Canadians like elected far more than appointed, every time.

[g_bambino]

That's precisely my point - it's largely ceremonial and not really tangible to the majority of Canadians.....a "representative of the Queen" doesn't feel very Canadian.

The only point I was making is that maybe - just maybe - it is time for a review of these awards in that we are a completely sovereign country and it might be more appropriate that the award come from the Prime Minister. Do you feel that such a review should never be considered until the Constitution is altered to do away with the final ties to the Queen? It's a valid position to take....

Is there some logic behind what you're saying? Because, I can't see it. No explanation of why a queen's representative doesn't "feel Canadian", what that even means, or how it and some odd and incomprehensible comment about "ties" to the Queen justifies the politicization of Canadian honours.

[sp]

Edited January 16, 2011 by g_bambino

[Saipan]

It just means we are 200 years behind in freeing ourself from the monarch.

[g_bambino]

Canadians like elected far more than appointed, every time.

Have any proof of your claim and an explanation of its relevance to the idea of honours stemming from the prime minister?

[g_bambino]

It just means we are 200 years behind in freeing ourself from the monarch.

Behind who? Freedom from what oppression?

[Esq]

The simple answer is yes.

The Governor General is the fount of honour in Canada as representative of the Monarch.

While there is not much wrong with giving a citation giving an official honour is very taboo. It is make believe.

Although I could see how it might have merits, it should be through the governor general, if it in any way exists. Much like recommendations are received for military awards.

[Esq]

All this non elected governor general stuff, therefor they shoulnd't have any duties is absurd. Judges the highest legal body arn't even elected, but like the Governor General are political appointments.

Senators likewise.

The post is a termed appointment for a reason.

[Esq]

And no this doesn't mean that you can't have elected officals, but removing the old system is a form of treason.

[Saipan]

Have any proof of your claim and an explanation of its relevance to the idea of honours stemming from the prime minister?

Yes, Canadians elected Harper because they like the idea of ELECTED SENATE. Among other things, like freedom. I.e. keeping government out of our face.

[Smallc]

Yes, Canadians elected Harper because they like the idea of ELECTED SENATE. Among other things, like freedom. I.e. keeping government out of our face.

And how's the elected Senate thing coming? Really doesn't seem to be much of a push for that, does there.

[Esq]

And no this doesn't mean that you can't have elected officals, but removing the old system is a form of treason.

If you want elected senators easy.. the PM sets up an election since they are "the person who choses"

All this we'll change the senate stuff is BS.. Stephen Harper could elect each senator he puts in if he wanted, simply by determining the position by running an election in the area where the seat is vacant.

Instead he is hyper legalizing it, and making it an ongoing political issue for the mentally challenged.

The same goes for judges and even the governor general.. the PM just needs to decide by having an election.

But Stephen harper is not what he seems.. he is using it as a political issue, not to actually have elected officials.. he can already do that. But he isn't.