Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Minister of Defence tells me reinstatement of Royal Canadian Navy would be inappropriate

JAN 16 2011 UPDATE FOR THOSE JUST JOINING US BY WAY OF REFERRAL TO THIS DATED BLOG POST. The below letter that I received back in August 2010 is old and now out-of-date. The Minister of Defence and the government have very much changed their position since the Senate motion was passed on December 14, 2010 encouraging the Minister to change the identity of Maritime Command to a name that includes the word 'Navy'. We have reason to believe that given the overwhelming support of veterans, the government would likely proceed with the royal designation, but that is a matter of appropriate timing. Updates can be followed here, but our campaign website is at

Dear Lead Petitioner:

Thank you for your e-mail concerning the restoration of the "Royal"
designation to the Canadian navy. I appreciate the opportunity to
address your concerns, and please accept my apology for this delay in

The Executive Curl was addressed as a result of private member's motion
M-459 by Member of Parliament Guy Lauzon (Stormont-Dundas-South
Glengarry). Following a review of the motion and in light of the naval
centennial celebrations taking place this year, it was determined that
reinstating the curl would be an excellent way to highlight the navy's
100 years of service to Canada.

Regarding the potential restoration of the "Royal" title, this matter
has been reviewed on many occasions with the interest and morale of
serving members of the Canadian Forces (CF) constantly in mind. Although
the CF has returned to environmentally distinctive uniforms to foster a
greater sense of identity among its members, the Government intends to
preserve the very real benefits of unification by retaining the current
organization. The re-introduction of the titles of the former single
services amalgamated to form the CF would be inappropriate, as it would
not reflect the true character of the CF. For example, those who now
wear the naval uniform only approximate the membership of the Royal
Canadian Navy. Today's navy includes many personnel wearing air force
blue and even army green, and large numbers of sailors serve in land and
air force units. Similarly, today's air force is not a mirror of the
former Royal Canadian Air Force, nor is today's army identical to the
former Canadian Army. All work for common goals.

The use of the word "Royal" as a title has never been taken away from
the CF. When the three former services were amalgamated in 1968, the
traditions and customary practices of the services were combined in the
new Canadian Armed Forces. The Canadian Forces Reorganization Act
permitted continued use of the title "Royal" by units that had earned
the honour as well as other titles of a similar nature granted by
customary right, such as Her Majesty's Canadian Ship, The Royal Canadian
Regiment, and The Royal Military College of Canada.

I trust this information is helpful, and thank you for your ongoing
interest in the Canadian Forces. I would also like to take this
opportunity to thank you for your service in defence of Canada.


Peter MacKay
Minister of National Defence


  1. Thanks for fighting the good fight Lead Petitioner!

    Nearly 5,000 signatures from people all over the country means your efforts were indeed appreciated.

    I received an almost identical response from the MND when I wrote to him supporting a renewed RCN, RCAF, and Canadian Army.

  2. I guess that it then. If ever the three seperate services were to come back it would be under a Conserative goverment.Perhaps an appeal could be made to the Prime minster .Thank you for your time and effort God Bless You

  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  5. Just as an update, there is still a Senate motion to ask the Government to rename Maritime Command as Canadian Navy that has been referred to the Standing Committee on National Security and Defence. Testimony was heard on the matter 25 Oct 2010, but the proceedings have yet to be published.

  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  7. Check out this link for Dr. Alec Douglas' testimony on name change. The Committee seems sympathetic to RCN.

  8. The majority of Serving Naval members were not in accord with the change and cost to the Naval Uniform. Why the need to revert to 3 distinctive titles at a time when Joint operations is even more critical to the defence of Canada. It seems every time we go forward someone wants to look back.

  9. What a grand and bald faced fib. The vast majority were pleased to go to distinctive service uniforms - I know, I was there.

  10. Having served in the old Army, tranistioned into the CF molded, Land Forces I witnessed the cause and effect on all 3 combined arms. Unification at the top for co-ordination was admirable and necessary but time has proven it to be the detriment of the men and women in the trenches, so to speak. Whether "Royal" is acceptable, due to the Quebec factor remains to be seen, but Navy needs to be reinstated for the sake of identity and moral.

  11. Great website, looks very clean and organized. Keep up the good work! antibacterial

  12. Thanks for the auspicious writeup. It in reality was a entertainment
    account it. Look complex to more added agreeable from you!

    By the way, how could we keep up a correspondence?

    My web site; calories walking


The Petition moves along...

May 1: Laurie Hawn, M.P. agrees to support petition
April 30: Sent draft petition to The Dominion Institute to seek their sponsorship
April 28: Sent draft petition to Captain(N) Pickingford, Project Manager, Canadian Navy Centennial Project
April 27: Sent petition to Blaine Barker of the Royal Canadian Naval Association and Bob Nixon of the Naval Officer's Association of Canada and Peter Dawe, Executive Director of the RMC Club
April 26: The Monarchist League of Canada members are supportive
April 25: Interesting - even heated - debate over at the Navy, Army, Air Force Forum, where the "Yeas" have it by a two-thirds majority.