How about this guy?
Apparently it’s the only French title of nobility in Canada still recognized by the Crown.
Well of course, my original post was poorly worded 
New Zealand also has some life peers, and it also has a Maori King, and Prince and the wife of the king has the title of Lady, the reason for that maybe due to her not having royal blood. In terms of New Zealand peers, we only have a few such as Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Sir Arthur Porrit and in each instances these were granted by the queen of the United Kingdom for services rendered to UK not services rendered to New Zealand. each realm is different, The Queen is the Only New Zealander within the realm of New Zealand to be given a title by right of birth. When the Maori Queen was alive , Queen Elizabeth gave her a title of DAME as it was the highest order you can receive within the realm of the New Zealand crown, although the Maori Queen had the title of Queen/Ariki her official title was Dame Arikinui Te Atarangaikaahu, which basically incorporates both her titles the Maori and New Zealand titles, but her Maori title was only recognised within the tribes that recognise that Maori Royal family, remember there are several within New Zealand, but most are not formally recognised. Although Maori were the first people of New Zealand and we have a recognised Maori King, the King still requires a New Zealand passport which is granted by Queen anyway. So Maori sovereignty is non existent which seems totally unfair.
A Duke, is a Prince, you can’t have a Duke if Tasmania unless the Queen Granted one of her Grand Children or Children that title, but remembering that the highest order within Australia is Sir or Dame , then Queen, Australia would need to change there policies in order for there to be a Duke. There was talk of the Royal family starting there own royal line within Australia, e.g giving Princess Anne the Australian Throne.
Remember people the Commonwealth basically shares a head of state, the duties of the queen in these countries are acted by the resident Govenor Generals. In each commonwealth country they have there own Throne, different country different laws, different thrones, The NZ throne is solely the NZ throne. If UK became a republic and the Queen was exiled, she could live in NZ and still be Queen of New Zealand
I think the key point is that, while there is a peerage of the United Kingdom, there is no peerage of Australia, no peerage of Canada, etc, and there never has been. So any Australian, Canadian, etc who is made a peer is a peer of the United Kingdom, not a peer of Australia or Canada.
The Australian, etc, government could advice the Queen to create a peerage of Australia and then appoint some people to it but, obviously, they won’t do anything of the kind.
You have that backwards; those were all named after British peers.
Canada has the Barons de Longueuil. IIRC the first Canadian Prime Minister was due to be created a peer, but he died before that could happen so the title was given to his widow instead.
I never heard that, but Prince Charles at one pointed wanted to serve as Governor-General of Australia.
True, but there was the Scottish Baronetage of Nova Scotia.
Conrad Black owned a bunch of newspapers; he was sort of like Canada’s answer to Rush Limbaugh, but with a bigger vocabulary and ego. Oddly enough, he got miffed when the liberal government refused to allow him to acquire a British lordship (those being for sale in the UK).
From the noises made at the time, apparently all honours bestowed on Canadian citizens by the crown, even British titles, must have the approval of the Canadian government. (Typically the most any Canadian gets is a knighthood, and few of those…) Black criticized the government up and down in his newspapers, then cried foul when they specifically refused to let the Brits make him a lord. He became a British citizen, renounced his Canadian citizenship, then became Lord “Look at Me, I’m A Lord!” or some such.
He continued to live in Canada and other places and drive his newspapers into the ground until he was charged with various financial misdoings. He was acquitted on most. Apparently, in the USA, being head of a company and selling its assets while demanding and accepting a separate personal “non-compete” payoff on top of the selling price to the company - is not a breach of fiduciary obligations to your company. But even in the USA, getting served with a “Keep Out” order from the court and then going in and helping yourself to the boxes of company records or other stuff is a bit serious. He did time in the USA.
The mystery is how a convicted felon with no Canadian citizenship manages to enter and live permanently in this country, but the current conservative government will not discuss the details.
So the Canadian government does not have titles of its own and does not confer titles. However, the British titles can be awarded to Canadian citizens (as can any foreign title) but protocol dictates, at least for Britain, that the Canadian government assent first.
When I was in Scotland, I think it was Stirling Castle, the guide pointed out the small patch of land in one courtyard where allegedly the Baron of Nova Scotia was given his title - since the lord had to be invested (?) on his own land, they added a patch of Scotland a few feet by a few feet to Nova Scotia to satisfy this requirement.
For the record, Conrad Black is “Baron Black of Crossharbour.”
The Aussies don’t take too well to stuck-up sticky-beaks: Bunyip aristocracy - Wikipedia
There is, as all above have observed, no native aristocracy (bunyip or otherwise) in Australia in the strict sense of peers (lords, barons, earls, marquesses, dukes, etc). Some Australians have been made peers, but very rarely.
The Australian honours system is now based on various ranks within the Order of Australia, which is modelled on the various UK orders of chivalry. The Order was created by Letters Patent from the Queen, necessarily so since she is the source of all honours (according to the theories that drive these things) but the impetus came from within Australia, and she acted on Australian advice in doing so. The poms have no actual say in who gets appointed.
The Queen is head of the order. The rank that is in practical terms the highest is Companion (you get the letters AC after your name.) They are pretty uncommon. They only give out 4 or so a year for the whole country. Then one goes down the ranks to AO, AM, and OAM.
The actual highest level, though, is purely theoretical - AK, or Knight of the Order of Australia. There is an equal hypothetical rank of Dame for women.
Now, knighthoods are not strictly nobility as I noted above, but they are closely related ideas.
I don’t think many AKs were given out before they stopped the whole knighthood thing here just after creating the Order of Australia system. I presume the Queen has one.
Why hasn’t Black’s peerage been revoked?
Hasn’t committed any offence against the Queen’s peace in Britain, so why should Britain do anything?
There must be some sort of “not being a convicted felon” clause. It’s not as though he was a prisoner of conscience or something.
A felony conviction does not make you lose your peerage. It’s been proposed from time to time, though: Disgraced Archer may lose peerage | Jeffrey Archer | The Guardian.
Awards to that rank were discontinued in 1986, but 12 knights & 2 dames were created. Two of home are still living (one being the Prince of Wales). The Queen is the sovereign of the order, but she doesn’t hold a damehood per se.
Nope. That was true in the olden days (especially for treason), but not anymore. The only way a peerage can be revoked is by an act of Parliament. The last time that happened was during WWI when several German relations of the Royal Family had their British titles suspended (technically not revoked since their heirs can petition the crown to reinstate them without creating a new peerage).