Skip to main content
opinion

On Tuesday, the Governor General's office announced that Henry Morgentaler would receive the Order of Canada. At least three major public attempts had been made to nominate the doctor, but the last one was with a sense of urgency since there is no posthumous appointment, and Dr. Morgentaler is 85 and recently suffered a severe stroke.

Even before the official announcement, rumours were circulating about his appointment, and it had anti-abortion activists and supporters wading into the Order of Canada committee's decision.

As the public debated whether Dr. Morgentaler should or shouldn't have received the honour, the government of Stephen Harper distanced itself by pointing out that the decision is made at arm's length from the government.

Why is there an Order of Canada and what does it mean? How does the committee decide who should receive an honour? What other decision has been made that has sparked controversy over the years?

We're pleased that historian Christopher McCleery will join us online today from 11 a.m. to noon ET for a live discussion - not on the specific decision to give Dr. Morgentaler the Order, but on controversy and the Order of Canada in general. Send your questions now and join us then to reader Dr. McCreery's answers below.

Christopher McCreery's PhD theses was on the invention of Canadian citizenship, the origins of multiculturalism and the basis of the modern Canadian honours system - defining the concept of "exemplary citizenship."

Dr. McCreery has written The Order of Canada: Its Origins, History and Development, the first full length academic work written about the history and development of not only the Order of Canada, but the entire Canadian honours system. A byproduct of this work was The Canadian Honours System, which is the first fully illustrated history of the modern Canadian honours system. He has served as an adviser to the British and various Canadian provincial governments on questions relating to honours.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Christine Diemert, globeandmail.com: Thanks Dr. McCreery for joining us online today to talk about controversy and the Order of Canada.

Before we get into reader questions I'd like to ask you to give us a quick overview of the history of the order and how it is selected.

Christopher McCreery: The Order of Canada was founded in 1967 as a way to recognize outstanding lifetime achievement. Prior to 1967 Canada had at various times used the British Honours system, although following the First World War this was greatly restricted. Thus, for nearly 50 years Canada was without an honours system. It was seen fitting as a Centennial Year project to establish a national honour to recognize those who helped to built (and who continue to build) modern Canada.

The selection/nomination process was the first of its type in the world. It relies on grassroots nominations for regular citizens. Any Canadian can nominate someone for the Order of Canada, they simply fill in a nomination form, write a short essay on why the nominee is deserving of recognition and provide the names of two or three other people who would be supportive of the nomination and then the form is mailed to Rideau Hall.

At Rideau Hall the nominations are collected (they get between 600 and 800 a year) and they have several full-time staff who put together research files on each of the nominees.

Prior to their meetings they receive several large binders with biographies and information about each of the nominees. Historically their decisions have been made by consensus, not a vote. In the past if a member of the Council was opposed to a specific nomination it would not go forward.

R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Regardless of our personal beliefs, where did the idea come from that Dr. Morgentaler is 'the most controversial person ever appointed to the order?' Weren't Conrad Black, Alan Eagleson and Garth Drabinsky all appointed to the Order of Canada too?

Christopher McCreery: Hi R. Miller, thanks for your question. I say that Morgentaler is the most controversial person ever appointed to the Order at the time of his appointment. When Conrad Black was appointed to the Order in 1990 he was not nearly as controversial a figure as he is today. There were some comments in the press and a few letters to the editor at the time but it was a short-lived controversy. When Eagleson was appointed people across the country cheered a man who was then seen as our great hockey Czar and purveyor of our national sport, it was only when he was changed for his handling of NHLPA funds that he became a source of controversy. This is roughly the same situation for Drabinsky. For all three of your examples, it was only some years after they received the Order that they became highly controversial.

Christine Diemert, globeandmail.com writes: Dr. McCreery, can you respond to this point on left and right-wing appointments?

Paul Meyer from Montrose, Canada: The decision to award the OOC to Morgentaler has a lot to do with the political inclinations of the people on the board that put names forward. Have a look at the appointments over that last 15 years or so. You'll see lots more painters than engineers, many more 'women's rights' activists than scientists.

The OOC has changed from a system to provide recognition for outstanding Canadian achievements, to one that rewards Lib-Left heroes from Toronto and Montreal and ignores most Canadians.

Christopher McCreery: The Order of Canada is the most representative national Order in the world. There are people from the left and from the right who have been appointed, from David Suzuki and Tommy Douglas to Preston Manning and Deborah Gray. A large number of appointments do go to artists (film, music, dance, painting etc), but they only constitute about 15 per cent of the total appointments, while Volunteerism, public service, health, science, education constitute the bulk of appointments.

Karen MacDougall from Kingston Canada writes: When I woke up to celebrate Canada Day and read this story I felt as though I had been kicked in the gut. Like it or not, the reality is that many Canadians are opposed to abortion. To give the Order of Canada to this recipient serves to divide and polarize the citizens of the country rather than unite them in pride. It has forever diminished the award in my mind. Should I ever receive it my response would be 'return to sender' as I would encourage others to do.

Christopher McCreery: To date only one member of the Order of Canada has resigned from the Order in protest. This was Father Lucien Larre, who announced this week that he was returning his insignia because he is opposed to Dr. Morgentaler's appointment.

Moe Unting from Calgary Canada writes: Do you think the OoC has perhaps unwittingly politicized its award; my feeling is that they are tacitly supporting the Pro-choice side of the debate. Could they have also nominated a defender of fetal rights as well at least to balance the issue?

Christopher McCreery: We have now heard that two members of the Advisory Council (that body which decides who receives the Order of Canada), voted against the appointment of Dr. Morgentaler. This is telling because since 1967 all decisions made by the Advisory Council have been unanimous/by consensus. I am sure there will be an increase in nominations for people on both sides of the anti-abortion/pro-choice debate to be appointed to the Order, and it will be up to the Advisory Council to adjudicate these.

J. Hendrick from Victoria Canada writes: Those who sit on the Order of Canada selection committee have ignored politics and what they would have understood to be an immediate tirade of objection by those who would deny women reproductive freedom. I am proud of the committe and thank them for recognizing the work of a man who for millions of women, is a hero. ... Is the Order of Canada meant to only recognize those who are free from controversy? Rejection of Dr. Morgentaler would have seemed small-minded and have diminished the Order of Canada.

Christopher McCreery: Thanks for your question. In the past a number of controversial figures have been appointed to the Order. Elizabeth Bagshaw, a birth control activist who was appointed in 1973 and Brent Hawkes, the first minister to perform a same sex marriage ceremony. Dr. Morgentaler is the most controversial figure to be appointed to date. It is because the debate over abortion is so divisive and polarizing that previous Advisory Councils had decided not to deal with this issue head on.

Stephen Penney from St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador Canada writes: Hello Dr. McCreery, thanks for joining us today. What message, in your opinion, is being sent to Canadians, by the decision to elect this very controversial figure to the Order of Canada? This issue has been and is a very divisive issue - how does the committee which selected Dr. Morgentaler reconcile this? Thank you, Stephen Penney St. John's, NL

Christopher McCreery: Hi Stephen, thanks for your question. I think that the message that is being sent by the Advisory Council of the Order is that they believe that Dr. Morgentaler has made an important contribution to the development of Canada.

Understandably because of the divisive nature of the issue there are Canadians who are both cheering and lamenting this decision. One thing to keep in mind is that the Order of Canada has always been intended to serve 2 purposes, first to recognize outstanding lifetime achievement at the local, national and international level, and secondly to foster a sense of national unity/serve as a symbol of unity. This appointment to some degree chips away at this unity. This may well be only a temporary situation and we should realize that our national Order is quite young (when compared with others like Britain's Order of the Garter which dates from the 14th century and Frances Legion d'honneur which is more than 200 years old), so this is certainly part of the growing pains of developing a national honours system.

We have heard that the Committee had to take a vote on Dr. Morgentaler's appointment to the Order and that two members of the Committee did not support the appointment. It should be realized that since 1967 all previous Advisory Councils had worked on a consensus/unanimity model, whereby every member had to agree with ever appointment, and this worked successfully for more than 5,400 appointments over the past 41 years. This further demonstrates how divisive the issue is and the reason why the Order of Canada has historically been willing to appoint other controversial figures in less potent debates, but steered clear of the abortion debate for the past four decades.

William Mathie from St. Catharines Canada writes: Two questions for Professor McCreery: It is widely reported that the committee advising the Governor general was not unanimous in proposing Henry Morgentaler but nevertheless proceeded to make the nomination under the leadership of the committee's chair, the Chief Justice. Is this usual?

The citation says the recipient expanded women's health options and advanced the cause of civil liberties. Someone who had never heard of Morgentaler would have no idea what he had actually done to get this award. Is it usual for citations to be so obscure? Or do you suppose this reflected the embarrassment of the committee in making this proposal?

Christopher McCreery: Indeed there are reports that the decision was NOT unanimous. This is unusual given that ever other appointment since 1967 (and there have been more than 5,400) have been made by a unanimous decision of the Advisory Council. The Advisory Council has historically always been a consensus body and very collegial as well. This "vote" seems to undermine the historic collegiality and consensus nature of the Advisory Council.

The citation that was issued when Dr. Morgentaler was appointed to the Order earlier this week is what is called the "short" citation, a much longer citation will be read at his investiture ceremony which is likely to take place 6-12 months down the road.

Jimmy Stewart from Toronto Canada writes: With regards to frequency of being bestowed, how does the Order of Canada compare with other Commonwealth orders such as the Order of Australia, Order of New Zealand, etc.

Christopher McCreery: In most Commonwealth countries honours are announced twice a year. In Canada they have also traditionally been announced twice a year, on Canada Day and just before New Year's Day. It is a pretty standard format. The one difference is that in Canada it is only the Order of Canada that is announced on Canada Day and just before New Years, other honours such as the Order of Military Merit and Meritorious Service Decorations are announced a periodic times throughout the year.

Jack Ryan from SaskatoonVictoria Canada writes: There are, I believe 75 new honorees announced for 2008. Do we risk diluting the award by honoring so many people?

Iain's Opinion from BC Canada writes: How can anybody seriously entertain the concept that this is Canada's highest honor when it's given out by the wheelbarrow load every year? It's a joke.

Christopher McCreery: At present we appoint about 200 people to the Order of Canada every year, it is a pretty small number when compared with the number of honours handed out in France annually (more than 5,000), and Britain (up to 1,000 per year) and Australia (more than 400 a year). We are pretty conservative in the number of annual awards.

Bill Kamies from Canada writes: from FREEMAN PATTERSON, C.M., M.Div. As a member of the Order of Canada, I personally am not at all unhappy that some appointments may be controversial. Quite frankly, if the Order always attempts to avoid controversy, then recipients would represent only a cross-section of the nice and the bland, and in this sense be very unrepresentative of Canada and Canadians. The diversity and quality of those who make the decisions about appointments is quite remarkable. and I am grateful for their generous donation of time and thought to reach their decisions.

My question is a simple one. How can the appointment of, for example, Dr. Morgentaler be regarded as more controversial than that of a priest or theologian, who has been honoured for community service, but who has taken a strong stand against equal rights for homosexuals or women?

Christopher McCreery: You are quite correct, the level of controversy is all in the eyes of the beholder, Dr. Morgentaler is certainly the most controversial public figure to be appointed to the Order. I believe this is because he is so widely known, and the debate surrounding the anti-abortion/pro-choice issue is so very divisive.

Christine Diemert, globeandmail.com: Would the prime minister see the list of appointees before they were announced and ultimately be able to lobby against someone getting the honour?

Christopher McCreery: I am not sure if the Prime Minister does get to see the list before it is announced. The Advisory Council and Order of Canada are set up to be insulated from politician interference, and this has largely been successful except for one instance in 1978 when Pierre Trudeau delayed the appointment of Paul Desmerais Sr for 6 months. There is no instance of a Canadian Prime Minister preventing an appointment (as he is not involved in the system), and the delay that Trudeau imposed was the only time a PM has medalled in the workings of the Council. Even in the Desmerais case the Council agreed that a delay would be prudent.

Trudeau delayed Desmerais Sr.'s appointment to the Order becasue it would have been announced shortly after the end of a highly acrimonious strike at two of the newspapers owned by Mr. Desmerais. It was felt that such an appointment would be untimely so soon after the end of the strike and that it could reflect poorly on not only the Order but also the government of the day.

M Holmes from Edmonton Canada writes: How do you feel about the current structure and process for appointing Canadians to the Order - is the current body that decides what nominees to confirm effective and sufficiently representative? What are the pros and cons of the current structure/process? Do you feel there is a need for any changes or reforms to the current process?

Secondly, if the committee makes a recommendation that the Governor-General and/or senior government officials (ie - the Prime Minister) strongly oppose, can the GG (or say, if the PM were to apply pressure to her) refuse to induct a particular nominee? Mike

Christopher McCreery: I think that the structure of the Advisory Council could be changed to be a bit more broadly representative of Canada. At the moment there are 10 members, and other honours systems such as the Order of Australia have a larger council (despite having a smaller population). I don't think you would want to double the size of the council but a slight enlargement would be something potentially beneficial.

When the Order was established in 1967 the Advisory Council was half its current size, and as the years have gone on the Order has gone through a number of reforms. The membership of the Council tries to be representative of the various regions, occupations and general balance, but this is not always easy to do. The honours system (not just the Order of Canada) is constantly changing in small ways, while we have one of the most successful honours systems in the world it is not without problems and gaps, hopefully these will be examined in the near future.

In the Canadian context the GG has never taken anyone off the appointments list. Similarly the PM has never had anyone taken off the list. The GG is intended to be a neutral arbiter and administrator and not intended to become involved in the process other than to ensure that it is operating fairly. As for the PM, as he is a political figure and the Order's selection process is specifically set up to not include political involvement, the PM is not involved nor can he or she really become involved. Years ago, prior to the First World War it was the PM who drew up the honours list and as you can imagine honours became key patronage plums, there is a latent fear that if we were to allow politicians (from any party) to become involved in the honours system once again that the system would become a patronage machine (as it has to a great degree in the UK, where those who gave political donations to certain parties ended up with Knighthoods).

Christine Diemert, globeandmail.com: Are there other controversial potential appointees who have been rejected before such as Dr. Morgentaler had in the past? And how do we actually know who they are?

Christopher McCreery: There have long been rumours that Don Cherry has been nominated for the Order on a number of occasions. As he is not a member of the Order yet, we can assume that his nomination is either still being considered by the staff at Rideau Hall or that it has been rejected. Cherry has been a bit controversial because of his occasional comments about French Canadians and non-Canadian hockey players. Another figure is Professor Margaret Somerville, who is a professor in law and ethics at McGill, this was recently reported in the press. She is a dual Canadian-Australian citizen and has been awarded the Order of Australia, but has yet to receive the Order of Canada.

You have to keep in mind that because the discussions around potential members of the Order of Canada are secret it is impossible to really know who has been rejected on account of being controversial. There is nothing to say that Cherry or Somerville will never receive the Order of Canada it is entirely possible. It wouldn't be fair if the Advisory Council was to announce all those people whom they have "rejected," and there is always a chance that certain nominations can be resubmitted or reconsidered. As anyone can nominate their fellow citizen to be appointed to the Order it is a process which is always open to new nominations, even of people who have been nominated in the past.

Christine Diemert, globeandmail.com: Do you know whether there is intense lobbying that goes on when someone sends in a nomination?

Christopher McCreery: Sometimes different groups and even nominees mount a nomination campaign, but the Chancellery at Rideau Hall and the Advisory Council look at the persons accomplishment and not the number of letters of support they receive.

Barry Westholm from Westmeath Canada writes: Dr McCreery Good Morning. You've mentioned that since 1967 all previous Advisory Councils had worked on a consensus/unanimity model for more than 5,400 appointments over the past 41 years and that this is not the case for this one, very divisive, nomination. This to me is more disturbing than the nomination itself; my two questions are as follows: 1. What gives this particular Advisory Council the authority to change these long standing rules or did someone (the GG?) invoke an overruling judgment in this case? 2. Since the precedence is now set where a consensus is no longer required for the OOC, what are the new rules for future OOC nominations? Barry

Christopher McCreery: Hi Barry, thanks for your question. The Advisory Council has always been able to make its own procedures and this, as in most other meeting forums is usually decided by the Chair. It is essentially a matter that is internal to the Advisory Council.

I am not sure if this means that the Advisory Council will not return to its consensus/unanimity model. It is certainly a model that has served our honours system well (and one that is copied by most provinces and a number of countries around the world). It would be a shame if the collegiality of the Advisory Council and its tradition of consensus were not maintained. Our honours system was never intended to be a popularity contest, and leaving the consensus mode and going towards votes flies in the face of what has been a very successful system.

Christine Diemert, globandmail.com: Thanks for joining us today Dr. McCreery. Before we close I'd like to ask whether any honorees have been asked to return their Orders, and if so, who and why?

Christopher McCreery: Glad to be of help, it was interesting and fun to participate. Two former Order of Canada recipients were stripped of the Order. Alan Eagleson, the former president of the NHL Players Association, following his conviction on fraud charges was stripped of his Officer's insignia and struck off the register and the most recent person to be removed from the Order was David Ahenakew who made a series of anti-Semitic comments in 2005. It is a pretty rare occasion for a person to be stripped of an honour.

Interact with The Globe