Chretien honoured by Queen

capricorn · July 13, 2009

Queen Elizabeth has named former prime minister Jean Chretien a member of the prestigious Order of Merit, Buckingham Palace announced Monday.
The honour, created in 1902 by King Edward VII, is "conferred by the Sovereign on individuals of exceptional distinction in the arts, learning, sciences and other areas such as public service."

The press release noted that appointments to the order are "in the Sovereign's personal gift" and therefore, don't require the advice of her ministers, such as Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Chretien+...5921/story.html

In 2001, this is what Chretien had to say to Tony Blair about bestowing honours on Canadian citizens.

"What I and the government object to is that, by conferring the knighthoods without seeking the agreement of the Canadian government, you have not taken into account the Canadian government policy with regard to how Canadian citizens should be honoured."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/1395570.stm

Is the Queen's Order of Merit not an honour bestowed on a Canadian citizen as described by Chretien in 2001? I read he accepted the Order of merit "with humility". I should say so. This honour places him in the company of the likes of Nelson Mandela and Mother Teresa.

M.Dancer · July 13, 2009

Is the Queen's Order of Merit not an honour bestowed on a Canadian citizen as described by Chretien in 2001? I read he accepted the Order of merit "with humility". I should say so. This honour places him in the company of the likes of Nelson Mandela and Mother Teresa.

But not in the likes of Black.

While black's elevation lead him to have a seat in the House of Parliament which was contrary to Canadian law, Chretian honour is...honourary...ad gives him no such unelected legislative priviledge.

Smallc · July 13, 2009

I believe knighthood is a British honour, where as medals of the Queen are in fact just that.

Smallc · July 13, 2009

In fact it says as much in the article. Knighthood is an award of a foreign government. Notice who the protest was sent to in 2001. The Vancouver Sun wrongly calls the award foreign (actually, looking into it further, anyone not British that the award is given to is considered foreign, even though it isn't only a British award). It is the Queen's own award, and the Queen is not foreign.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Smallc

g_bambino · July 13, 2009

Is the Queen's Order of Merit not an honour bestowed on a Canadian citizen as described by Chretien in 2001?

Not quite. The issue - or at least what Chretien tried to make one out of - was that the honour Black was to receive from the Queen was a peerage title - Baron Black of Crossharbour. Since 1919, subsequent Canadian prime ministers have adhered to the Nickle Resolution, which said that Canadians should not be granted any honours that come with a title of nobility, such as a knighthood (Sir or Dame) or peerage (Duke, Earl, Marquess, Baron), even though His/Her Excellency, His/Her Honour, and The Right Honourable remain in use. (In Black's case, the difference between advising the Queen of Canada and advising the Queen of the United Kingdom was apparently lost on Chretien.) Membership in the Order of Merit, however, is a personal gift of the Queen, and thus not a foreign honour, and doesn't carry with it any pre-nominal title; a member is entitled only to use the post-nominal letters "OM", as is similarly allowed for members of all of Canada's other orders.

_{[ed. to add]}

Edited July 13, 2009 by g_bambino

August1991 · July 13, 2009

If the Queen did this, Harper has approved it.

And I suspect that Harper is appealing to Chretien's vanity - against Chretien's interests in the the federal Liberal Party, assuming he has any.

Smallc · July 13, 2009

If the Queen did this, Harper has approved it.

Ummm, no. The Order of Merit is a personal gift from the Queen, given without ministerial advice.

August1991 · July 13, 2009

Ummm, no. The Order of Merit is a personal gift from the Queen, given without ministerial advice.

There's no such beast, not in Canada.

And if there is, the scandal would be greater.

Edited July 13, 2009 by August1991

g_bambino · July 13, 2009

There's no such beast, not in Canada.

Appointments to the Order are in the Sovereign's personal gift and ministerial advice is not required.¹

Sorry.

Smallc · July 13, 2009

The order of Merit isn't a Canadian award. It's a personal award of the Queen. It's all there in black and white for you to see.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary...derofMerit.aspx

August1991 · July 13, 2009

From link above:

Appointments to the Order are in the Sovereign's personal gift and ministerial advice is not required.

But I'll bet that ministerial advice is sought, particularly when giving an award to a Canadian.

Smallc, I suggest you go to law school.

----

As I noted above, if the Queen of England were to take a decision of such nature in Canada without the prior approval of the federal government (as you seem to believe has occurred), then it would be a greater political scandal.

One resolution to this argument would be to ask Harper if he approved this award but I suspect Harper is a good politician and he would leave the question in a dangling state - he would do as you and merely note that (what's the phrasing?) "ministerial advice is not required".

For legal obfuscation, Clinton has nothing on Royalty's noblesse.

Edited July 13, 2009 by August1991

g_bambino · July 13, 2009

The order of Merit isn't a Canadian award. It's a personal award of the Queen.

As an honour open to all the Queen's subjects, the Order of Merit is indeed Canadian. It has a category for foreign appointees, and no one from one of the Queen's countries has ever been placed in it.

Smallc · July 13, 2009

I suggest that you go to law school. Ministerial advice probably wasn't sought, because it isn't needed and I can't see Harper giving such advice.

This is perfectly legal and your comment about needing to go to law school is nonsensical.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Smallc

Smallc · July 13, 2009

As an honour open to all the Queen's subjects, the Order of Merit is indeed Canadian.

Thank you for the clarification. The wording on the press release is rather confusing. I think that the person writing it may have screwed it up.

g_bambino · July 13, 2009

I'll bet that ministerial advice is sought...

Maybe, and maybe not. It's irrelevant, however, as the advice isn't required. The Queen could appoint Stompin' Tom Connors to the Order of Merit and there's nothing Harper or anyone else could do about it.

Smallc · July 13, 2009

Maybe, and maybe not.

I would say not. I really can't see Harper giving advice to honour Chretien.

msj · July 13, 2009

From link above:But I'll bet that ministerial advice is sought, particularly when giving an award to a Canadian.
Smallc, I suggest you go to law school.

This is not the first time that August boy has been caught without reading a link that delves into legal matters.

The link that smallc put up clearly states that the award is given without ministerial advice.

This is not to say that the Queen wouldn't necessarily ask anyway (she is very polite, after all) but the link clearly states that.

Smallc - if you go and look into the thread on this forum about CPP you will see August pretending to know a thing or two about the law. He didn't bother reading the case law that I put up and kept on posting his stupidity anyway.

I think the same thing is happening here.

August1991 · July 13, 2009

Maybe, and maybe not. It's irrelevant, however, as the advice isn't required.

Maybe, and maybe not. I love that ambiguous phrase too.

First of all, please understand how the Canadian State functions in theory.

Second, imagine for an instant that the Queen of England conferred an award on a former Canadian PM without the approval of a sitting Canadian PM.

----

This is all about Harper playing on Chretien's vanity, and against the interests of the federal Liberal party. That's it, that's all. It's a good joke, far better than a misplaced host.

Edited July 13, 2009 by August1991

Smallc · July 13, 2009

First of all, please understand how the Canadian State functions in theory.

Huh?

Second, imagine for an instant that the Queen of England

So you really do have no idea what you're talking about then. She's also the Queen of Canada.

August1991 · July 13, 2009

Smallc - if you go and look into the thread on this forum about CPP you will see August pretending to know a thing or two about the law. He didn't bother reading the case law that I put up and kept on posting his stupidity anyway.

msj, let's take this CPP issue outside, to another thread. (BTW, I can't recall the issue now but I'm sure you'll happily remind me.)

jdobbin · July 13, 2009

As I noted above, if the Queen of England were to take a decision of such nature in Canada without the prior approval of the federal government (as you seem to believe has occurred), then it would be a greater political scandal.

I believe that you don't know what you are talking about.

Canada is not consulted on a wide variety of honorary titles and awards.

I'm afraid you will have to prove your point of you are simply lying.

August1991 · July 13, 2009

So you really do have no idea what you're talking about then. She's also the Queen of Canada.

In name alone.

Most Canadians are Catholic and yet our nominal head of state must not only be protestant, but Church of England.

Smallc · July 13, 2009

In name alone.

Yeah, ok. Name, function, realty, law and constitution, but that's all. Religion is a non issue, because in her role as the Canadian head of state, she is the defender of all states.

msj · July 13, 2009

In name alone.
Most Canadians are Catholic and yet our nominal head of state must not only be protestant, but Church of England.

Most Canadians are Catholic, huh?

Yes, many are. I wouldn't say most though.

Well, unless your Canada only includes Quebec.

August1991 · July 13, 2009

Canada is not consulted on a wide variety of honorary titles and awards.

As I argued above, if the (Protestant, Church of England) Queen of England gave an award to a former PM of Canada without prior (what's the term?) "consultation" with the existing federal PM, then I think that there's a greater political scandal involved.

As I noted above, Harper must have approved this and I think that Harper did so to abuse Chretien's vanity (as great as any secondary character of a Balzac novel, typically a German banker) and to put the federal Liberal party in an awkward position.

Edited July 13, 2009 by August1991