Our Governor General Lacks Moral Fibre: Part 3

I received a response to my letter. In light of the most recent development (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=130134) I felt the need to respond.

Below is the text of my most recent letter followed by the form letter I received.

Ms. Lappa,

Ok, now I am really angry. The buffoonery continues.

You told me (in your form letter attached) that I should be assured that this person and that committee, etc. were to hear my thoughts and further review this matter. I admit, I was dubious. I was disappointed that you could not indicate that the Governor General herself is hearing us. I found the communique to be rather dismissive.

My instinct served me well. Instead of doing what I was promised, the Governor General passed the buck to the Prime Minister's Office hoping that a 'Meritorious Service Decoration' might do the trick. Wrong again.

May I remind you that the Governor General is the Head of State of Canada. As my Queen's representative in Canada, her 'boss' is Queen Elizabeth II. There is no passing the buck here! By trying to pass the buck the Governor General has further tarnished her credibility and undermined her Office. I am sure that Queen Elizabeth II would have made the right choice in this matter THE FIRST TIME. That is what the Governor General is here for. This cowardly act raises the question as to whether or not the PMO should now bestow all honours that the Governor General does; thus making the Governor General's Office irrelevant. Surely, denying Constable Garrett's honour diminishes all honours that the Governor General may bestow.

Instead of doing the right thing the Governor General is trying the patented 'duck and cover'. Someone who focussed solely on saving face and is so devoid of core Canadian values does not deserve the privilege of public office, much less Head of State. It is clearly time for this Governor General to step aside and let someone else take her Office.

Let me be absolutely clear. Nothing less than the Cross of Valour bestowed appropriately by the Governor General is satisfactory. And of course, my preference would be that another Governor General bestow the honour.

Good Day,


This is the form letter I received.

"On behalf of Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada, I thank you for your correspondence concerning the awarding of a Canadian Bravery Decoration, posthumously, to Constable Christopher Garrett.

The Chancellery of Honours of the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General and members of the Canadian Decorations Advisory Committee (Bravery) are aware of the strong interest Canadians have shown in the case of the late Constable Christopher Garrett and understand their desire to honour this fallen police officer.

Please be assured that your comments will be brought to the attention of the Honours Policy Committee, responsible for the regulations on Canadian Honours, as well as to the attention of the Canadian Decorations Advisory Committee, responsible for reviewing all eligible nominations. The Office of the Secretary to the Governor General is also examining, in consultation with the government, options for recognition of Constable Garrett's distinguished service to his community.

Yours sincerely,

Gabrielle D. Lappa
Director of Honours"

Our Governor General Lacks Moral Fibre: Part 2

Our Governor General did not see fit to make an exception in this case.

The text of my follow-up letter follows:

"Your Excellency,

It was with shock and extreme disappointment that I read of your decision to deny Constable Chris Garrett his due honour.

My first e-mail was polite, as it should have been.

By denying Constable Garrett, I believe that you have diminished the value of all honours your office would presume to bestow in the name of Queen Elizabeth II.

As you seemingly do not hold to the same values that I do, I feel that you do not represent me. I look forward to a time in the future when I may feel that way again about my Governor General. Unfortunately your successor will probably not have to opportunity to correct your error in judgement in this matter.

There is no excuse for this blind act of bureaucratic bafoonery. I believe you have brought shame on your office and, by extension, my Queen. I cannot adequately describe in words just how my faith in your office, and even how I value your office has been shaken. I have to wonder just how relevant the office of Governor General is when someone who holds it is so dismissive (or perhaps devoid) of core Canadian values of peace, justice, compassion and the rule of law.

http://northumberlandnews.com/northumberland/Breakingnews/article/89332 <http://northumberlandnews.com/northumberland/Breakingnews/article/89332>"

Our Governor General Lacks Moral Fibre: Part 1

I sent a letter to our Governor General on 25OCT2007 in regards to Constable Christopher G Garrett of the Cobourg Police Department who made the supreme sacrifice in the line of duty. Mortally wounded, he emptied his service weapon at his fleeing killer who was bent on more violence against the Police and the public.

An appeal was put to the Governor General to make an exception and award Constable Garrett the Cross of Valour even though the period of application (2 years) had passed. The delay was necessary as the carriage of justice whereby Constable Garrett's killer was tried and convicted took longer than two years.

The text of my letter follows:

"Your Excellency,

It is my understanding from the news tonight that there is a chance that Constable Garrett of the Cobourg Police Department may not, posthumously of course, be honoured for his sacrifice due to a technicality regarding the time window of application.

No doubt you are aware of this matter and the magnitude of Constable Garrett's bravery and sacrifice.

I hope you can come to appreciate the extenuating circumstances in this case and provide Constable Garrett the honour he richly deserves. I never knew Constable Garrett, or anyone else in the Cobourg Police Department. But Constable Garrett and men and women like him in Emergency Services provide to the rest of us the finest examples of Canadian values.

I implore you to examine this matter and come to the same conclusion I have. Also, I respectfully ask that you consider that the 2-year limit for such applications is too short given how long it takes for some court cases to conclude.

Most Respectfully,"

Senate Reform in Canada

I think Canada in all its diversity (industries, geographies, economies, etc.) NEEDS an upper house to balance the powers of the House of Commons, the PMO and the Supreme Court. Canada does NOT need the Senate it has. We cannot look to the tiny, more homogeneous nation (in those respects) of New Zealand as a model and simply abolish the Senate. While it would be an improvement, it would not be ideal.

Abolish the one we have in order to make a new one? That seems the only logical solution. I don't think we can reform it piecemeal and depend on future governments to keep that ball rolling.

You don't slowly peel off a band-aid...

The question is, can we put a formula together that fits Canada's needs? Even saying that Ontario should get x number is inadequate because they could all come from Toronto. In provinces with extreme diversity we'd have to take into account those areas and try to provide representation. All the while, we need to keep in mind that an upper house is SUPPOSED to be regional. It will be difficult to explain to the population why Saskatchewan and Manitoba get the same number of Senators as Ontario, for example.

I know, I'm getting ahead of myself...

Anyway, if it starts it will be tough, but it would definitely be worthwhile. Canada needs to leave the 19th Century behind and move into the Third Millennium.