Talk:Order of Canada

Only OofC members could become citizenship judges?

According to this article before 1998 only members of the Order of Canada could become citizenship judges [1] Dowew (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Citations incomplete

There are several citations in this article that are incomplete in their format—needs to be resolved or article might need to go up for WP:FAR. --Eustress (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Jean-Claude Turcotte

While there was no announcement of his resignation from the Order published on the gg's website, he is the one individual who announced he was returning the medal whose name is no longer listed on the searchable honours database at gg.ca. Anyone else think this means he actually resigned? Dowew (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Jean Vanier

During the Morgentaler controversy Jean Vanier wrote a letter explaining why he didn't resign [2] Dowew (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Main image

The image used in the infobox has been reverted a couple of times in recent days. One was by a user with a total of four edits, so I don't think there was much reason behind the reversion. In light of User:Dowew's reinsertion into the infobox of the image with the three insignia, I thought we should probably come to a final decision on image use.

I earlier moved the three-insignia image to the Insignia section; we lost all the insignia images that were previously used here, and the three-insignia image seemed an apt replacement. In order, then, to not have two identical images on the same page, and in the absence of any other appropriate choice, I put the image of the member's insignia in the infobox. As the present arrangement is such only because it seemed logical and works with the limited resouces available, I've no particular opposition to any other rational suggestion. Is there another option? --Miesianiacal (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Membership in other groups

Could one be both a Member of the Order of the Canada and the Order of the British Empire at the same time?

Precedence

After revelations following Jean Chretien's appointment to the Order of Merit, I'm now not entirely sure what to do about the order of precedence we show here for Canadian honours. Since the 70s, the precedence list has not included the Order of Merit or the Order of the Companions of Honour, save for mention in the order of wear for those appointed prior to 1 June 1972, where the OM and CH are placed above the Order of Canada and below the Cross of Valour. However, a closer look at the wording of the Government House guidelines doesn't seem to apply to the OM and CH after 1972. The clauses state "Commonwealth orders, decorations and medals, the award of which is approved by the Government of Canada, are worn after the Canadian orders"; but, the OM and CH are awarded without government approval, and thus don't fall within the parameters of the policy. The most recent authority to speak on this matter was Chris McCreery, who said in his book on the Order of Canada that the OM and CH were not included in the Canadian honours lists because no living Canadian was a member of either order at the time, but the OM and CH, nonetheless, still rank above the Order of Canada and below the Cross of Valour. Indeed, in relation to Chretien's appointment, McCreery commented that the OM is the highest civil honour a Canadian can receive.[3] As this information is backed by reliable sources, it seems prudent to list the OM and CH as preceding the OC. I only wonder if anyone has some information that would lead to a different conclusion. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I should note that I was incorrect about the CH - appointments do require ministerial advice. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Prince Philip's refusal

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, was offered appointment to the order as an honorary Companion in 1982; however, he refused on the grounds that, as the consort of the Queen, he was a Canadian, and thus entitled to a substantive appointment rather than an honorary one. In 1993, the Advisory Council proposed an amendment to the constitution of the Order of Canada, making the sovereign's spouse automatically a Companion, but Prince Philip again refused, stating he should be appointed on his merits. Conversely, he accepted the Order of Australia as a companion in 1988 without issue.

Prince Philip's Companion in the Order of the Australia, and indeed Prince Charles's Knighthood of the Order of Australia, were substantive appointments, not honorary. The Order of Australia is modelled after the Order of Canada, in that substantive appointments go to citizens only, non-citizens receiving honorary awards. Thus, Philip and Charles must have been considered "Australian citizens" for the purposes of the order (although they would not be so regarded in any other contexts, afaik). Their "Australian citizenship" could only have derived from their Royal status, as they have never sought it via the usual process. If the usual rules were waived, or more likely considered irrelevant, for their Australian awards, why was the same view not taken in Canada for Prince Philip? -- JackofOz (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Order of Australia#Prince Philip for more recent discussion. The Queen amended the Letters Patent in 1981 to accommodate Prince Charles. No such consideration has ever been given to Prince Philip, yet he appears to have been given a substantive AC, yet he's no more an Australian citizen than his son is. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Order of Precedence and Eligibility, 10/11 Sept 09

I have changed both the order of precedence and the eligibility information in the infobox. The Governor General website states that only federal and provincial politicians are ineligible, thus permitting municipal politicians to be permitted into the order. Also, there was a statement that the Order of Merit was "unofficially higher" than the Order of Canada. The order of precedence states that the Cross of Valour is higher in the order of precedence. I don't debate that the Order of Merit may be a higher honour, in fact I very much agree with that fact. However, something like that should be placed elsewhere in the article, not in the infobox. If one were to wear miniature medals or undress ribbons, the Order of Merit would be after all Canadian awards, unless awarded a British medal prior to 1 June 1972. As far as honour goes, the Order of Merit is higher. However, as order of precedence goes, it is lower, and needs to be treated accordingly in these articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by JMesh (talk • contribs) 03:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The Order of Merit can't be ignored in the infobox; the order of precedence is now unbroken in the infoboxes of all Canadian honours articles from the Victoria Cross all the way down to the General Campaign Star, and removing the OM from here upsets that continuity. I admit the order's placement in the precedence is odd, given that it isn't in the official list (the stipulations for pre-1972 honours refer to those that are British, which the OM is not) but is still recognized as directly above the Order of Canada by Canadian honours experts (see my earlier post); hence, I made the distinction between the official and unofficial precedence. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on this point, but your argument does have some validity, and as such I will leave it alone. However, my point about politicians is entirely correct. Municipal politicians are not specifically prohibited from receiving the order. I would request that this of my edit be replaced. JMesh (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to worry, as your edit r.e. politicians is still there now. If you disagree with my attempt to resolve the precedence issue, what suggestions do you have as alternatives? I'm open. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Conrad Black

Conrad Black is listed as a member, although he has renounced his Canadian citizenship. If someone can remain a member despite no longer being a Canadian citizen, that deserves mention in the eligibility criteria. Grover cleveland (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Margaret Thompson

The anon User:75.159.1.136 has five times now added a segment about some Dr. Margaret Thompson and her membership in the Order of Canada being the subject of a petition for her removal or the "Awards committee" is considering removing her from the order due to "her involvement with the Alberta Eugenics Board and her approval of forced sterilizations and unnecessary castrations for research, all of which have been considered crimes against humanity since the Nuremburg Trials." This has been reverted by three users, including myself, but the anon persists.

In researching, I've found some corroborating evidence that Thompson was indeed a member of the Alberta Eugenics Board and is now a member of the Order of Canada (see testimony here). However, there seems to be zero sign of a petition or that the Order of Canada advisory panel is considering revoking her scrolls. Plus, the anon's addition is rife with POV and irrelevancies.

On those grounds, I think the anon should cease revert warring until better sources can be provided. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

A detailed factual account of Dr. Thompson's outrageous misconduct can be found in Madam Justice Veit's decision Muir v. the Queen in right of Alberta D.L.R. (4th) 695 Court file No. 8903 20759, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Veit, J January 25, 1996. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.181.120.98 (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

A copy of the Petition to remove Dr. Margaret Thompson is on file with the Eugenics Archive program at the University of Alberta. Dr. Rob Wilson is the head of the Eugenics Archive.

FA concerns

This article has some concerning aspects for a FA quality article, namely referencing issues in some places, short paragraphs and short subsections, some wholly unreferenced parts, short lede/intro that does not conform to WP:LEAD, and could use an image review. I'd recommend working on these issues, or perhaps the best place to address them would be at WP:FAR. If users involved in the article's maintenance do not object, I could identify problem areas regarding referencing in the article, by adding {{fact}} tags. -- Cirt (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It has been a few years since it went to FA, so anything you can suggest and do to help us retain that status would be grateful. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference to the petition for the removal of Dr. Margaret Thompson can be found at: http://eugenicsarchive.ca/docs/October2011events.doc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.181.120.98 (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Museum's page

I've created a new page List of Order of Canada insignia displayed in Museums to make note of where medals of the Order of Canada appear in a museum's exhibits. I have added the ones that I am aware of. If anyone can find anymore please add them to the list Dowew (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured article review for Order of Canada

I have nominated Order of Canada for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:1967 in Canadian music

I wonder if User:Argolin could explain here what relevance this article on a national civil order has to a Canadian music category. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

New constitution

I am a little confused by the new wording of the order's constitution. S.9(2) states that "In addition to any Governor General and his or her spouse and any former Governor General and that former Governor General's spouse, a member of the Royal Family may be appointed as an extraordinary Companion, Officer or Member", which reads as though governors general and their spouses are not automatically appointed to any grade of the order and may never be (only the governor general becomes ex-officio Chancellor and Principal Compainion during his or her time in office).

Further on, in S.12(3), it's said "An appointment of any Governor General or his or her spouse or former Governor General or that former Governor General's spouse as a Companion is deemed to be an appointment as an extraordinary Companion." Well, does that mean that anyone who was appointed as a Companion before they became governor general doesn't become an extraordinary Companion when appointed as governor general? Or, is the current governor general, his wife, and all living former governors general and their spouses now considered to be extraordinary Companions?

Perhaps someone can figure it out. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm shocked to hear that spouses of governors general are given this honour. For no better reason than that they married the right person. Awards recognising a spouse's achievements in his or her own right are different, of course. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

another removal

In case this is needed

Order of Canada « New Search B. Norman Barwin, C.M., M.D., F.R.C.C. Full Name Honour Received Residence B. Norman Barwin, C.M., M.D., F.R.C.C. C.M. Nepean Honour Appointment Investiture Member of the Order of Canada November 14, 1996 April 16, 1997 His work as a gynecologist, researcher and medical educator has had a profound impact on both the biological and psycho-social aspects of women's reproductive health. The Planned Parenthood movement and the Infertility Awareness Association of Canada have benefited greatly from his expertise and support in their efforts to provide information on family building and infertility treatment options. He has helped to increase understanding among the general public, government and the medical community of the importance of the family unit in society.