Order of Canada B-list

Published in the Toronto Star of May 3, 2015

Burnishing the honour, Editorial April 27

The government is correct when it says there are “under-represented sectors” among recipients of the Order of Canada. That group includes discredited Conservative senators, media clowns and other denizens of yahoo land.

Honours must not be awarded according to geography, notoriety or a misguided notion of democracy. The purpose of any award is to recognize special achievements of deserving people, achievements that serve as inspiration for the rest of us.

The proposed affirmative action program will create a B-list of winners and the attendant dumbing down of this unique award.

The Dis-Order of Canada

Letter to the National Post, April 23, 2015

Stephen Harper intends to dumb down the Order of Canada (Order of Canada reform in budget, Apr 23). The Prime Minister is correct in his belief that certain sectors of society are under-represented such as discredited Conservative senators and inhabitants of the yahoo element. The reported feeling is that there is too much Margaret Atwood and too little Don Cherry among Order recipients.

By coincidence, elsewhere in today's National Post (Where culture wars were worth fighting), we read, "A TV-ready image is valued considerably more than any literary pedigree . . . People today go to pundit school. They learn how to be on TV as a pundit, but they don't have any substance. Intelligence has been replaced by volume."

Honours are not intended to be brought "closer to the people," as Harper asserts. Their purpose is to recognize quality achievements to which we should all aspire. Is it time to bid farewell the nobility of the Order of Canada?

Order of Canada Special Pleading

Email to the Toronto Star, October 28, 2102. Unpublished. Re Court orders Black to play by the rules, Oct. 26: "It can no longer be said that Orders of Canada are awarded as a result  of an impartial consideration of merit," according to Michael Bliss,  professor emeritus, University of Toronto. Dr. Bliss was informed,  "Once a candidate has been  considered and judged not suitable,  the file is only re-opened if there are significant new achievements that justify reconsideration."  He was referring to the reconsideration given to Dr. Henry  Morgentaler after the doctor's first nomination had been rejected. He  made no new achievements, unless one considers more abortions as adding to his oeuvre. Yet, he was awarded the Order on second appeal. In violating its own rules, the advisory committee indulged  in the "politicization of the process". This comes to mind in the advisory committee's rejection of Conrad  Black's request to make oral submission to defend his Order of Canada.The refusal was based on the advisory committee's rules. Dare we deem the committee applies its rules when politically expedient? *  *  * The complete letter of Dr. Bliss in the July 5, 2008 issue of The  Globe and Mail: Your good coverage of the Morgentaler appointment to the Order of  Canada misses a vital procedural issue. It appears that the advisory  committee reopened the Morgentaler file and reversed previous  decisions by earlier advisory committees. In the course of trying to nominate people for the Order of Canada,  I have been told that once a candidate has been considered and  judged not suitable, the file is only reopened if there are significant new achievements that justify reconsideration (such as a novelist adding significantly to a body of work). It is fairly obvious that there are no significant new achievements in the Morgentaler case. Instead, it appears the advisory committee has singled him out for reconsideration, violating past procedures and discriminating against other worthy Canadians whose files are closed, and that it has done this in response to an intense lobbying effort. The result, is, prima facie, a politicization of the process. It can no longer be said that Orders of Canada are awarded as a result of an impartial consideration of merit. Instead, getting honoured depends on who you know and getting lucky in the committee position of the advisory committee. Michael Bliss, professor emeritus, University of Toronto