I care. The Order of Canada is our highest civilian honour. These honours need to be revoked if that highest standard is not maintained. My father was awarded the Order of Military Merit at the Member level. It is the second highest honour after the Order of Canada, and he earned it, as did so many others.
I see the same confusing suggestion of partisanship in relation to the CBC.
These institutions aren't partisan about the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC).
They are partisan about the Dominion of Canada, which is a Western European style Westphalian liberal democracy. A different meaning for the word "liberal", built upon Western Europe's concept of liberalism.
The other parties that currently have seats in the federal parliament are protest parties. They are the SOCRED/Reform party who took over the Progressive Conservative party, the CCF/NDP which have similar roots as SOCRED/Reform, the Bloc Quebecois, and whatever we think Elizabeth May is doing before she finally retires.
It was far more obvious that these institutions were loyal to the Dominion of Canada and not any political party when the federal PC party still existed, and there were at least two federal parties whose partisans had clear loyalty to the Canadian Crown (the formal name for the Canadian federal institutions -- not the name of a person).
----------
Note: While I was granted citizenship by the Dominion of Canada at birth, I'm not a fan of the LPC, CBC, the Dominion of Canada, Western European liberalism (or Western European conservatism).
Interesting comments. I’m not sure about the use of the phrase “Dominion of Canada”. I believe we are decades past that throwback to the days of empire.
Adding prefix: The point of my note above was to try to alert people to how thinking in terms of fiscal quarters, decades, or even human lifespans makes things such as the CBC or the Order of Canada seem tied to ephemeral political brands. Understanding what is happening today requires understanding the ongoing impacts of politics over longer periods of time.
----
Can you share why you believe that change in branding represented a substantive policy change?
What do you mean by "throwback to the days of empire"? In what way did that change?
I don't mean individuals wanting to forget (and seek to absolve responsibilities), but actual policy changes to move away from Empire (and I don't only mean the British and French Empires, also embedded into Canadian Law, but also the territorial expansion on this continent).
Note: I'm aware of the "myth of progress" that is part of Western European Enlightenment "linear time", where there is an assumption that time itself generates change.
Mr. McOrmand, I apologize for the reply delay. Southern Ontario spring gardening routines demand my full attention. It is obvious you have an expert knowledge of Canadian historical matters. And the reference to the “myth of progress” is its importance in the context of same is noteworthy.
My comment is solely limited to the use of the phrase “Dominion of Canada”. A descriptor reduced in government usage from approximately 1951. And the Constitution Act makes no such reference to this descriptor.
I agree the phrase has significant historical significance as do other titles Canada East, Canada West, Upper Canada, Ruperts Land and etcetera. These phrases no longer have relevance in today’s Canada. Not being a barrister, I believe the phrases are currently only relevant with regard to citations of law, statutes and regulations promulgated years or centuries ago where a current issue must be interpreted with a modern lens.
So the word Canada appropriately refers to we people who reside here. And all of us. I am certainly not a monarchist but acknowledge that the Canadian Crown is a vital backstop to the actions of government. A republic would be disastrous for us and the financial costs alone would cost billions and employ constitutional legal experts for centuries (to their eternal glee).
We live in an imperfect nation, our vision coloured by colonial roots and imposed on the original founders of Canada. And influenced by the democracy south of us. Canadians must learn that history should appropriately be used as a guide post and not a hitching post.
So of the repatriation of the Constitution Act, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are important evolutions for us. Perhaps in historical terms the most significant date for me is February 15, 1965 the advent of “the Maple Leaf”. In my opinion it represents all of us and is amongst the most distinctive flags in the world. There is absolutely no misinterpretation by other nations of who we are. And I am very heartened the flag does not embody any vestige of the former Empires, French and English.
The assertion above by no means implies we should absolve our nation from past sins and injustices. We have a long way to go. And upwards I trust and hope.
Some thoughts moved to a separate note: For my career I was an IT person (hardware, software, networking, cloud, etc), not a historian. My interest is in learning the truth of the present, which requires learning about things started in the past that were never ended. I use the same Systems Theory from my IT career in any other subject matter I study, including contemporary Canadian politics.
You mentioned something in common with saying, "Southern Ontario spring gardening routines demand my full attention."
I was born in Sudbury, and currently live in Ottawa. Both are within the 1867 boundaries of what was then for the first time being labelled as "Ontario".
In 1867, Sudbury was part of Northern Ontario, but by the time I was born 101 years later it was clearly part of Southern Ontario given all the (yes, still internationally contested) unilateral territorial expansion.
Anything south of the 49'th parallel should never be claimed "northern" in the context of Canada, but Sudbarians are so stuck in what some consider “the distant past" :-) Their grievances against Toronto are even greater than their grievances against Ottawa (distant capitals that even loyalists have grievances against, even if they haven't given much thought to the "why").
Sudbury being in Southern Ontario predates the rebranding of the "Dominion of Canada" as only "Canada" when I was 14. I still remember celebrating Dominion Day each year.
It is interesting to notice all the time periods considered "current", and the gerrymandering of time used to justify different political perspectives within contemporary Canadian politics. For instance, exactly what time periods are the Alberta and Quebec separatists talking about? Clearly since Alberta 1905 is such a recent concept, and Quebec has grievances relating to Treaty of Paris (1763), they are talking about different time periods. And how many contemporary "Canadians" understand the basis of the 1775 Civil War, and which version of that war and mythology are they blindly trusting in understanding "contemporary" grievances?
I am talking about the present, not the past, but understand where that mythology comes from as I believed it most of my life.
You suggested, "So the word Canada appropriately refers to we people who reside here"
Would it surprise you for me to state that I do not consider "Canada" to be a "who" (group of people) or a "where" (description of a place), but only a "what" (a set of foreign imposed institutions).
I know some people think any critique of these institutions are a critique of people, as they were indoctrinated from birth to think of these institutions as “we”. That is one of the powerful misdirections that Western European “age of enlightenment” ideologies generate in order to protect institutions from critique. Loyalists to those foreign worldviews are encouraged to attach these institutions to their identity, and to talk about these institutions as if they were a "we" or "us" (or other institutions as a "them").
“Enlightenment” linear time also convinces some to put the institutions of “Canada” into the present and future, and to locate ongoing colonial/Empire policies into the past. Just because a policy started in the past, doesn’t mean the policy is the past until it has been rescinded and reparations made. Time itself does not change policies.
Individualism and linear time convinces "Enlightenment" ideology loyalists to think in terms of human lifespans, to think that "modern" means only recent decades and think of the year 1867 (the passage of the first BNA act)as some distant past date rather than also being "recent" when taken outside the silo of Western European worldviews. Canada is a very recent concept, and there is no reason to believe it will be here or in the specific current form for long.
It should be obvious that in 1867 that Canada did not refer to the people who resided “there” (the much smaller geographical region the government claimed title to at that time) given the vast majority of inhabitants weren’t even told that a foreign government (Britain) was passing the first British North American Act, and only a tiny number of male subjects of the British Empire were consulted in any way (no female, and definitely not the non-white majority).
To claim after generations of violent gerrymandering that it magically “became” about the inhabitants would be to seek to benefit from atrocities.
Western European ideologies also encourages people to read marketing material and think that the French and English/British Empires are "former" rather than clearly embedded within Canada Act 1982 and its Schedule B Part 1 "Charter of Rights and Freedoms". This charter privileges Western European "enlightenment" individual rights, property, etc as well as English and French languages and cultures, over anything domestic (the laws of this land, not part of Europe, which grew over millennia)
Note: I am a settler of Scottish, Irish and French descent that was granted "Canadian" and "Ontario" citizenship from birth. Since I do not consider Canada to be a "who", I can not be included in this "we" you mentioned.
I care. The Order of Canada is our highest civilian honour. These honours need to be revoked if that highest standard is not maintained. My father was awarded the Order of Military Merit at the Member level. It is the second highest honour after the Order of Canada, and he earned it, as did so many others.
Holy crap ... an incredible report, as usual sir! ...
I've more or less given up on the Order of Canada in the modern era being anything other than a Liberal party favour gifted by Liberals for Liberals.
I see the same confusing suggestion of partisanship in relation to the CBC.
These institutions aren't partisan about the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC).
They are partisan about the Dominion of Canada, which is a Western European style Westphalian liberal democracy. A different meaning for the word "liberal", built upon Western Europe's concept of liberalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
The other parties that currently have seats in the federal parliament are protest parties. They are the SOCRED/Reform party who took over the Progressive Conservative party, the CCF/NDP which have similar roots as SOCRED/Reform, the Bloc Quebecois, and whatever we think Elizabeth May is doing before she finally retires.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PK3dnGheWA
It was far more obvious that these institutions were loyal to the Dominion of Canada and not any political party when the federal PC party still existed, and there were at least two federal parties whose partisans had clear loyalty to the Canadian Crown (the formal name for the Canadian federal institutions -- not the name of a person).
----------
Note: While I was granted citizenship by the Dominion of Canada at birth, I'm not a fan of the LPC, CBC, the Dominion of Canada, Western European liberalism (or Western European conservatism).
Interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing.
Interesting comments. I’m not sure about the use of the phrase “Dominion of Canada”. I believe we are decades past that throwback to the days of empire.
Adding prefix: The point of my note above was to try to alert people to how thinking in terms of fiscal quarters, decades, or even human lifespans makes things such as the CBC or the Order of Canada seem tied to ephemeral political brands. Understanding what is happening today requires understanding the ongoing impacts of politics over longer periods of time.
----
Can you share why you believe that change in branding represented a substantive policy change?
What do you mean by "throwback to the days of empire"? In what way did that change?
I don't mean individuals wanting to forget (and seek to absolve responsibilities), but actual policy changes to move away from Empire (and I don't only mean the British and French Empires, also embedded into Canadian Law, but also the territorial expansion on this continent).
Note: I'm aware of the "myth of progress" that is part of Western European Enlightenment "linear time", where there is an assumption that time itself generates change.
Mr. McOrmand, I apologize for the reply delay. Southern Ontario spring gardening routines demand my full attention. It is obvious you have an expert knowledge of Canadian historical matters. And the reference to the “myth of progress” is its importance in the context of same is noteworthy.
My comment is solely limited to the use of the phrase “Dominion of Canada”. A descriptor reduced in government usage from approximately 1951. And the Constitution Act makes no such reference to this descriptor.
I agree the phrase has significant historical significance as do other titles Canada East, Canada West, Upper Canada, Ruperts Land and etcetera. These phrases no longer have relevance in today’s Canada. Not being a barrister, I believe the phrases are currently only relevant with regard to citations of law, statutes and regulations promulgated years or centuries ago where a current issue must be interpreted with a modern lens.
So the word Canada appropriately refers to we people who reside here. And all of us. I am certainly not a monarchist but acknowledge that the Canadian Crown is a vital backstop to the actions of government. A republic would be disastrous for us and the financial costs alone would cost billions and employ constitutional legal experts for centuries (to their eternal glee).
We live in an imperfect nation, our vision coloured by colonial roots and imposed on the original founders of Canada. And influenced by the democracy south of us. Canadians must learn that history should appropriately be used as a guide post and not a hitching post.
So of the repatriation of the Constitution Act, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are important evolutions for us. Perhaps in historical terms the most significant date for me is February 15, 1965 the advent of “the Maple Leaf”. In my opinion it represents all of us and is amongst the most distinctive flags in the world. There is absolutely no misinterpretation by other nations of who we are. And I am very heartened the flag does not embody any vestige of the former Empires, French and English.
The assertion above by no means implies we should absolve our nation from past sins and injustices. We have a long way to go. And upwards I trust and hope.
Some thoughts moved to a separate note: For my career I was an IT person (hardware, software, networking, cloud, etc), not a historian. My interest is in learning the truth of the present, which requires learning about things started in the past that were never ended. I use the same Systems Theory from my IT career in any other subject matter I study, including contemporary Canadian politics.
You mentioned something in common with saying, "Southern Ontario spring gardening routines demand my full attention."
I was born in Sudbury, and currently live in Ottawa. Both are within the 1867 boundaries of what was then for the first time being labelled as "Ontario".
In 1867, Sudbury was part of Northern Ontario, but by the time I was born 101 years later it was clearly part of Southern Ontario given all the (yes, still internationally contested) unilateral territorial expansion.
https://wayback.archive-it.org/org-1963/20250403093529/https://www.archives.gov.on.ca/en/maps/ontario-boundaries.aspx
Anything south of the 49'th parallel should never be claimed "northern" in the context of Canada, but Sudbarians are so stuck in what some consider “the distant past" :-) Their grievances against Toronto are even greater than their grievances against Ottawa (distant capitals that even loyalists have grievances against, even if they haven't given much thought to the "why").
Sudbury being in Southern Ontario predates the rebranding of the "Dominion of Canada" as only "Canada" when I was 14. I still remember celebrating Dominion Day each year.
It is interesting to notice all the time periods considered "current", and the gerrymandering of time used to justify different political perspectives within contemporary Canadian politics. For instance, exactly what time periods are the Alberta and Quebec separatists talking about? Clearly since Alberta 1905 is such a recent concept, and Quebec has grievances relating to Treaty of Paris (1763), they are talking about different time periods. And how many contemporary "Canadians" understand the basis of the 1775 Civil War, and which version of that war and mythology are they blindly trusting in understanding "contemporary" grievances?
I am talking about the present, not the past, but understand where that mythology comes from as I believed it most of my life.
You suggested, "So the word Canada appropriately refers to we people who reside here"
Would it surprise you for me to state that I do not consider "Canada" to be a "who" (group of people) or a "where" (description of a place), but only a "what" (a set of foreign imposed institutions).
https://r.flora.ca/p/canadian
I know some people think any critique of these institutions are a critique of people, as they were indoctrinated from birth to think of these institutions as “we”. That is one of the powerful misdirections that Western European “age of enlightenment” ideologies generate in order to protect institutions from critique. Loyalists to those foreign worldviews are encouraged to attach these institutions to their identity, and to talk about these institutions as if they were a "we" or "us" (or other institutions as a "them").
“Enlightenment” linear time also convinces some to put the institutions of “Canada” into the present and future, and to locate ongoing colonial/Empire policies into the past. Just because a policy started in the past, doesn’t mean the policy is the past until it has been rescinded and reparations made. Time itself does not change policies.
Individualism and linear time convinces "Enlightenment" ideology loyalists to think in terms of human lifespans, to think that "modern" means only recent decades and think of the year 1867 (the passage of the first BNA act)as some distant past date rather than also being "recent" when taken outside the silo of Western European worldviews. Canada is a very recent concept, and there is no reason to believe it will be here or in the specific current form for long.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga?title=British%20North%20America%20Act
It should be obvious that in 1867 that Canada did not refer to the people who resided “there” (the much smaller geographical region the government claimed title to at that time) given the vast majority of inhabitants weren’t even told that a foreign government (Britain) was passing the first British North American Act, and only a tiny number of male subjects of the British Empire were consulted in any way (no female, and definitely not the non-white majority).
To claim after generations of violent gerrymandering that it magically “became” about the inhabitants would be to seek to benefit from atrocities.
https://r.flora.ca/p/canadian-democracy
Western European ideologies also encourages people to read marketing material and think that the French and English/British Empires are "former" rather than clearly embedded within Canada Act 1982 and its Schedule B Part 1 "Charter of Rights and Freedoms". This charter privileges Western European "enlightenment" individual rights, property, etc as well as English and French languages and cultures, over anything domestic (the laws of this land, not part of Europe, which grew over millennia)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/11/schedule/B/part/I
Note: I am a settler of Scottish, Irish and French descent that was granted "Canadian" and "Ontario" citizenship from birth. Since I do not consider Canada to be a "who", I can not be included in this "we" you mentioned.