RESTORE THE HONOUR!

Thank You and Good-Bye

2011-11-08T13:14:00.000-08:00

A number of military publications have asked for our story on the successful campaign to bring back the RCN and RCAF. This is what we wrote.

With the suppression in 1968 of the RCN and RCAF a significant part of Canada's military heritage was lost. Now, forty-three years later, the historic identities of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force have been restored to the Canadian Forces.

Our campaign to restore the "Royal Honours" began in 2007 by making optimal use of the tools available to us. There was an online petition, a website, a blog and the use of promotional and patriotic videos. We eventually gained access to thousands of comments and email addresses from signatories of the petition that were especially used to maximum effect during key moments of the campaign.

A reconnaissance of the matter revealed the certain minefields that lay before us: the emotional hot-button issue of 'unification', the symbolism of the prefix 'Royal', the invariable canard over 'cost' and 'effort', political and cultural biases, and even the monarchy itself. It was important for us to avoid these distractions and remain focused on the task before us: to convince the government of the virtue of restoring the Royal titles within the existing unified command of the Canadian Forces.

Not unexpectedly, we encountered some stiff resistance. When MP Laurie Hawn agreed to sponsor our petition in 2007, researchers in the Library of Parliament wrote that it would take mountains of paperwork, require royal proclamations and up to 67 statutory amendments to enact. While we were prepared to move Heaven and Earth, this torrent of misinformation was a setback that did somewhat delay our progress.

Fortunately, in due course, we received the opinion of Dr. Christopher McCreery, an authority in the matter of 'Titles and Honours', who confirmed that the RCN and RCAF were never actually abolished, that they indeed still subsisted as merged entities within the CF, and that the Minister of National Defence could simply resume usage of the titles by virtue of the executive authority already available to him.

We had thought that the then-upcoming Canadian Naval Centennial would be the catalyst to 'Give the Navy its name back!' as Senator Joseph Day so passionately argued in the media, but head of the navy Vice-Admiral Dean McFadden's 'don't rock the boat' message sent a negative chill throughout the navy that spilled over into the Naval Officers Association whose support we thought critical. Although we were perplexed by Adm. McFadden's lack of enthusiasm for our project, he may have foreseen that the restoration of our military and naval heritage and the symbolism of monarchy were mutually reinforcing in a potentially powerful way, and that the navy may not be immune to possible divisions emanating from certain quarters of the country. The admiral had 'bigger fish to fry'.

Things were moving rather slowly until, incredibly, in October 2010, a motion by Senator Bill Rompkey to change the universally unloved 'Maritime Command' to (not the Royal) 'Canadian Navy' made it onto the floor of the Senate. When the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence chose to hold hearings on the matter, we knew that things had finally come to a head. It was then that we were called by the Prime Minister's Office.

We learned that PM Harper was sympathetic to the restoration (initially this only concerned the Navy though it only made sense that the Air Force would be included as well), but that the government would remain neutral while the matter was being deliberated in the Senate. We were advised that although the petition was informative, it was imperative to demonstrate the support of most, if not all, veteran groups and ex-service associations, as a necessary precondition to government action. We were also encouraged to keep the MND and the PMO abreast of our progress.

The Senate hearings proceeded, albeit with an apparent bias in favour of 'Canadian Navy', even though most senators on the committee, led by Senators Day, Plett and Manning, argued in support of the navy's traditional designation. When we blitzed the Senate Committee with what the Chair, Sen. Pamela Wallin termed our 'orchestrated email campaign', it was to ensure that the senators were aware of the names of the thousands who had signed the petition; especially after one retired admiral testified that he had not met a single person who wanted a return to the RCN!

Over the next eight months, a collaborative relationship with the PMO developed which, while not a guarantee of success, gave us a growing confidence that culminated on December 14th, 2010, when the Senate unanimously passed a revised motion encouraging the government to adopt a title with the word 'Navy' in it. We sensed victory. The prospect of the "Royal Canadian Navy" would live to fight another day.

The imperative to win further support from stakeholder groups did, however, seem to present a rather daunting challenge. Although we undoubtedly had the overwhelming favour of veterans at the grassroots level, we were disappointed that the national executives of the Naval Officers Association, the Air Force Association and even the Royal Canadian Legion were all initially opposed, arguing that the government would not be able to defend either the effort or the cost.

Not confident that they were speaking on behalf of their membership, we communicated directly with individual branches and organisations across the country, with very positive results. This included literally dozens of associations, most especially the National Council of Veteran Associations, an umbrella organization representing 58 distinct veteran groups all led by Canada's beloved 'Mr. Veteran', Cliff Chadderton. These results would make the government sufficiently comfortable, but the effort to maximize stakeholder support would continue until the eve of the Minister's historic announcement made from HMC Dockyard Halifax on 16 August 2011.

We are enormously gratified that our campaign was successful, for our deserving veterans and those retired and serving members of the forces who have long dreamed of this day. That a solid majority of Canadians, across all spectra, support the restoration is tremendously satisfying.

May the RCN and RCAF remain impregnable fortresses from this day forward, whatever the tint of future governments - and may the pride of our military men and women be well served because of it.

Michael J. Smith is a graduate of the Royal Military College of Canada and a former naval officer. Gregory Benton is a past Regimental Chaplain of the Royal Regiment of Canada.

'We are grateful he lived long enough to see the RCAF reinstated'

2011-08-31T06:21:00.001-07:00

We are deeply gratified to have received this notice from the Air Force Association, courtesy of Dan Rawlyck Capt (Ret'd), announcing the passing of Wing Commander "Duke" Warren DFC, CDE, RCAF.

In his message, Mr. Rawlyck notes:

'you can see that the family specifically mentions that
they were glad that he lived long enough to see the
RCAF reinstated. I think this is one of the things that
comes to mind when the MND stated that the costs of
restoring the "Royal" titles would be minimal - but the
benefits would be priceless!

We offer a salute and extend our sympathy to Duke Warren's family.
May he rest in peace and continue to be an inspiration to all the pilots
of the RCAF.

A Resounding Success

2011-08-30T18:56:00.000-07:00

To the individual who criticized that six thousand signatures "is hardly a resounding success", we are clearly vindicated today with the news that a solid majority of Canadians support the government's move to restore the traditional titles, Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force.

In fact millions support the resumption of these magnificent titles, which resonate across the generations and across party lines. Even a strong majority of federalist Quebeckers support the historic designations.

Across Canada, 56 per cent agree with the move. Only 11 per cent are strongly opposed, which means that the potential for critics of this decision to whip up a backlash is small. At the other end of the scale, 18 per cent strongly support the decision. In other words the government found a pretty low-cost way to make almost one in five voters feel pretty good.

It’s not surprising this decision is popular with Conservative voters, who approve by a 72 per cent to 20 per cent margin. More interesting is that this is not an idea that works only with older voters: younger people support this decision in virtually equal numbers.

While there’s predictably more pushback in Quebec, still 41 per cent of voters in that province like this decision. That's easily twice as many as have been thinking about voting Conservative.

Roughly half of Liberal and NDP voters support the move. For leaders of those parties, it puts fighting this decision squarely in the pile of ideas labeled: “Worth the trouble?”

We are immensely grateful and extremely flattered by your kind and generous praise

2011-08-25T18:20:00.000-07:00

And I do mean we -- for Padre Gregory Benton, a former chaplain with the Royal Regiment of Canada, deserves equal credit for this victory, yet has received precious little recognition for his efforts. If I was the public face, he toiled in private as chief strategist, as film producer, as architect of royalsalute.ca. He wrote the words "Why We Are Here", he produced 'Royal Canadians', 'Voices' and 'The Honour Restored'. He cashed in his chits to recruit such eminents as Bob Dale and Astronaut Chris Hadfield. He wrote to our beloved 'Mr. Veteran', Cliff Chadderton, etc. He deserves enormous credit, and for any praise I received personally, I share with him equally and openly. Unfortunately, as a result of a serious illness, he was unable to attend the event with me in Halifax. Please know that both of us are humbled in this triumph by the hundreds of letters received from you in the days since the announcement, a small snapshot of which we include below:

I want to salute two individuals who were able to join us here this morning. Michael Smith, a retired sailor, spearheaded a campaign to restore the royal designations that gained the support of thousands of Canadians. And Senator Joe Day, himself a former member of the Royal Canadian Air Force, has been vocal in his support for this measure. Thank you both for your efforts and presence here today.

- The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence
_________________________________

Hi Michael: A hearty well done to you and Gregory and others for not giving up. Ready Aye Ready! Per Adua Ad Astra!

- MP Laurie Hawn, Wing Commander (Ret'd) and former Associate Minister of National Defence and early sponsor of our campaign. Laurie Hawn was the first Canadian qualified to fly CF-18s
________________________________

Michael: A great day. You should be very proud of your role in restoring a critical element of our identity. BZ!

- Vice-Admiral Paul Maddison, Commander of the Royal Canadian Navy
________________________________

Congratulations and good wishes to Michael Smith the founder and moving spirit of "Restore the Honour," which spearheaded the effort culiminating in today's good news. Michael's campaign has been long, arduous and hard-fought. He deserves enormous credit for harnessing opinion favourable to the restoration amongst members of the RCN, veterans, the public and officials in Ottawa.

- Robert Finch, Dominion Chairman, Monarchist League of Canada
________________________________

Mr. Smith: Thank you.

- John Fraser, Master of Massey College, University of Toronto
________________________________

Congratulations, Mr. Smith, on your success at returning us to colonial status.

- Jack Granatstein, distinguished military historian, Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada
________________________________

Michael: Congratulations to you. Many heroes are looking down on you and your colleagues as the heroes of this important battle, one that they could not fight directly here on the Earth at this time. But their souls did fight through heroes like you.

- George DeWolf Shaw, nephew and godson of Admiral Harry DeWolf
________________________________

Dear Mr. Smith, I was delighted to hear of the reinstatement of the proud names of Royal Canadian to the Navy and the Air Force. I served as a Nursing Sister in the Navy and I know of the pride of those who served in the R.C.N. Then I married into a Naval family. Thank you for your tireless effort.

- Dene Mainguy, daughter-in-law to Admiral Rollo Mainguy
_________________________________

When the RCN was abolished the 1.3 million living Canadians whose fathers, grandfathers, uncles,cousins, and brothers served and won the Battle of the Atlantic were disenfranchised. Now they can once again proudly claim this inheritance and pass on to succeeding generations the stories and exploits of the RCN, the RCN(R) and the RCNVR. All Canadians owe a debt of thanks to Michael Smith for his leadership in keeping this item on the agenda for the past number of years.

- John Jay, Chairman of the Canadian Naval Memorial Trust
_________________________________

You have much to be proud of in your own multi-year campaign to see the honour of Her Majesty's Canadian Forces restored. I don't believe it would have come about without your persistence and faith in the final outcome. My own role was a brief bit-part, one I was nonetheless proud to play.

- Dr. Christopher McCreery, Author, Historian and Canadian Authority on "Honours and Titles"
_________________________________

Mr. Smith: I would like to thank you from the bottom of my heart for your leadership in this matter. (As as former Flight Lieutenant Navigator in the RCAF, I am just tickled pink about this change.) As result of your leadership, I used the e-mail address book of our Ottawa Branch of the Monarchist League to send out mass mailings urging our members to support your lead in this matter. On behalf of all of our 360 members, therefore, may I thank you again.

- Allan E. Jones, Chairman Ottawa Branch, Monarchist League of Canada.
_________________________________

IT IS A GREAT EVENT INDEED--I LIVED THROUGH THE GREEN GARBAGE UNIFORM DAYS AND REMEMBER BEING ASKED DIRECTIONS AT AIRPORTS BECAUSE PEOPLE THOUGHT I WAS A CO-PILOT OF SOME OBSCURE LATIN AMERICAN AIRLINE.

- Peter C. Newman, nationally celebrated author and journalist, Honourary Captain of the Royal Canadian Navy
_________________________________

Sir, We are most gratified with your leadership and conviction in returning our historic and honoured name to Canada's navy. Bravo Zulu !

- J. Gaylord Kingston, President, Atlantic Chief & Petty Officers Association
_________________________________

THANKS FOR ALL YOUR EFFORTS.

- Judge John Maher, Provincial Court of Alberta
___________________________________

Dear Mr. Smith...Tell you the truth, I was myself utterly amazed you pulled it off...God bless you for all you have done!

- David Warren, Columnist for the Ottawa Citizen
___________________________________

Congratulations on your victory. I think it a setback and a retrograde step, and I will continue to encourage Canadians to stand on their own Canadian feet.

- Jeffrey Simpson, Columnist for the Globe and Mail
___________________________________

Congrats on your superb accomplishment. Wouldn't have happened without your initiative, even tho' PM Harper was forecasting the move as far back as 2003, when I was Exec Director of the Air Force Assn. Your endevours made it a reality!

- Bob Tracy, Dodo Bird Club of retired RCAF Flight Sergeants
___________________________________

Michael, Well done.

- Brian Hodgson, Sergeant-at-Arms of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta
___________________________________

You are one of the few intrepid men in history who ever managed to "turn the clock back" to its proper time... A breathtaking achievement, and one that I thought was probably unattainable... May the RCN and RCAF be impregnable fortresses from this day forward, whatever the tint of future governments -- and may your perseverance be long remembered and recognized.

- Stephen Klimczuk, Senior Advisor to A.T. Kearney, Fellow at Oxford University's Saïd Business School and past Director of the World Economic Forum
____________________________________

Dear Michael, Congratulations and well done for all your efforts that have been so successfully fulfilled today by the restoriation of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force. Admiral Landymore and his colleagues would have been very happy and proud today.

- Gary Toffoli, Executive Director, Canadian Royal Heritage Trust
_____________________________________

Dear Mr. Smith: It is my pleasure to extend my respect and admiration for your tireless efforts to restore the historic designations of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) as the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Canadian Army.

- The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada

The Minister's Speech

2011-08-24T05:54:00.000-07:00

Speech by the Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence: Canada Restores Historic Identities of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army, and the Royal Canadian Air Force

Halifax, NS
Tuesday 16 August 2011
Please check against delivery

Senator Joe Day,

Lieutenant-General Deschamps,

Vice-Admiral Maddison,

Lieutenant-General Devlin,

Mr. Jerry Sigrist,

Men and women of the Canadian Forces,

Veterans,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Good morning.

It's a pleasure to be here today on what is actually a very significant date in the proud history of Canada's military.

On August 16, 1911, exactly one hundred years ago today, King George V signed a letter granting a Royal Designation to what was then known as the Canadian Naval Service. The Royal Canadian Navy was born.

In the decades that followed, sailors serving out of the historic port of Halifax, and other ports across our country, proudly carried that title, first under the white and blue ensigns, and later under the Canadian flag that we know today.

Through two world wars and in Korea, sailors of the Royal Canadian Navy joined with the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Canadian Army in serving our country with pride and distinction. Many made the ultimate sacrifice while defending these shores.

Behind me is a great symbol of that heritage.

HMCS SACKVILLE escorted Allied convoys across the Atlantic, and attacked enemy submarines during the Second World War. She fought valiantly against a deadly adversary, and is rightfully preserved here in Halifax Harbour.

Not far from here is DeWolf Park - named for the most decorated naval officer in Canadian history, Vice Admiral Harry DeWolf.

Admiral DeWolf captained a number of warships, including the storied HMCS Haida which, in 1943 sank 14 enemy vessels in just over one year.

Such reminders of our proud military history abound across this country. They are lasting and important symbols of the legacy of service by our men and women in uniform. It is a legacy that continues to this very day.

Plus tôt cette année, les membres des Forces canadiennes ont épaulé les autorités de quatre provinces frappées par des feux de forêt et de graves inondations.

Ils mènent des opérations de recherche et de sauvetage pour venir en aide à des Canadiens en détresse, assurant le service dans une région couvrant plusieurs millions de kilomètres carrés.

Ils veillent à protéger notre souveraineté en effectuant des patrouilles de routine et en menant des opérations d'affirmation de la souveraineté, telles que l'opération Nanook qui se déroule en ce moment même dans nos territoires arctiques.

De plus, dans le cadre du NORAD, ils collaborent avec nos alliés américains à la défense de l'Amérique du Nord en surveillant nos approches aériennes et maritimes communes, et en accomplissant des patrouilles aériennes.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I couldn't be more proud of the Canadian Forces and their work around the world.

In Afghanistan, after ten years of combat operations, they are transitioning to the NATO-led training mission that will continue efforts to train Afghan National Security Forces.

In the Mediterranean, our CF-18 fighters, Maritime Patrol Aircraft, aerial refueling craft and HMCS CHARLOTTETOWN - soon to be relieved by HMCS VANCOUVER - are supporting international efforts to protect Libyan civilians by enforcing the no-fly zone and maritime blockade.

And just last week, I announced that three Griffon helicopters and five search and rescue crews based out of CFB Trenton were heading for Jamaica - at the request of the Jamaican government - to assist the Jamaica Defence Force with any emergency situations that might arise over the next few months as a result of the hurricane season.

Ladies and gentlemen, as each of these operations - and each of the fifteen others around the world -demonstrates, the Canadian Forces defending our values, supporting those in need, and helping our friends when they call.

And they do so with great professionalism, with dedication and with courage.

Our soldiers, sailors and air personnel play a fundamental role in defending Canada and Canadian interests...

...and this Government remains committed to supporting and recognizing their incredible work.

That includes preserving the proud traditions and history of the Canadian Forces.

In 1968, the government of the day passed the Canadian Forces Reorganization Act which unified the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and Royal Canadian Air Force into a single service - the Canadian Forces.

As a result, three formerly separate entities became three elements of a single institution, and were renamed Maritime Command, Land Force Command and Air Command.

Our Conservative Government believes that an important element of Canada's military heritage was lost when the three former services were required to relinquish their historic titles.

Today, I'm honoured to announce that the three elements of the Canadian Forces will have their historic names restored.

Aujourd'hui, je suis très honoré d'annoncer que les trois éléments des Forces canadiennes auront leurs noms historiques reconstitués.

Maritime Command will be the Royal Canadian Navy.

Land Force Command will be the Canadian Army.

And, Air Command will be the Royal Canadian Air Force.

This change is long overdue. Restoring these historic identities is an important way of reconnecting today's men and women in uniform with the proud history and traditions they carry with them as members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

After all, it was under the names of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force that Canadians fought and died in conflicts from the Battle of Britain to the Battle of Kapyong.

And these are the names under which our men and women in uniform contributed to the defence of Europe and North America during the early days of the Cold War.

The historic titles also align Canada with other key Commonwealth countries, whose militaries continue to use the "Royal" designation.

The proud legacy of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Canadian Army will once again serve as a timeless link between our veterans and serving soldiers, sailors and air personnel.

Equally important, the historic names are the way that many members of the Canadian public still refer to Canada's naval, land and air forces.

I know that in my many visits aboard Canadian Navy ships, to Army bases and to Air Force wings, the men and women of the Canadian Forces did not refer to themselves as belonging to Maritime Command, Land Force Command or Air Command.

I want to thank the thousands of Canadians, among them veterans, serving men and women, and Parliamentarians who have voiced their support for restoring the historic identities to our Canadian Forces.

Among them, I want to salute two individuals who were able to join us here this morning.

Michael Smith, a retired sailor, spearheaded a campaign to restore the royal designations that gained the support of thousands of Canadians.

And Senator Joe Day, himself a former member of the Royal Canadian Air Force, has been vocal in his support for this measure.

Thank you both for your efforts and presence here today.

La remise en vigueur des noms historiques fait partie intégrante de l'engagement du gouvernement qui consiste à reconnaître l'histoire glorieuse du Canada, à célébrer notre patrimoine et à honorer la mémoire de tant de braves Canadiens qui se sont sacrifiés au service de notre pays.

Cette initiative fait suite à d'autres, notamment les célébrations organisées à l'occasion du centenaire de la Marine et le rétablissement de la boucle d'officier à l'intention des officiers supérieurs de la Marine.

En outre, nous continuerons l'an prochain de mettre en valeur l'histoire nationale et l'héritage militaire du Canada, alors que nous préparerons les célébrations du bicentenaire de la guerre de 1812.

Ladies and gentlemen,

We Canadians are blessed with a proud military history - a legacy of service and sacrifice that established on these shores a land of freedom, democracy, and justice.

But a country that forgets its history does so at its own peril.

Exactly one hundred years ago today, our Queen Elizabeth's grandfather signed into existence the Royal Canadian Navy. It was a proud moment for our then young country.

Joined by their comrades in the Canadian Army and later by the Royal Canadian Air Force, these brave individuals went on to achieve tremendous things in the course of doing their their duty.

Not only did they defend our shores from those with hostile intent, they also forged a country; an independent country, a country that has grown to stand tall on the world stage, a defender of freedom, democracy and justice; a country that is, a century later, the envy of the rest of the world!

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a legacy of which all Canadians can be justly proud. It is a legacy that today's announcement will help preserve for the generations of brave men and uniform who will serve this country with distinction in the year's to come.

Thank you.

That Glorious Day in Halifax

2011-08-23T08:50:00.000-07:00

- PART 2 -

Media Reaction!

2011-08-23T07:45:00.000-07:00

FAVOURITE QUOTE:

Congratulations, Mr Smith, on your success at returning us to colonial status.
- Jack Granatstein

WORTH A READ:

"I wish my father was alive to see this"
"A royal decision the right thing to do"
"March of republicanism is forced into retreat by royal name reversal "
"In defence of tradition"
"Sailors celebrate return of historic royal title"
"Name change good for military morale: veterans"
"Canada's 'Royal' Military"
"Honouring our Military Heritage"
"The Canadian Forces Names: A mark of respect
"Air Force, Navy Royal revival hits home"

The Tradition is Restored

2011-08-18T06:57:00.000-07:00

The Honour has Been Restored!

2011-08-16T02:37:00.000-07:00

Splice the Mainbrace! The Royal Honour has been restored!

Tune in to the Minister's official announcement at 9am, reinstating the traditional designations Royal Canadian Navy, Royal Canadian Air Force and the Canadian Army, within the unified command of Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces.

I am attending events with the Minister in Halifax today, so will be unable to post anything further.

Be sure to visit royalsalute.ca, where our loyal volunteers will be celebrating this long overdue and joyous news at the appropriate hour.

Thank you all for your support over the past four years, we have finally done it!

Long live the RCN & RCAF!

Canadian Veterans Young & Old Call on Government to Restore the Royal Honour

2011-08-11T10:58:00.000-07:00

ROYALSALUTE.CA

6,000 Signatures!

2011-08-01T19:12:00.000-07:00

Thank you to the six thousand veterans, family members of those currently serving and otherwise patriotic Canadians, who have now signed the petition to restore the Royal honour to the Canadian navy and air force!

I would also like to thank the almost 25,000 visitors who have been attracted to this blog, and who have collectively viewed almost 40,000 pages. This initiative has obviously attracted some very significant interest!

Thank you!

The new logo of the Winnipeg Jets, inspired by the RCAF Roundel!

2011-07-22T19:11:00.000-07:00

This has the feeling of providence. True North Sports & Entertainment unveiled today the primary and secondary logos for the Winnipeg Jets Hockey Club which will begin play in the National Hockey League in 2011. The design for the new logo, which was developed in partnership with Reebok and the NHL, was inspired by the roundel of the Royal Canadian Air Force.

WINNIPEG — The Winnipeg Jets have opted for a sleek fighter jet as the centrepiece of their new logo.

The design has the jet pointed north over a red Maple Leaf in a blue and grey circle.

The Jets say the new logo, developed in partnership with Reebok and the NHL, was inspired by the logo of the Royal Canadian Air Force.

The franchise confirmed at last month's NHL draft that it would be using the Jets nickname.

But the team did not show its hand on the logo, giving top draft pick Mark Scheifele of the Barrie Colts a generic NHL jersey.

The team played as the Atlanta Thrashers last season before it was purchased by True North Sports & Entertainment.

Robert Dale, DFC, RCAF

2011-07-20T12:25:00.000-07:00

We are very pleased, delighted and honoured to have the support of Lieutenant Colonel (Ret'd) Robert (Bob) Gordon Dale, DSO, DFC, CD, a distinguished war hero of the Royal Canadian Air Force.

Bob Dale's name and reputation carry tremendous weight within the air force community, and he has undoubtedly been Canada's most eminent air force veteran since Air Commodore Leonard Birchall passed away in 2004. Both men have bequeathed post secondary education scholarship awards to Royal Canadian Air Cadets, the Birchall Scholarship, and Dale Scholarship, respectively.

I had the pleasure of speaking with him on the phone on Sunday, in which he offered his unqualified support, as well as his fond wish that traditional RCAF ranks be also rightfully restored. That would be Wing Commander to all of you.

Bob Dale is currently the Chairman of the Veteran's Advisory Committee at Sunnybrook Hospital and Honorary President of the Air Cadet League of Canada . He flew mosquito bombers in the Second World War, and his weather reports proved instrumental to General Eisenhower during the run-up to D-Day. You can read about his exploits in this 2004 speech to the Empire Club of Canada, entitled: "Juno, Where Citizen Soldiers from Canada Made History."

Thank you, sir, for supporting our campaign!

Admiral McFadden Retires

2011-07-19T06:56:00.000-07:00

Head of Canadian navy sails into retirement.

It is unfortunate that Vice-Admiral McFadden opposed the executive curl and our campaign to restore the royal designation to the Canadian navy, but we wish him well in retirement. 37 years of naval service is nothing to sneeze at - he had a very successful career, and was at the top when the navy celebrated its centennial.

I don't know where his successor, Vice-Admiral Paul Maddison, stands on restoring the 'Royal', but I do remember him as an extremely hard working executive officer when he was serving in HMCS Winnipeg, when I was a sub-lieutenant serving in another ship. Let's hope as the next Chief of Maritime Staff, he also becomes the nominal commander of the Royal Canadian Navy!

The Royal Couple Board an RCAF Aircraft

2011-06-30T06:31:00.000-07:00

This from the Daily Telegraph:

"The couple will leave London this morning on a Royal Canadian Air Force aircraft which will fly them all over Canada, as the Commonwealth’s largest realm traditionally pays the travel costs for visiting members of what is also the Canadian Royal family."

The Daily Mail said much the same thing. Although we are not there yet, this is music to my ears.

Bit by bit, appointment by appointment, symbol by symbol, visit by vist, the prime minister is busy remaking Canada in the image of its founders. He is restoring and reinforcing the symbols and traditions and very identity of the country at every opportunity. It is hard to imagine the navy and air force escaping with anything less than its rightful honour and heritage.

Veteran Voices

2011-06-16T06:12:00.000-07:00

Our campaign at ROYALSALUTE.CA has produced a new video, this one including a small sample of the hundreds of patriotic comments left by veterans at the petition site. Enjoy!

Prince Philip named honorary admiral and general of the Canadian Armed Forces

2011-06-13T08:05:00.000-07:00

Prince Philip has been appointed an honorary admiral and general in Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces on the occasion of his 90th birthday.

Of course, we would have preferred that he became an honorary Admiral of the Royal Canadian Navy than an Admiral of Maritime Command, but very, very welcome nonetheless:

10 June 2011
Ottawa, Ontario

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced that His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, has been appointed as an honorary admiral and general in Her Majesty’s Canadian Armed Forces on the occasion of his 90th birthday.

“I am delighted that His Royal Highness has accepted this honour from Canada in recognition of his significant contribution to our national life,” said Prime Minister Harper. “His unwavering support of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and his commitment to the Canadian Armed Forces, as well as to many other fields of endeavour in this country, are worthy of our highest recognition and deepest gratitude.”

It is the first time that an honorary rank is granted at the highest level of the Canadian Armed Forces, which underscores the importance of the honour being granted to His Royal Highness by Canada. With these appointments, The Duke of Edinburgh becomes an Admiral in Maritime Command and a General in Land Forces Command and Air Command, and His Royal Highness may choose to wear these ranks on all three uniforms of the Canadian Armed Forces.

"The Duke of Edinburgh has had a close association with the Canadian Armed Forces since the Coronation of Her Majesty the Queen in 1953. His Royal Highness is currently Colonel-in-Chief of five Canadian regiments, and holds similar appointments with all three cadet organizations. His service to the Canadian Armed Forces in this capacity has been recognized by the award of the Canadian Forces' Decoration with four clasps."

“On this important day, it is most appropriate for Canada to honour The Duke of Edinburgh for his outstanding record of service and dedication to the Canadian Armed Forces and to Canada over the past 58 years. He is truly an inspiration to us all and I know that all Canadians join me in extending congratulations to His Royal Highness on these appointments and best wishes for many more years of continued health and happiness,” added the Prime Minister.

Is 'Canadian Navy' even possible without the Queen's permission?

2011-06-06T08:24:00.000-07:00

I have never been able to answer the following hypothetical:

If as the Minister of Defence has admitted below that the Royal designation has never been taken away - right he is on that, only the Sovereign can do that, and the Queen has not revoked it for the navy or for the air force - how is it that the government could officially call Maritime Command the 'Canadian Navy', unless it also intended to ask the Queen to rescind the royal proclamation that made the Naval Service of Canada the Royal Canadian Navy on August 29, 1911?

All answers would be appreciated.

We should count ourselves lucky

2011-06-02T11:58:00.000-07:00

Our task is rather modest, compared to theirs. The Royal Canadian Navy has bright days ahead, but I'm not so sure about our sister navy across the pond.

"a matter we are considering"

2011-05-31T09:12:00.000-07:00

The scores of veterans who wrote to the Minister of National Defence last December and January have finally received their replies, and all of them, as far as we can make out, are carbon copies of the one I reprint below. It is a matter the government is currently considering, and expects to make a decision in the near future.

Dear Restore the Honour:

Thank you for your email concerning the Senate motion to change the name of Maritime Command. I appreciate the time you have taken to express your views on this subject, and please accept my apology for this delay in responding.

The constitution of the Canadian Forces, as written in Part II of the National Defence Act, states, "The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces." The terms "Canadian Forces" and "Canadian Armed Forces" were both widely used in the years immediately following unification. Canadian Forces, as the older term, was in use long before unification and has become the predominant term largely because of that previous usage.

With respect to a proposal to formally re-establish the three separate services, since integration and unification in the 1960s the structure of the Canadian Forces has continually evolved. Members of the Canadian Forces can serve a portion of their career in their own environment, in other environments, at National Defence Headquarters, and in various operational commands, while wearing a single environmental uniform. I recognize that service loyalties and affection still run deep and every Canadian Forces member is proud of his or her distinctive "service" uniform and its traditions.

Concerning the potential restoration of the title "Royal," this matter has been reviewed on many occasions with the interest and morale of serving and past members of the Canadian Forces constantly in mind. The use of the word "Royal" as a title has, in fact, never been taken away from the Canadian Forces. 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 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 and The Royal Canadian Regiment.

The reintroduction of the titles of the former single services amalgamated to form the Canadian Forces is a matter we are considering, and I expect that we will make a decision on this issue in the near future.

I trust this information is helpful, and thank you again for writing.

Sincerely,

Peter MacKay
Minister of National Defence

The new ROYALSALUTE.CA

2011-05-26T06:16:00.000-07:00

We have refreshed and revitalized our campaign headquarters at royalsalute.ca

Please go and vist the hundreds of comments (many of them are now populated at ROYALSALUTE.CA) that you veterans and petitioners have left at the petition website. You and your inspiring words are the reason that keeps us going on this. Very inspiring and patriotic stuff!

Restore the Honour on Twitter!

2011-05-25T17:25:00.000-07:00

Andrew Coyne, national editor of Maclean's magazine, just twittered (or is that tweeted?) our petition. Given that he has more than 17,000 followers, this should garner some more signatures today. I suspect, but I don't know, that Peter C. Newman made him aware of our campaign.

Bruce Beatty, RIP

2011-05-24T12:58:00.000-07:00

Buzz Bourdon, signatory of our petition, wrote an interesting piece in the Globe and Mail on Sunday on the passing of Bruce Beatty, an RCAF veteran, and the man behind the Order of Canada, and two dozen other official decorations and medals.

Beatty had the highest standards when it came to wearing medals, Gauthier said. “He was particularly upset at the proliferation of unofficial medals, which he called ‘popcorn medals.’ He said, ‘If it doesn’t come from the Queen, then it is not real.’”

He loved designing, but what came after often left him frustrated. His particular nemeses were the federal bureaucrats who had little or no knowledge of honours and disliked Canada’s monarchy and its symbols.

“Sometimes, politics got in the way of design and he was pressured to delete the Queen’s effigy, cipher or crown from [his] designs,” Gauthier said.

But as a loyal subject, Beatty did his best to make sure his sovereign had her proper place on his medals.

10 Reasons to Restore the Honour

2011-05-10T10:30:00.000-07:00

Ten reasons why the federal government should quickly and cheerfully restore the Royal honour to Canada's navy and air force:

1. The Status Quo is Uninspiring: The official bureaucratic designations Canadian Forces Maritime Command and Canadian Forces Air Command to describe Canada's modern navy and air force do not resonate with the Canadian people. Most Canadians would probably be surprised to learn that we don't officially have a Navy or an Air Force.

2. The Senate of Canada says Just-Do-It: On Tuesday, December 14, 2010, the Canadian Senate unanimously passed a motion urging the federal government to change the name of Canada’s naval force from Maritime Command to a title that includes the word 'Navy'. Both 'Canadian Navy' and 'Royal Canadian Navy' are considered acceptable by the Senate of Canada.

3. Consistent with Government Policy: It is consistent with the reputation and aims of the reelected government in Canada whose policy is committed to the Canadian Armed Forces, the restoration and preservation of Canadian Symbols and Traditions, and the unique role of the Constitutional Monarchy in Canada's life, history and culture.

4. A Timely Initiative: This August 29, 2011 will mark the 100th anniversary of the granting of the Royal prefix to Canada's naval service by HM King George V, an honour that has never been revoked from the navy (or air force) but still subsists under different names within the reorganized Canadian Armed Forces. The granting of the Royal honour to Canada's naval and air services is a proud part of our nation's heritage and military tradition deepened in loyal and devoted service and distinctly forged in battle.

5. A Salute to Serving Members: Resuming usage of the Royal designation in referring to Canada's navy and air force (retroactive to February 1, 1968), would be a salute to all of those who serve and who have served in the Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force; thousands of whom have signed a petition to the Government of Canada. Reconnecting serving members to their historical roots is the best way to preserve the institutional memory of Canada's distinct yet unified armed services.

6. Veterans Support it: The vast majority of our distinguished veterans (again, thousands of whom have signed a petition), veteran groups and ex-service associations support this initiative at the grassroots level, including that of the National Council of Veteran Associations, the Submariners Association of Canada, the Chief and Petty Officers Association and almost every branch of the Royal Canadian Naval Association, among numerous others.

7. The Change is Symbolic Only: This small, but hugely symbolic restoration can be facilitated without in any way compromising the integration of military operations, or undermining the unity of the Canadian Forces acting as a single organization under the current functional command system, which was the intent of Bill C-243, The Canadian Forces Reorganization Act, 1968.

8. The Costs are De Minimis: Reinstating the traditional designations could be efficiently and gradually accomplished without material cost to Canadian taxpayers, and could be executed by a simple administrative order from the Minister of National Defence.

9. End of the Path Long Followed: The Department of National Defence under successive governments has been gradually restoring the very identities of the Navy, Army and Air Force; their ranks, uniforms, history, traditions; for decades now. Restoring the full names of the distinct services within the Canadian Forces would be a natural, proper and fitting end to the path already followed.

10. Canada Remains a Constitutional Monarchy: Pays tribute to Her Majesty's long and devoted service to Canada, and is a timely and respectful gesture that fully recognizes HM The Queen's manifest position within the navy and air force as she approaches her Diamond Jubliee in 2012. Again, a very timely initiative.

Restore the Honour!

Peter C. Newman signs the petition!

2011-05-09T05:49:00.000-07:00

I did not know that the Canadian writer, journalist and longtime Maclean's editor was also a naval captain in the Canadian Naval Reserves. He is petition signature number 5814, and wrote:

As this petition indicates, usage of the Royal Canadian Navy was never legally removed from the books -- and this was the Navy we joined and swore allegiance to -- and continue to serve.

Indeed.

Now I wonder if he would be willing to write an article in Maclean's magazine?

We are encouraged

2011-05-08T06:18:00.000-07:00

I overstated my position below on the issue of relevancy, for it surely is not irrelevant that the current majority government is Conservative in stripe. In my zealous attempt at being politically neutral and non-partisan, I over-reached. Let's give credit where credit is due. As we state over at royalsalute.ca:

We are encouraged with the election of a new government in Canada whose policy is committed to the Canadian Armed Forces, the restoration and preservation of Canadian Symbols and Traditions, and the unique role of the Constitutional Monarchy in Canada's life, history and culture.

Here here.

A Majority Government!

2011-05-04T08:25:00.000-07:00

That it happens to be a Conservative majority government is ~~irrelevant~~ also relevant.

What matters today is that we veteran volunteers now have a strong and stable government to lobby, a government that does not have to look over its shoulders at the possibility that opposition parties might play politics over an issue that is fundamentally not political. It's about our military, the pride and traditional esprit-de-corps of our forces and the fact that we would like to see the Queen of Canada made manifest once again within her own Navy and Air Force in advance of next year's Diamond Jubilee.

So let's get on with the campaign and make one final push to restoring the Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force!

Spring Election

2011-03-27T09:24:00.000-07:00

Our campaign is, of course, not affiliated with any political party or other organization. We are veteran volunteers who want the government to simply and cheerfully revive the royal designations for Canada's Navy and Air Force, whichever government that happens to be.

We are thankful that the Senate of Canada proved this issue is not split along party lines. Indeed the upper chamber is united in replacing the 'sea element' of the Canadian Forces with a name that includes the word 'Navy'. Imagine that, the Senate giving its unanimous support on something. They, like us, prefer the nation has a navy, not a Canadian Forces 'sea element'.

Because an election has been called in Canada, and Parliament has been dissolved, our work at royalsalute.ca and here will be suspended until a new government has been established after May 2. We may still post here from time to time, but obviously we cannot lobby the government until after the election. Goodbye for now.

Alive and Kicking

2011-03-03T10:04:00.000-08:00

I've been very busy at work the last couple of weeks, hence the lack of activity. We have not gone away, nor are we taking a holiday, it's just that I actually have a day job that needs to be tended to. So no worries, the campaign is very much alive and kicking.

The Billy Bishop Museum unanimously endorses the return of the Royal Canadian Air Force!

2011-02-11T13:25:00.000-08:00

The Billy Bishop Home and Museum (home of Canada's greatest ace) is managed by the Owen Sounds Museums Board, and I received this letter today from their Chairman:

Dear Mr. Smith:

Thank you for your email sent January 3, 2011. This matter was considered by the Owen Sound Museums Board at a meeting held Wednesday January 19th, 2011. The following resolution was passed unanimously "to support this intitiative as a Board and send a letter to Mike Smith indicating this."

We wish you every success in your endevours.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. J.P. Totton,
Chair Owen Sounds Museums Board.

The Naval Club of Toronto and the Toronto Sea Cadet Alumni Association unanimously endorse restoration of the Royal Canadian Navy!

2011-02-10T08:59:00.000-08:00

Michael Smith

At our Directors' meeting held on 23 January, 2011 it was unanimously decided that we would support the restoration of "Royal Canadian Navy".

Letters to Minister of Defense, Peter MacKay and the Prime Minister will be mailed this week.

I can also confirm (As 1st V.P. of the Naval Club of Toronto) that endorsement letters have already been sent to MoD and PM.

Yours aye

Michael A. Roger
President
Toronto Sea Cadet Alumni Association

150 Wing would be supportive!

2011-02-08T08:27:00.000-08:00

This message from the President of 150 (North Atlantic) Wing, RCAF Association:

Dear Mr. Smith - we would support your cause - and rather than respond on a local level - we have many Wings accross Canada -and with National endorsement, we think the response of our organization would be more effective. To that end, I have sent your request to our National office. I will follow up with them for a reply. I trust this is ok with you? Thanks, Liz Moores.

I explained to her that we have deliberately not canvassed the national executives (at least not initially) because we wanted this to be a grassroots campaign, not a top down initiative. That is why we were leaving national organizations like the Naval Officers Association and Air Force Association to the end, so that veterans at the local level would have a say and a vote first.

Niagara Region Naval Veterans vote yes! to Royal Canadian Navy

2011-02-02T05:24:00.000-08:00

A very interesting situation occurred at the general meeting of the Niagara Branch of the Royal Canadian Naval Association on January 30th. Apparently there was a motion put forward to change the name to 'Canadian Navy', which was handily defeated by the majority of veterans. A new motion was then tabled from the floor and seconded, followed by another vote that won.

So there you have it, the RCNA Niagara Region is totally in favour of "RETURN THE ROYAL".

Just taking a little rest

2011-01-28T05:02:00.000-08:00

My apologies for the lack of activity this week - we've been taking a small break, but will continue again soon enough. When I say we, I mean me, yours truly, my esteemed co-partner and our huge network of support in the military and veteran community - the thousands of you, some of whom I served with in the past.

Thank you for your continued support and patience.

The vast majority of those serving prefer to belong to a Service, not an 'Element'

2011-01-23T06:54:00.000-08:00

Aaron Hynes writes that there is no ‘navy’ to rename. Of course, and that's the point the Senate is seeking to correct because, unlike rarities like Aaron who have no problem belonging to a Canadian Forces 'element', the vast majority want to be identified with a traditional service, like the navy or air force. These traditional designations can easily be accommodated within the existing unified Canadian Armed Forces and its integrated functional command structure.

It is also very unfortunate that the writer completely misunderstands what would happen if these designations are officially brought back. Those wearing an air force uniform, but currently serving on a ship flying helicopters for example, would not find themselves out of place in the RCN. They would obviously belong to the RCAF within the unified Canadian Forces, even though they would be attached to a naval unit, in the same way that soldiers who belong to a particular regiment, find themselves serving under a different operational unit if posted to Afghanistan. What service identity you belong to, has nothing to do with what Command, what Task Force, what operational unit, you happen to be serving at the time. He either does not understand this, or he is deliberately spreading misinformation in the article he wrote and we attach below:

Recently, the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence passed a motion calling on the government to change the name of the Maritime Command of the Canadian Forces (CF) to either "Canadian Navy" or "Royal Canadian Navy."

The intention behind this motion is laudable, and is doubtless appreciated by many former and current naval personnel who are passionate about the history and traditions of the service, including this writer.

However, the recommendation of the Senate committee is based on an incorrect supposition — namely, that the Canadian Forces Reorganization Act of 1968 changed the name of the Royal Canadian Navy to Maritime Command. What really happened in 1968 is that Canada ceased to have a navy per se. The name "Canadian navy" is still used colloquially by Canadians and as a brand by the Department of National Defence to refer to Canada’s warships and their crews. However, those ships and personnel belong to no single organizational entity within the Canadian Forces.

Maritime Command is not a navy by another name. It is an authority that exercises control over certain functions of the Forces. Maritime Command (MARCOM) does not control any ships or personnel engaged in military operations at sea. While deployed on operations, the CF’s ships and crews belong to Canada Command (CANCOM) when in Canadian waters or airspace, or Canadian Expeditionary Force Command when outside Canadian waters or airspace.

Even the admirals commanding the Atlantic and Pacific fleets do not belong to MARCOM. They actually belong to Joint Task Force (Atlantic) and Joint Task Force (Pacific), both of which fall under the authority of CANCOM.

Moreover, MARCOM commonly exercises authority over helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, the installations at which these aircraft are based, and the personnel who operate and maintain them, all of whom wear the uniform of the air element of the Forces. MARCOM also has authority over many personnel who wear the uniforms of the air and land elements while serving as intelligence officers, cooks, logisticians, medics, etc. These personnel, who cling fervently to their own "air force" and "army" customs and traditions, would be very unhappy to suddenly find themselves in the Royal Canadian Navy.

The Canadian Forces simply does not have any organizational entity to which the name "Canadian Navy" or "Royal Canadian Navy" can be properly applied. Of course, the names army, navy and air force will always be used informally by those who proudly wear the land, sea and air uniforms of the Canadian Forces. That is how it should remain.

Aaron Hynes is a former naval officer who currently works as a policy adviser in the Senate.

Winnipeg White Ensign Naval Club votes a resounding "YEA" to Royal Canadian Navy!

2011-01-21T10:10:00.000-08:00

This message from George Apps, their President, to the Executive Secretary of the Royal Canadian Naval Association, Jerry Sigrist:

Jerry,

At our meeting last night the vote to have "ROYAL" returned to the Canadian Navy was a resounding "YEA".

I have also had emails and phone calls from members that could not attend the meeting saying Yes, lets get ROYAL back.

By the way - I brought up this subject about a year ago and it was suggested that I "forget" it. Suppose that now the Air Force want it back things are different. As the Air Force usually get what they want, expect the word Royal will soon be back

Trust all is well with you Hope you didn't suffer too much from the recent storms.

Cheers
George

We know the air force is not driving this - the Senate of Canada is, along with our veteran's campaign which is attempting to give equal respect to both services, even though the Senate concentrated on the navy alone. The reason: Senator Rompkey's motion was timed to coincide with the Canadian Naval Centennial (now past), which is why it is now appropriate to do it for both services, not just the navy.

Oshawa Naval Veterans Club votes yes! in favour of RCN

2011-01-21T05:43:00.000-08:00

Good afternoon Michael,
Your e-mail and information was brought up during the last General Members Meeting and the membership was for your cause and showed support. So with this being said, you may add the Oshawa Naval Veterans Club as a supporter.
Hopefully, this may help you out. We have also placed a link on our website and it was placed throughout the website, but here is the main link, Good Luck!
Link: http://onvc.tripod.com/navy/misc/RCN_restoration.html
Regards, the Oshawa Naval Veterans Club.
tel. (905) 723-0871
ONVC Website:
http://onvc.tripod.com/
ONVC Calendar of Events: http://onvc.tripod.com/ONVC_calendar.htm
ONVC Recognition: http://onvc.tripod.com/navy/advertising/recognition.html
Also follow us on Facebook and Twitter: http://onvc.tripod.com/navy/advertising/FB_twitter.html

Where is the campaign to rebrand Maritime Command as 'Canadian Navy'?

2011-01-20T06:16:00.000-08:00

That was a rhetorical question - there is no campaign for 'Canadian Navy', and very few veterans would support that option over Royal Canadian Navy. Canadian Navy is something dreamt up by DND bureaucrats who decided - on their own - to dispense with the royal honour that was so deservedly earned by our navy of yore.

That in a nutshell, is the basic injustice in this whole exercise; a government department does not need to build its case, unlike the people and veterans who have to knock on doors to reclaim a piece of their lost heritage, to reclaim the navy's original, authentic, proud, noble and rightful indentity. The navy belongs to the nation, it belongs to the people, it belongs to our Sovereign in right of Canada. It does not belong to bureaucrats, nor does it belong to our admirals or sailors who serve to protect the sovereignty of Canada, even though the people have an obvious interest in ensuring that the morale and esprit-de-corps of our armed forces is maintained and maximized, and that they remain motivated to the greatest extent possible in the defence of our country.

If some people want to restrict the appellation to Canadian Navy - let them campaign for it!

They should be the ones doing the campaigning anyways, since they are the ones devising something entirely new, they are the ones deliberately disassociating the navy from its proud and honourable legacy - let them campaign in open like we are, not through the backdoor like they are doing.

That won't happen because the basic truth is that people are not passionate about Canadian Navy - it may be an improvement over Maritime Command - but it doesn't stir the blood like Royal Canadian Navy. Thousands of people across this country passionately want a return to RCN, which is why it is possible to have a populist campaign. There is no yearning for Canadian Navy because it does little to inspire, it does nothing to reconnect the country to its glorious past.

Yes, there is a very good reason why they are not campaigning for it.

They would lose.

White Ensign Club of Montreal to hold general vote on RCN on January 20th

2011-01-19T05:58:00.000-08:00

The president of the White Ensign Club of Montreal has promised to get back to me on the results of their vote; however, he is convinced that their members will be supportive.

Toronto Sea Cadet Alumni Association to decide on January 23rd

2011-01-18T06:05:00.000-08:00

Here is the message I received from their president this morning:

Michael J. Smith

This is one of the topics for discussion at our next Alumni Directors' meeting being held on 23 January, 2011 at the Naval Club of Toronto.

I will be in touch with you shortly thereafter.

Yours aye

Michael A. Roger
President, TSCAA
and former Royal Canadian Sea Cadet
RCSCC HAIDA 1952 - 1956

royalsalute.ca

2011-01-16T08:10:00.000-08:00

Our official campaign website, although a continuous work in progress, is beginning to take very fine shape indeed, and is now live.

You can now visit it and send a message to the Minister of National Defence (copy Prime Minister of Canada), in support of our veterans and veteran organizations who have thus far endorsed our campaign, to urge the government to restore the 'Royal Honour' to Canada's Navy and Air Force.

Please visit: www.royalsalute.ca

Official endorsement today from the Canadian Naval Air Group!

2011-01-14T09:47:00.000-08:00

Mr. Michael J. Smith

CNAG Response to “Restore the Honour”!

Good afternoon Michael,

In-accordance-with your recent request to have the Canadian Naval Air Group, (CNAG) support the Senate proposal to reinstate the title “Royal Canadian Navy” (RCN), in place of the current Maritime Command, the answer is yes, you can include CNAG as an advocate of that quest.

However, I also feel it is imperative that you are aware that this was by no means a simple and/or unanimous decision. In fact, a significant number of our members were adamantly opposed to this decision. They sincerely believe that decisions of this nature, that will surely affect the currently serving members of the Canadian Forces, should be left to them and not the wishes of Veterans attempting to rekindle past memories.

As previously stated, NCVA has already come out in support of “RCN”, which technically meant that CNAG did as well, but now you have the whole story, including our official blessing, to utilize as you see fit.

Yours in Naval Air,

Paul Baiden MMM, OStJ, SC, CD
National Chairman
Canadian Naval Air Group

A very nice endorsement from the Sunshine Coast Naval Veterans last night

2011-01-14T05:38:00.000-08:00

Dear Mr. Smith:

I am responding to your recent appeal to the members of the Royal Canadian Naval Association dated January 8, 2011.

My name is Susan Blake and I am the President of the Sunshine Coast Naval Veterans Association. In February, 1988 we received our charter and have been an active part of a growing community ever since. Our branch is located in the community of Sechelt, B.C. on the Sunshine Coast.

We are a very proud organization, therefore it would mean a great deal to our membership as well as other veteran organizations to see the "Royal" designation restored to the Canadian Navy.

Regards,
Susan Blake, President
Sunshine Coast Naval Veterans Association

RCAF endorsement today from 426 Thunderbird Squadron Association!

2011-01-13T06:52:00.000-08:00

Michael- the response from Trenton:

The Executive, on behalf of the membership of the 426 Thunderbird Squadron Association, fully supports the initiative to restore the "Royal" Honour to Canada's Navy and Air Force.

Doug Jones
President
426 Thunderbird Squadron Association

Support today from Burlington Naval Veterans

2011-01-13T06:01:00.000-08:00

There were dissenters in this group, but majority opinion was firmly in the yeah column.

When did the stripping of the Royal Honour from the Canadian military come to a stop?

2011-01-12T04:47:00.000-08:00

A fascinating message I received from Alex Saunders would suggest that the final order to stop this massive assault on the regimental honour and heritage of our armed services, came from none other than Governor General Georges Vanier, Canada's finest vice regal.

Dear Michael

In the 1970's my involvement in amateur football brought me into contact with a retired colonel, a former Black Watch officer, who served for a period in a CDS secretariat. He recounted a happening from the period when "Royal" was being stripped from the RCAF, the RCN, Royal Canadian Ordinance Corps, Royal Canadian Signal Corps ...Service Corps ... Dental Corps etc. The stripping of "Royal" reached a point and then stopped.

My friend revealed to my why it stopped. My friend was privy to a communication from Government House ordering a stop to the process with the message "DO NOT TOUCH MY REGIMENT". The Governor General at that time was Governer General Georges Vanier and he had no hesitation in demanding the preservation of the Royal 22nd Regiment the "Van Doos". So today we have all of the combat arms unchanged from their traditional names.

I thought you might be interested in this.

Sincerely
Alex Saunders

Naval Associations from London, Kelowna and Kitchener-Waterloo are in favour of RCN!

2011-01-11T05:32:00.000-08:00

Although we have the support of the Royal Canadian Naval Association at the national level, there are many independent RCNA branches across the country with their own boards and executives that need to be canvassed as well. Look for more of these in the days to come.

Michael

Have heard back so far from Kitchener-Waterloo, Vancouver, Kelowna, London and of course ADPNA. There are more to come.

I'm sure many individuals have sent in their personal letters to the powers to be and this might wake up a few more.

All including the National President are 100% percent in favour, will sign the petition and may be quoted if need be.

My name can be used as being in favour.

Jerry

Let's give the navy its name back

2011-01-10T12:05:00.000-08:00

The good Senator Day writes a timely opinion article in the Toronto Star today:

If someone were to ask you to give the official name of our navy, chances are like most Canadians you would give an answer that ended in “Navy,” and understandably so.

This, however, is not the reality. With the adoption of the Canadian Forces Reorganization Act (1968) our navy became Maritime Command, amalgamating the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and Royal Canadian Air Force into one unified service: The Canadian Forces.

This act restructured our military but regretfully discarded half a century of tradition in doing so. All three branches were dressed rifle-green; common army-style ranks replaced long-standing separate navy, army and air force identities.

This was detrimental to the navy’s esprit de corps. Eventually, though, dark blue replaced drab green. Captains returned to being captains, rather than colonels-at-sea and the “executive curl” returned to sailor’s uniforms, a move embraced with overwhelming fanfare, notwithstanding, for the most part, that this was the sailors’ first time wearing it.

Recognizing this trend, my colleague Senator William Rompkey introduced a private members bill to give Maritime Command a more suitable name. While there was unanimous support to do away with the use of the term Maritime Command, this motion sparked a debate as to what the replacement name should be. Do we go with the descriptive Canadian Navy, or return to the historic name Royal Canadian Navy?

After hearing from former admirals, historians and other witnesses, the Senate national security and defence committee left the final decision in the hands of the government by passing a motion that recommends that Maritime Command be replaced by a new name that includes the word “navy.”

Many Canadians support a return to Royal Canadian Navy, others, the descriptive moniker Canadian Navy; there is no dishonour in the latter. I believe that those serving today would be proud to do so under the title Canadian Navy.

However, the name Royal Canadian Navy still technically exists; it was never abolished. Under the new organizational structure, the navy acquired the name title Maritime Command. Reinstating the name the Royal Canadian Navy designation simply requires approval by the minister of national defence. Giving the navy a name other than the Royal Canadian Navy again rejects our rich and proud Canadian naval history.

With no Royal designation, why continue calling our vessels Her Majesty’s Canadian ships — HMCS Iroquois for example? As the Canadian Forces is one force operationally, should we give new names to famed regiments, such as the Royal Canadian Dragoons or the Royal 22e Régiment?

Discarding Royal from our navy accomplishes what? Advocates for CN suggest Canada has since “fled” Britain’s colonial yoke.

This distorts our past. In 1939 Canada on its own decided when and if to enter World War II, the same conflict that established the Royal Canadian Navy as a world-class navy, shoulder to shoulder with our allies.

No one disputes Canada’s sovereignty. The Queen remains our sovereign. We share her with Britain; it is not Britain’s sovereign who reigns over us. This is what the Statute of Westminster (1931) declares.

The Royal adjective helps to define ourselves along with our policies of bilingualism and multiculturalism. Our nation prospers within these three pillars, essential ingredients of our distinct Canadian identity in North America.

Reinstating the Royal Canadian Navy has nothing to do with Canada’s colonial roots. It honours those risking their lives today by connecting them to those who gave their lives in the past. Scores of currently serving naval personnel have written to me in support of a return to the Royal Canadian Navy.

There is wonderful goodwill attached to our navy’s past. Let us salute the bravery, sacrifice and honour of those serving and those who have served before them.

Our navy was honoured with the designation Royal Canadian Navy 100 years ago. We should re-establish that link with the past as we look toward another century of service by the Royal Canadian Navy.

New Brunswick Senator Joseph Day is a member of the Senate’s national security and defence committee.

The Vancouver Naval Veterans Association calls on the government to restore the Royal Canadian Navy!

2011-01-10T04:54:00.000-08:00

To All Concerned:

A few Months ago, I responded to a similar call related to this issue.

At this time, I am not able to recover my comments, saved on my computer, however, I can repeat in essence, the gist of that response.

The Canadian Navy received the 'Royal' title from H.M. King George V, in 1911.

So what authority removed that title?

In my way of thinking, the only source of authority able to remove that title, would have to have been made by a reining Monarch!

That never happened.

So the question I ask is simply this: Who was able to have the 'ROYAL' removed from the "Royal Canadian Navy", after the title had been conferred upon it, by the King of England, the reining Monarch at that time?

On behalf of my Executive, and the general membership of the Vancouver Naval Veterans Association, we support the move to restore the 'ROYAL' title to the Royal Canadian Navy.

Yours Aye,

John More
President
Vancouver Naval Veterans Association

Naval Weapons Association says yes to RCN!

2011-01-10T04:48:00.000-08:00

Another day, another endorsement, this one from the Vice President of the Naval Weapons Association of Canada, Ross Raymond:

Thanks for info and query Michael.

We in the Naval Weapons Association have had this discussion in the past and I can formally answer for the NWT Association that we as an Association are in full support of this endeavour. Cheers.

Huge endorsement from the Royal Canadian Naval Association today!!

2011-01-09T14:13:00.000-08:00

Michael,

The President has asked me to go out to all Branches of the RCNA for their individual support which I am doing.

I am certain it will be unanimous and there is no problem with the RCNA supporting this initiative and most if not all members have given individual support by now as I have. I am also a member of Submariners Association of Canada East and Central Branches, The Chief & Petty Officers Association, the Admiral Desmond Piers Naval Association (Past President) as well as others.

You can rest assured you have the support of the Royal Canadian Naval Association from the President down.

Jerry Sigrist, Executive Secretary RCNA National

Canada's Naval Aviator Veterans

2011-01-09T07:39:00.000-08:00

I received a message from Paul Baiden, the President of the Canadian Naval Air Group this morning, who may, I repeat may, be in a position to let us know as early as this week:

Good Morning Michael,

I thank you for this latest update, which I will present to the
executive of the HGVC, of CNAG, this coming Wed, along with the current results of my survey of the other Chapters and former Naval Aviators.

The festive season has made it difficult to contact many of our members, however, I hope we will be able to provide you with our final position at that time.

Yours in Naval Air,

Paul

The Admiral Desmond Piers Naval Association endorses our campaign!

2011-01-08T08:29:00.000-08:00

Here is the message I received today from the President of the Admiral Desmond Piers Naval Association:

Dear Mr. Smith;

At our last General Meeting our shipmates voted support for the initiative to reinstate the Royal Honor to the Canadian Navy. I have already sent an email to the Senate of Canada indicating our endorsement to that cause.

Yours Aye

Frank Wells
President, ADPNA

One Navy

2011-01-08T06:08:00.000-08:00

The navy has evolved over its one hundred year history, and must keep evolving. But it is one navy, with one institutional memory, a fact that unfortunately gets undermined and lost everytime we rename it and disassociate it from its original, authentic, proud, noble and rightful identity - the Royal Canadian Navy.

I remain absolutely convinced that our serving and future naval men and women would find it a distinct honour and privilege to be associated, identified and reconnected with such a proud and noble legacy, and would want to be associated with the memory and deeds of our veterans, and would want to preserve their sacrifice within the institutional memory of a shared and common identity. The hundreds of messages sent by serving sailors to Senator Day indicating the preference for RCN, would seem to be evidence of just that.

Naval Club of Toronto

2011-01-07T05:49:00.000-08:00

I spoke with a member of their executive who informs me that they will not know the position of their members until the end of this month. It would be lovely to get their endorsement. Fingers crossed.

Endorsement today from 879 RCAF Wing!

2011-01-06T09:27:00.000-08:00

Here is the message I received moments ago from their Vice President:

On behalf of 879 (Earl MacLeod) RCAF Wing Air Force Association of Canada I am responding to your letter re: resuming the usage of the 'Royal Honour', to the RCAF. Our wing is in full support of having this honor resumed as we all honorably served under the 'Royal Canadian Air Force ' name.

Marjorie Johansen
Vice President
879(Earl MacLeod )RCAF Wing
Air Force Association of Canada

An Urgent Appeal to our Supporters

2011-01-06T05:53:00.000-08:00

Dear Friends of the RCN and RCAF,

You are one of the more than five thousand patriotic Canadians and organizations who have already expressed your support in the appeal to the government to restore the ‘Royal Honour’ to Canada's Navy and Air Force. Thanks to you, we believe that our voice is beginning to be heard!

The Senate of Canada, on 14 December 2010, passed a motion to encourage the Minister of National Defence to officially change the identity of ‘Maritime Command’ to a name that includes the word ‘Navy’; the term that is already being used unofficially, along with ‘Air Force’ for ‘Air Command’, as part of the recent revitalization of the Canadian Forces. This natural return to the traditional and more inspiring identities of our Armed Forces is only logical. Most Canadians would be surprised to learn that Canada has not had an official Navy, Army or Air Force since unification in 1968!

It is now one hundred years since the 'Royal Honour' was first granted to the Navy by HM the King in 1911 and then to the Air Force in 1924. This was a recognition deepened in succeeding years by the tremendously loyal and devoted service and sacrifice of Canadian men and women whose legacy, forged in battle, remains for all of us to honour.

From the RCMP to many of our famed regiments, like the Royal 22e and Royal Newfoundland, as well as in hundreds of other Canadian institutions, we live in a country that since Confederation has celebrated and known thousands upon thousands of ‘Royal Canadians’ in every generation. It makes no sense to continue to deprive our Navy and Air Force of an honour that is so well-deserved and that rightly belongs to all of them in all ranks; those serving as well as veterans. To be ‘Royal’ is an iconic honour and also shared by hundreds of non-military Canadian institutions and organizations that, like the Armed Forces, are deeply embedded within the history and fabric of Canadian society and culture.

The government will soon decide whether to rebrand and reimage Maritime Command (yet again), or respectfully return it to its rightful identity - the Royal Canadian Navy. It naturally follows that this same dignity be restored to the Air Force whose heritage and tradition, like that of the Navy, equally deserves our respect.

Just as the continuation of the Army’s ‘Royal Canadian Armoured Corps’ and ‘Royal Canadian Dragoons’ has not altered the continued unified structure of the Canadian Forces, neither will the restoration of the prefix ‘Royal’ to the Navy and Air Force. This is not an appeal for a return to separate forces and organizations. The RCN and RCAF subsist de facto within Her Majesty’s Canadian Armed Forces.

The time to act on this is now and the Minister and Prime Minister need and want to hear directly from all of us. Please write to the Minister of Defence (with a copy to the Prime Minister) expressing your wishes. Alternatively, you can visit our official campaign website and send a message from there.

Write to:
Peter Mackay
Email: Mackap@parl.gc.ca
613-992-6022

Copy to:
Office of the Prime Minister
E-mail: pm@pm.gc.ca

Yours very truly,

Michael J. Smith
Restore the Honour!
Veteran's campaign to restore the royal designation to Canada's Navy and Air Force

Why we are here

2011-01-05T10:19:00.000-08:00

The unified command of Canada's armed services in some fashion was an idea that had been considered for a long time. Efficiency in the military is obviously not an unworthy goal.

What occurred in 1968, however, went far beyond an administrative initiative. It was a massive assault on the very identities of the Navy, Army and Air Force; their ranks, uniforms, history, traditions. For a country that had in the previous fifty years fought two world wars and Korea, the shock of this caused enormous pain to over a million Canadian veterans as well as to most of all ranks who were serving at the time.

Since then, and following a very long, dark period of unbelievably low morale with poor support, lack of equipment and an attitude of neglect and indifference, there has arisen an attempt to recover some of what had been lost. Recognizing the need to restore something of the identities of the naval, land and air forces, new uniforms were created that, although not the same as the ones that belonged to Canada's fighting forces before, were a variation on the theme. Now the terms 'Navy', 'Army' and 'Air Force' that had been morphed into 'Maritime Command',
'Land Command' and 'Air Command' are regularly, but unofficially, used.

The decision by senior officers and staff to use the common terms 'Navy', 'Army' and 'Air Force' has been made without reference to the official authority over the legal identities of 'Maritime Command', 'Land Command' and 'Air Command'. That is why this matter was considered in the Senate and is at this moment a matter before the government.

Thousands of Canadians, including distinguished veterans of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force, have signed a petition strongly urging the government to restore the full traditional, Canadian names for Maritime Command and Air Command. Because the Royal Honour has never been withdrawn by HM the Queen and only she has the authority to do that, the title still applies, though implicit, to the continuing naval and air forces within the Canadian Armed Forces. In other words, just as DND is able to use the terms 'Navy', 'Army' and 'Air Force' as the inherent identities for Maritime Command, Land Command and Air Command, so is the prefix 'Royal' also perpetuated with them.

We agree with the decision to move away from the bureaucratic and uninspiring identities of 'Maritime Command' and 'Air Command' but in so doing we insist that the full names for the distinct services within the Canadian Forces, be properly restored. Indeed, we would advise the government that the historical and true names for Canada's Navy and Air Force, spoken or unspoken, remains the Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force. It is the only sensible and appropriate option and actually can be done simply and cheerfully given the constitutional authority available to the Minister of National Defence.

We are deeply disappointed by the insinuations of some that the prefix 'Royal' is an
archaic option that can be dismissed in the formal styling of the names for the naval and air forces. Canada, past and present, is and always has been a 'Royal' nation. We are further saddened by the unfortunate view made by others that today's Canadian sailors, soldiers and air personnel have no identifiable link to their predecessors in the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and Royal Canadian Air Force. What a preposterous notion for anyone who has ever served in the military to make. Even in the unified Forces, there remains a very strong association with the ships, squadrons, regiments, battle honours and the like that are saluted, toasted and respectfully remembered.

We are further confused by the apparent ignorance and disregard that a few officers and members of Parliament have shown towards HM the Queen, the Crown and Canada's actual, real and constitutional authority in relationship especially to the Canadian Forces. We believe that the discussion of restoring the names of the naval and air forces ought not to be in this particualr context, political and especially not from officers of Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces whose commission they have the privilege to possess from the Queen to whom they also have made a solemn and loyal oath of service. It is most unfortunate that this itself has to be said.

Canada's history and heritage, including that of our military, ought not to be at the mercy of the opinion of a few. Indeed, our rich heritage and historical foundation remain one of our most admirable and attractive features; including that of the RCN and the RCAF and all our Canadian Forces who deserve all the honours that have been bestowed upon them.

The voices of not only veterans but Canadians from across the country and in different generations are speaking out.

That is why we are here.

Official Message Printed at Royal Salute: http://www.royalsalute.ca/standto.html

The Wren Association of Toronto, for the record...

2011-01-03T11:31:00.000-08:00

The lady veterans are in our corner. The Wren Association of Toronto includes veterans from the Womens Royal Canadian Naval Service (WRCNS), Womens Royal Naval Service (WRNS, where "Wrens" get their name), the Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Navy plus former and current women reservists in the current Canadian navy. Here is the message I received today from their president:

The Wren Association of Toronto who’s membership include WW11 and post war WRCNS, WRNS also women who served in the RCN and RN plus Reserviists in the Canadian Armed Forces Maritime Command have stated that they wish to be on record as supporting the use of ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY now and in the future.

Margaret Haliburton President.

Admiral Landymore named 2010 inductee to the Wall of Honour at the Royal Military College of Canada

2011-01-02T19:15:00.000-08:00

Well this is timely, isn't it. As an RMC alumnus, I duly received my copy of Veritas in the mail yesterday, to pleasantly discover that Admiral Landymore (this blog's patron, by the way) was inducted to the RMC Wall of Honour, in part for his courageous stance against unification. The great admiral became embroiled in a bitter public disagreement over the unification of the Canadian Armed Forces and resigned from the Royal Canadian Navy on 19 July 1966. Here is his citation as printed in Veritas:

2399 REAR-ADMIRAL WILLIAM MOSS “BILL” LANDYMORE
OBE, CD, MID
1916 – 2008

Born in Brantford, Ontario, in 1916, the only son of Dr. Frederick and Gladys (Moss) Landymore, Bill Landymore enrolled in the Royal Military College of Canada in 1934. The College motto, ”Truth, Duty, Valour,” was to be the inspiration for his 32-year military career. Landymore entered the RCN in 1936 as a midshipman, and saw service in Palestine, World War II and Korea. He served with distinction in 13 RN & RCN ships, as well as training the gunnery crews of seven allied ships at Scapa Flow in 1943. In WWII, he survived the sinking of HMCS Fraser and HMCS Margaree, and was awarded a Mention-In-Dispatches (MID) on the Murmansk Convoys.

He commanded HMCS Iroquois for two tours of duty in Korea, was awarded a second MID, and as Commander, Canadian Destroyers Far East, became an Officer of the Order of the British Empire. Following the war, he commanded HMCS Bonaventure, Canada’s last aircraft carrier. His final sea-going appointment was Senior Canadian Officer Afloat Atlantic.

Landymore served as both Flag Officer Pacific and Atlantic and was twice appointed Senior Officer in Chief Command Atlantic Sub-Area. He led the Canadian Naval Contingent in the United Allied Parade, 14 June 1942 in London, and he was Parade Commander when H. M. Queen Elizabeth II presented her colour to the RCN, 1 August 1959. His final act of service earned him a place of honour among Canada’s naval supporters. A staunch opponent of unification, Admiral Landymore refused to sacrifice his principles to save his career. Foreseeing problems that unification would bring for the Navy, and to the morale of its sailors, he argued his case forcefully. Many of the unification initiatives that ended the Royal Canadian Navy have since been reversed.

In retirement, Bill Landymore served as Chairman of the Board of the Grace Hospital, Halifax, for which he was awarded the Salvation Army Cross of the Order of Distinguished Auxiliary Service. Throughout his life, he thought of others for whom he was responsible before himself. He gave generously of his time, skill and resources, particularly encouraging education of special needs children.

Plaque inscription: Distinguished naval flag officer, honored by peers and subordinates, volunteer leader.

Momentum builds...

2010-12-30T11:18:00.000-08:00

Many more veteran groups and ex-service associations are currently in the works, but here is a list summarizing some of our support so far:

National Council of Veteran Associations of Canada
War Amputations of Canada
War Veterans & Friends Club
Atlantic Chief & Petty Officers Association (A.C.P.O.A)
Royal Canadian Naval Association (R.C.N.A. Admiral Hose)
Submariners Association of Canada (S.A.O.C. Central)
Submariners Association of Canada (S.A.O.C. Eastern)
Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association Inc.
Chairman, Canadian Naval Memorial Trust
The Friends of H.M.C.S. Haida
R.C.A.F. Branch of the Royal Air Forces Escaping Society
WWW.RCAF.COM
Canadian Royal Heritage Trust
The Monarchist League of Canada
University Naval Training Division Association of Canada
President, Naval Officers Association of Vancouver Island
Port Alberni Tri-Services Association
Royal Canadian Legion (Whitby Branch)
Royal Canadian Legion (Cornwall Branch)

The Chief & Petty Officers Association give us their full support!

2010-12-29T08:02:00.000-08:00

Michael,

...having conferred with my Executive and Board of Directors, I am more than pleased to inform you that you have the full support of the membership of the Atlantic Chief and Petty Officers Association. I have personally placed my name on the petition and I received a response fron Senator Day' s office. I have placed the original letter in the January issue of Crown and Anchor our monthly newsletter.

Have a fine Navy day.

J. Gaylord Kingston
President, ACPOA

Submariners Association of Canada (Eastern Branch) also give us their endorsement!

2010-12-25T07:56:00.000-08:00

Micheal

On behalf of our Submariners Association of Canada (East) (SAOC (East))
we support this petition.

Merry Christmas and Best Regards

Terry Chatham
Chairman SAOC (East)

Submariners Association of Canada (Central Branch) give us their endorsement!

2010-12-24T07:54:00.000-08:00

Good Day Michael,

As President of the Submariners Association of Canada central branch I first want to thank you for bringing this to our attention. I believe I can safely state that we are fully behind the navy returning to the RCN. This will bring back a lot of the pride and glory which I think was lost during the amalgamation those many years ago. If there is anything you need from us please let me know.

Thank you
Bob Wallace
President
SAOC
Central

The Royal Canadian Naval Association (Admiral Hose Branch) wants RCN!

2010-12-23T07:52:00.000-08:00

Mr Smith.

You certainly do have the support of RCNA Admiral Hose Br. Windsor, as indicated by the response from members signing the petition my last count is 12 members, I am phoning members that do not have a computer and of our 102 members, the majority support the name change...

Cheers

Gary Fairthorne. President, RCNA Admiral Hose Br. Windsor Ont.
Steve Willar 1st Vice President.

A Big Yes from the Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association!

2010-12-22T07:49:00.000-08:00

Dear Michael,

With reference to your request re possible name change involving the Canadian Navy, we veterans of the Canadian Merchant Navy still remember with affection and gratitude the assistance that members of THE R,C.N.and R.C,N. V. R. provided our ships during convoy runs those many years ago.

All that to support the position taken by the members of the N.C.V.A. that the Name ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY be reintroduced, and this centennial year would be an appropriate time.

Sincerely Bruce Ferguson,
National President,
C,M.N.V.A.inc.

Unanimous vote of support from the War Veterans & Friends Club!

2010-12-21T07:40:00.000-08:00

His Worshop Jack Western JP (retired)
Secretary War Veterans & Friends Club Sarnia / Lambton.
This club is a member of theN C V A.

To whom it may concern

At a regularly constituted meeting of the War veterans & Friends Club Sarnia/Lambton. a majority of the members were present this 21 st day of December 2010.
The motion was read as follows.

That the membership shall vote 'Yea or Nay' on the following.that the name of this countries Navy shall henceforth be the

Royal Canadian Navy.

There was little discussion and the vote was called.

The members voted unanimously in the affirmative.

IE: That the Canadian Navy should be henceforthcalled the Royal Canadian Navy.

recorded in the minutes by

Jack Western Secretary WV&FC.

White Ensign Club of Montreal expect motion in favour of RCN to be easily carried!

2010-12-20T07:58:00.000-08:00

Sir. As Secretary of the White Ensign club Montreal Area , I will of course have this tabled as a motion at our next General meeting on January 16th 2011 and I expect it to be carried. Our members are ex RCNVR , RCN, WRCNS, & CDN MN who sailed under the White Ensign mostly during WWII. Unfortunately time has eroded our membership to 160 mostly in the Montreal area.

Yrs Aye

Tom Lawrence (ex RCN)
Secretary White Ensign club (Montreal Area)

cc W A (Bill) Vautier President
White Ensign Club

It appears that Friends of HMCS Haida and the HMCS Haida Association are two separate groups. Will it be possible to get their endorsement?

2010-12-19T08:07:00.000-08:00

Indeed they are. Andy Barber, a member of our Board, is also the President of HMCS HAIDA Association which is composed solely of those who once served in HAIDA, although current FOH volunteers can now become associate members. Andy is away over the holidays but monitors his email so I have forwarded my reply to him as well. Our president, Ken Lloyd (ex-army, no less) indicated to me last night that he had no difficulty in endorsing the name "RCN" and reminded me, from his perspective, of the countless army units (RCDs, R22R, etc. etc.) with the prefix Royal.

Incidentally, in reference to your tag line, I started years ago to capitalize the "n" in "Canadian Navy".

Yours aye,

Neil
Neil S. Bell

43°04.012’N, 79°58.001’W

"VA3 WWN"

"Sailors, with their built-in sense of order, service and discipline, should really be running the world." Nicholas Monsarrat

Why the admirals are wrong

2010-12-18T18:28:00.000-08:00

I received this very thoughtful letter from a dear ex-naval friend of mine, who takes a critical stab at understanding why today's class of admirals are opposed to restoring the royal designation to the Canadian navy.

The Truth of the Matter

I have been following this debate with much interest. What has kindled my interest particularly is the obvious, if not outright resistance, at least the clear non-enthusiasm for the idea of restoring the name RCN, of those recently retired flag officers who have appeared before the Senate commission. As the military is, in my experience, an institution fairly keen on “traditions” this non-enthusiasm has surprised me greatly. RCN is the name under which Canada’s naval forces saw their most important achievements. So what is really behind this? I have tried to give this some thought. Certainly the views of these former admirals must be taken seriously, especially inasmuch as they have suggested their views are shared by the majority of naval personnel today.

First of all: it simply cannot be that there is any distaste within military ranks for royal connections and references. If there were, we ought to be seeing many more signs of it. After all, it is not as though such connections are invisible or references rare in the CF, including the navy. Both enlisted personnel and officers begin their military service to Canada by swearing an oath of allegiance to the Her Majesty as Queen of Canada. I doubt that many of Canada’s officers, naval or other, many of whom of course become officers by graduating from the Royal Military College of Canada; stash their commissioning scrolls away out of sight, from embarrassment at the words prominently emblazoned across the top: “Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of … Canada … Queen… to John Doe, hereby appointed an Officer in Her Majesty’s Canadian Armed Forces.” I doubt that navy, army or air force officers have stopped toasting the Queen’s health at every dining-in or mess dinner, or that a penchant has developed for crossing fingers or rolling eyes during the practice. There seems to be no resistance from the enlisted or officer ranks to serving on HMC Ships, or in any one of the various regiments of the army that carry the word ‘royal.’ In some cases, members of the Royal Family are regimental colonels-in-chief, and I suspect the spit-and-polish factor still goes higher, not lower, on those occasions when their royal patrons visit with and inspect them. I would also suggest that there is probably no meaningful collective difference in “attitude” on these points between anglophone and francophone members of the military, or as any function of where in the country they come from or how recently they or their families may have emigrated to Canada, and from where.

So it just does not make sense to me, it just cannot be, that RCN would generate any real feelings of discomfort or sense of unseemliness in the ranks due specifically to the royal reference. All of the admirals’ learned testimony about the twists and turns in the structure, status and naming of the navy over the past 100 years can have but little to do with attitudes of serving members today – few of whom, I should think, could themselves discourse about such matters on Parliament Hill. No, I believe that the admirals are not in fact concerned about reactions within the navy or the military at large, though certainly much of their testimony reads that way. I think the crux of the matter is this: what distinguishes RCN from all the other instances of ‘Royal’ in the CF cited above is that it would not be merely the quiet continuance of a status quo but would require affirmative political and therefore publicized action to establish. In this regard, I think the “we have bigger fish to fry” lines are quite revelatory. In short, I think that the concern is not with attitudes within the military: it is concern about the public’s attitude. Commander Thain’s testimony reflected this same conclusion.

To the extent I may be correct it still would be unfair to the admirals simply to say: the public’s attitude is the realm of parliament and the government, not yours. That would be unfair because they are correct to think the navy and its personnel would suffer from an adverse public reaction. They represent, after all, a generation of officers that in some respects has suffered greatly from and through unfriendly public and governmental attitudes toward the military, from the post-unification period through to what General Hillier called the “decade of darkness.” I can understand that, having at the end of their careers received better budgetary support and broader public sympathy for more active missions, they are anxious not to rock the boat.

But for all that their anxiety may be understandable, their thinking, as it pertains to contemporary public and present and future navy personnel attitudes on CN vs. RCN, is, I think, wrong. They are reflecting their own attitudes, which were formed by their own experiences; not those of the, effectively, two generations of officers and sailors who have followed them. These latter men and women have had much different experiences and in consequence they have different viewpoints. My sense is that for new recruits and new officers – many of whom, yes, are immigrants or the sons and daughters of immigrants from all parts of the world – RCN would carry none of the baggage that it does for the admirals. After all, those who are immigrants didn’t refuse their oaths of citizenship because it involved swearing allegiance to the Queen of Canada. No: they knew that Her Majesty was Queen of Canada (they had to take a test, remember!) and a part of today’s Canadian governmental structure and culture – not just history. They knew “royal” was part of what they were joining. My better judgment tells me that adding the R to CN would be a point of pride to most Canadians today – within or without the navy. (And it certainly seems that many serving junior officers have been telling Senator Day just that.) It would be seen not as a step backward – I think for most Canadians today, there would be no sense of a reversion to “colonialism.” No, I think it would be seen by most as, in its way, a proud step forward: the abolition of a misguided misstep from a period of Canadian history which the admirals understandably cannot forget but which most Canadians today are happy to move beyond.

In other words, where the admirals would see the Royal (Canadian) Navy, I think most Canadians today would see the Royal Canadian Navy – and I think they would prefer to include the “royal” qualifier precisely as part of what defines and proudly distinguishes the navy as Canada’s in its own right.

That wonderful day in the Canadian Senate

2010-12-17T11:41:00.000-08:00

The Senate of course has done its job, and did it marvelously, and here are the official transcripts of that very good day we had in the hearings on November 29, 2010 considering Sen. Rompkey's motion to officially change the name of Martime Command to Canadian Navy. Professor Ian Holloway was the witness on that day and did a superb job pushing for the elegance of "Royal" Canadian Navy.

Exhortations from Senator Day

2010-12-16T12:20:00.000-08:00

Concerned Canadians,

Thank you for your support to return the designation “Royal Canadian Navy” to Canada’s historic navy.

Tuesday night in the Senate, we came one step closer to this goal when the following motion was passed:

“That the Senate of Canada encourage the Minister of National Defence to change the official structural name of ‘Maritime Command’ to a new name that includes the word ‘Navy’.”

It is now up to the Minister of National Defence to give the order to return to the RCN. If this matter is important to you and if you have written me it surely is, please contact the Minister’s Office expressing your wishes:

Peter Mackay
Mackap@parl.gc.ca
613-992-6022

I encourage you to recruit all the voices you can to let the Minister know that you wish Canada’s navy return to the name by which is was known for half a century: The Royal Canadian Navy.

Thank you again, and all the best to you and yours this holiday season,

Yours Truly,

Joseph A. Day
Senator

Senate reaches a beautiful compromise

2010-12-14T07:14:00.000-08:00

Thanks partly to our populist efforts in coming to the late rescue of our pro-RCN Senators (the early days of hearing the motion were lonely days for these honourables), Senator Rompkey did not get his CN wish, at least not yet, and hopefully never. All things considered, the good Senator's (partly misguided) motion has proved very effective in bringing attention to this issue, so we owe him a debt of gratitude for that, and for delivering the strong possibility that RCN will become a living reality.

Naval force likely to get new name
By ALTHIA RAJ, Parliamentary Bureau

OTTAWA - Canada's naval force may soon get a new name.

Senators on the national security and defence committee recommended Monday evening that the Senate adopt a motion encouraging the national defence minister to change the name of Maritime Command to a new name that includes the word "Navy".

The motion, by Liberal Senator Bill Rompkey, originally called on the minister to change the name to "Canadian Navy," a term already used by Maritime Command in much of its communication, including on its website.

The compromise position allowed senators who favour a return the navy's original name of "Royal Canadian Navy" to support Rompkey's motion.

The Senate is expected to pass the motion Tuesday, opening the door for National Defence Minister Peter MacKay to rename the naval force R.C.N. before the end of the navy's centennial year.

althia.raj@sunmedia.ca

Update: And now this report:

Call Canada's navy, a navy: Senate
By ALTHIA RAJ, Parliamentary Bureau

OTTAWA — Canada’s navy should be called a navy, senators said Tuesday.

To thunderous applause and cries of “we made history,” the Senate passed a motion urging the federal government to change the name of Canada’s naval force from Maritime Command to something with the word “navy.”

The naval force already refers to itself as “Canadian Navy” but some senators and MPs want a return to its pre-1968 name of “Royal Canadian Navy.”

“I myself would quite prefer to have it called Royal Navy,” said NPD MP Peter Stoffer. “We have the Royal RCMP, Royal Canadian Legion, why not Royal Canadian Navy?”

Stoffer said the NDP hadn’t discussed the issue in caucus and many Quebec MPs across party lines are less than supportive of the term “royal.”

NDP’s defence critic Jack Harris said he supports the term Canadian Navy.

“We don’t necessarily need to engage in divisive debates about these things, we can accommodate a change to the navy without having a divisive debate about it,” he said.

The Liberal Leader in the Senate, James Cowan, also prefers the term Canadian Navy and National Defence Minister Peter MacKay suggested Tuesday, he is also leaning that way.

“I am listening to various opinions on this but what I am hearing predominantly from the Canadian Forces, and from the Canadian Navy in particular, is they like the name Canadian Navy,” he told reporters.

The PMO quickly issued an info-alert telling Conservative supporters the government was following the debate in the Senate with interest but had “no plans to rename Maritime Command at this time.”

althia.raj@sunmedia.ca

RCN easily wins Poll!

2010-12-13T06:09:00.000-08:00

There is an online survey over at Shipping Reporter that asks for visitors to choose between the status quo, Maritime Command, or changing the name to Royal Canadian Navy or just Canadian Navy.

More than 82% of respondents to the online poll want Royal Canadian Navy. Here are the results, and here below is the embedded script:

James DeWolf signs the Petition!

2010-12-12T13:08:00.000-08:00

His father is the late Vice-Admiral Harry DeWolf, Canada's most distinguished naval commander of the Second World War. Here is his obituary that was printed in the New York Times.

James DeWolf accompanied Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall on their visit to Canada last year when they visited DeWolf's famous tribal class destroyer (now a floating museum in Toronto/Hamilton), which was renown as "the fightingest ship in the Royal Canadian Navy".

Admiral DeWolf left funds to Halifax in his will. His ashes were scattered over the Bedford Basin and Admiral DeWolf Park bears his name there on the Bedford waterfront.

Admiral DeWolf is a legend in the Canadian naval community, and we are honoured that his son would like to see a restoration of the navy's traditional name, no doubt in memory of his late father who served in the Royal Canadian Navy.

Mentioned in the Ottawa Citizen

2010-12-12T08:13:00.000-08:00

This is a very belated find, but I had no idea our petition received coverage in the Ottawa Citizen back in May. My thanks to David Pugliese and for the comments it elicited.

Thank you, Senator Day!

2010-12-11T21:57:00.000-08:00

Conservative or Liberal, Senator Day (Liberal) is my kind of Senator. Here's a nice personal note he sent me on November 29, 2010 after I sent him and Senator Plett our 384 page petition. The petition came in very handy that day, as all of the testimony heard up to that point from our beloved admirals falsely suggested nobody wanted a return to the RCN.

And then the flood gates opened and our emails started poring in....

Dear Mr. Smith,

Thank you for all your help and resources, they will come in very handy at tonight's committee. Those opposed to naming the navy the Royal Canadian Navy are arguing that it is mostly retired serving personnel that would like to see it the RCN, while also arguing that such a designation does not reverberate with today's serving personnel. I am doing all I can to convince them otherwise as I feel that even today's servicemen and women would like to be associated with such a rich history, as well as be able to carry on this legacy.

I again thank you for your help, your continued support in this endeavour is greatly appreciated.

Yours Truly,
Joseph A. Day

Senator

-----Original Message-----

Dear Senator Day,

As a fellow RMC grad, I just want to congratulate you for your support on restyling the navy with the royal prefix. We have more than 5000 petition signatures that agree with your position on the matter.

This is not a step back but a move forward from the mistakes of the past.

In any event, bravo zulu.

Fraternal regards,
Michael J. Smith
Restore the Honour
Campaign to restore the Royal designation to the Canadian navy and air force.

Senators get Letters

2010-12-11T14:46:00.000-08:00

Just a small snapshot of the hundreds of letters sent to Senators that were copied to us.

I told Dewolf Shaw that he wrote the fightingest response, and that it must run in the family. For those that aren't aware, Admiral DeWolf was Canada's most distinguished naval hero in WW2, who commanded the immortal HMCS Haida (now a floating museum in Toronto), which was recognized by our 400 ship fleet at the time, as the fightingest ship in the Royal Canadian Navy:

Pamela:

You may recall your interviewing me regarding Dome and the Beaufort Sea, long ago on Canada AM, when I was at McCarthy Securities in Toronto.

My late uncle and godfather was Harry DeWolf. See The New York Times Obituary attached.

He left funds to Halifax in his will. His ashes were scattered over the Bedford Basin where I summered every year.

Admiral DeWolf Park bears his name there on the Bedford waterfront.

It is my understanding that your committee could cause the restoration of the Royal in the former Royal Canadian Navy.

For most Canadians, and certainly for most in Nova Scotia, and those would have served in the navy, the deletion of the “Royal” from the RCN, causes offense similar to what Saskatchewanians and most Canadians would feel were the “R” to be deleted from the RCMP.

This needs to be fixed.

Thank you for all your hard work.

Best Regards,
DeWolf

This succinct letter from a retired RCAF Squadron Leader:

As one who served in the RCAF and the hybrid CF, I request your indulgence to record wholehearted support for having the current government restore the Royal prefix for our Navy and Air Force.

Canada is not a Republic, but a Constitutional Monarchy, as are a number of our NATO allies who designate their forces as Royal. We should do likewise and so recognize those who served and honoured our country as members of the RCN and RCAF.

John Glover, Squadron Leader ( Ret ) RCAF

Wonderful to note that we have the support of the Chairman of the Canadian Naval Memorial Trust:

Senators

I would like to add my voice to the many others who would like to see the Royal designation restored to the Canadian Navy. Our navy came of age during the longest battle of World War II, the Battle of the Atlantic. Without victory at sea there could not have been victory in Europe. The Royal Canadian Navy won that battle with its 100,000 young men and women and its 400 ships.

The restoration of the Royal designation honours all those who served and the 2000 who made the supreme sacrifice.

Yours aye

John Jay, CD. LCdr RCN(R), (Ret'd)
Chairman
Canadian Naval Memorial Trust.

Robert Lawrence articulates a frustration felt by all of us:

Sir:

Please restore officially the titles Royal Canadian Navy, Royal Canadian Air Force and Canadian Army to the appropriate branches of the military. This could be done by amending the National Defence Act and require almost no change in the current organization of the forces.

I served in the Naval Reserve for seven years and I, like everyone else in the service, referred to our branch as the 'Navy' and not the unwieldy and overly bureaucratic official name, Maritime Command. Restoring the Royal title officially restores a proud connection to our past and provides a source of pride for current members.

Undoing the most egregious elements of the Hellyer-era unification disaster are long over-due. The government of the day treated the forces with contempt and expressed its contempt by acquiring poorly-made and incongruous green uniforms for all members of the services. These were a supposed attempt to "Canadianize" the look of our military, but somehow foisting uniforms and rank insignia that were clearly American in inspiration did nothing of the sort. How US Navy rank insignia (borrowed for officers) and US Air Force patterned uniforms and USAF inspired rank insignia for non-commissioned members of the military resulted in "Canadianized" uniforms beggars common sense. That nations such as India, Pakistan, and other republics have retained their British-style uniforms long after they became independent speaks volumes about the misguided, and frankly, narrow-minded thinking that led to the repulsive green uniforms and the nonsensical unification debacle.

Fortunately the worst aspects of the "green" bus driver uniforms were addressed in the 1980s, but there are still things that should be done to show that the current government is not willing to perpetuate Paul Hellyer's agenda that grew from his own desire to draw attention to himself at the expense of our military.

It is time, sir, to right the worst of the errors of the past. Time for the bureaucratization of the forces to be ended and the best elements of what made this a great nation in the past to be restored. Time to have an official Navy, Army, and Air Force once again with their Royal honourifics restored.

Sincerely,

Robert E. Lawrence, MA, CMA, CIA, CCSA, CFE

A classmate of Senator Joseph Day writes:

Dear Committee Members,

I was one of the "more than 5000" petitioners who would like to see the navy and air force renamed "Royal Canadian Navy" and "Royal Canadian Air Force". I joined the Royal Canadian Navy with pride in 1964, graduated with Senator Day from the Royal Military College of Canada, but left the Canadian Armed Forces three years later. I served in the navy with, at first, a blue uniform and then switched to the "bus driver" green uniform before I left. Both the new uniform and the new name were very demoralizing to the navy (and, I'm sure, the air force). It was pleasing to see the reversion back to the old colours for the uniforms a number of years ago. I understand that morale came back with them.

I truly believe that serving sailors deserve more a better name for their service than "Maritime Command" but I don't think that "Canadian Navy" is quite the right thing.

In Canada we use the term "Royal" with pride - think of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Royal Canadian Mint, the Royal Canadian Legion and, of course the Royal Military College. (Unfortunately the Royal Canadian Air Farce is a thing of the past).

Let's keep that pride.

Sincerely,

Eric J. Ruff, FCMA
Curator Emeritus
Yarmouth County Museum

This one to Senator Mitchell (who has a colonial chip on his shoulder the size of the British Empire), who is against restoration of the royal honour, but heh, the good Senator is from Alberta which has to be worth part marks and enough to give the old college try:

Dear Senator Mitchell,

As the Senate member representing Alberta and as the closest Senator to British Columbia on the Security & Defense Committee I wish to make my opinion know that I support the moniker "Royal" being added to the Canadian Forces Maritime & Air Force entities.

I look forward to your support for both services being renamed the traditional "Royal Canadian Navy & Royal Canadian Air Force".

I would also like to state, that I have no connection to either the Navy or Air Force but believe that Canada has a long tradition that should be honored.

Yours truly,

Trevor Sandwell.

The unfortunate part of Senator Rompkey's otherwise exemplary motion

2010-12-10T22:58:00.000-08:00

I would argue that the valiant history of Canada's centennial navy could be viewed as progressing from the Royal (Canadian) Navy to the Royal Canadian Navy in its own right, but Senator Rompkey has an absurd understanding of the royal designation:

...just as Canada has emerged from the shadow of Britain to tread the world stage as a respected and able nation in its own right, so did the Canadian Navy emerge from the shadow of the RN to become a world-renowned navy in its own right. It has become a navy reflecting the diversity, creativity, competence and multi-culturalism of the country itself.

This chamber is not the Royal Canadian Senate, although we owe much to British origins; we are the Senate of Canada. We are Canadians with our own constitution and identity. So it is with the Canadian Navy, with its own insignia, customs, practices and history...

The face of young Canada is rapidly changing. The demographic is no longer one of British, or even European, ancestry. The talent pool for the future navy has no connection with the royal designation. As the population ages, the navy is in an almost life and death competition with every other industry. If the navy does not attract more Aboriginals, more francophones, more of the anglophone and francophone immigrant communities and visible minorities, it will die a slow death.

His Royal Canadian Senate bit that him and other Senators keep repeating is meant to sound silly (which it is, since there is no historical connection), but it is pathetic to suggest that the Royal Canadian Navy would come across similarly bad, when it has a long and distinguished history under that name. But the truly pitiful part is the statement that our diverse talent pool and ethnicity as a nation has no connection with the royal designation. This is obviously a truly contemptuous thing to say, and it is totally misguided and absurd to state that we should dispense with the royal honour in order for national institutions like the navy to avoid their inevitable death. Oh, puleeze Senator! if anything recruiting will go up if you just give back the navy's traditional brand.

Admiral McFadden tells sailors to keep their mouths quiet on navy name change

2010-12-09T21:06:00.000-08:00

Althia Raj, once again on top of things:

For your immediate distribution:

IAW Ref and Comd MARCOM direction, the following message is to be disseminated immediately and as widely as possible by whatever means you deem appropriate to every member within your respective Commands. A MARGEN will also be released today with the same message. Commanding Officers are encouraged to explain this issue and the underlying principles of QR&O Chapter 19 to their sailors.

“I have been made aware of email traffic within the DWAN of military personnel expressing their opinions as to the potential re-naming of Maritime Command directly in response to specific email addresses established for that purpose. It is neither appropriate nor helpful for any individual member of the command to respond to solicitation for your opinion. This is not the means that the Naval Institution chooses to determine the sentiment of service personnel and formulate the service’s opinion, from which advice to government flows.

We use the Chain of Command and in particular the critical role of the senior NCMs to gauge the opinions of service personnel. As a private individual, you can have any opinion you wish; as members of the service you neither advocate for a personal view nor encourage your compatriots to do so. I have been apprised by Formation Commanders, by the Command Chief Petty Officer, and by Formation Chief Petty Officers as to the extent and depth of opinion on the matter of re-naming Maritime Command. My advice has accordingly been further passed through the Chain of Command.

The decision is now a matter for government deliberation and for policy articulation. If that occurs, orders will be crafted and the decision implemented. As is the tradition of our service, personal opinions, regardless of how strongly held, will then be subsumed by the loyal and vigorous implementation of orders.

I have no doubt that government is aware of the naval advice that I have expressed on the matter of re-naming Maritime Command.

Further action on the part of service members to express personal opinions is not appropriate.”

Vice Admiral P. Dean McFadden Sends David G. Bliss MMM, CDChief Petty Officer First Class | Premier Maître de Premier ClasseFleet Chief Canadian Fleet Pacific | Premier-maitre de la Flotte Canadienne du PacificqueChief of Maritime Staff

The Canadian navy wants Royal back, but the Admirals don't

2010-12-09T18:05:00.000-08:00

In the age of Wikileaks why would you even attempt to tell citizen-sailors they can't have an opinion on something like this? Very unfair and hypocritical of the admirals who believe they alone are entitled to a voice on this one.

By ALTHIA RAJ, Parliamentary Bureau
Last Updated: December 9, 2010 5:23pm

OTTAWA — The head of Canada’s navy warned all naval personnel to keep their personal opinions to themselves after a junior officer was caught e-mailing a senator about Maritime Command’s proposed name change.

Vice-Admiral Dean McFadden sent sailors and naval officers a stern memo Wednesday after the chain of command was informed that the junior naval officer was also using his department of national defence e-mail account to encourage colleagues with similar opinions to e-mail the senator.

“It is neither appropriate nor helpful for any individual member of the command to respond to solicitation for your opinion," McFadden wrote. "As a private individual, you can have any opinion you wish; as members of the service you neither advocate for a personal view nor encourage your compatriots to do so."

Liberal Sen. Joseph Day has been encouraging serving naval personnel to e-mail him their preference for changing the naval force's name from Maritime Command to the Royal Canadian Navy, as he prefers, or, as another Liberal senator suggests, to Canadian Navy.

"I have received hundreds of e-mails from junior officers and non-commissioned officers, virtually all the messages I received were in support of R.C.N.," he told QMI Agency Thursday.

Day believes Maritime Command is trying to "surreptitiously" change its name to Canadian Navy "without it being the law" and the latest move by the navy could shut up dissenting opinions.

The Senate committee on national security and defence is deliberating a motion to encourage Defence Minister Peter MacKay to change the name Maritime Command to Canadian Navy.

althia.raj@sunmedia.ca

Let us first understand who is really feeling the heat here - not the junior naval officer in question, but the head of the navy himself who is losing control of the situation he so badly is trying to control.

All these CF admirals who don't give one whiff for the old RCN, are using their commanding position to chill the ranks into submission, not because of established rules for solicitation, but because most of the rank and file would apparently prefer the RCN contrary to testimony provided by the admirals themselves, who for some truly mystifying reason do not want to go back to the Royal honour, and are clearly very distraught about where this might be going. Boo hoo, how tragic.

For example, Admiral Mifflin breathlessly testified on November 15th to the Senate Committee that he had not met one person in favour of the RCN (not one!), to which Senator Plett responded: well, you just met one! We of course know of five thousand, one hundred and thirty-six on our badly advertised petition, but the admiral didn't know of a single one, as laughable and ridiculous that sounds, that's what he said.

Had the junior officer in question been for CN, Admiral McFadden's response would have been different you can be sure ("I have completed my poll on the issue, Minister, and he wants CN"). These admirals are clearly in cahoots with one another, and are using their position to control the discussion at the Naval Officers Association, the Navy League of Canada, and perhaps even the Dominion Executive of the Royal Canadian Legion, and wherever else they sip their Chardonnay nowadays. We are winning the battle here, and they don't like it one bit.

The Testimony of Senator Rompkey

2010-12-09T05:58:00.000-08:00

A big round of thanks to Senator Rompkey for bringing his "Canadian Navy" motion to the Senate floor; no doubt the good Senator now regrets where this is going given the number of pro-RCN Senators that he obviously didn't bank on. Had it not been for him, our campaign would have been much more difficult to get the attention it deserves. Unfortunately for Senator Rompkey, the cat is out of the bag so to speak. Today's article in the Sun is proof that a very large number of citizen-sailors want the traditional name to be reinstated, contrary to the testimony of admirals who told the Senate committee there was little appetite for such a restoration. In any even, here is the absurd testimony given by Senator Rompkey on November 22nd (the transcripts don't become available until 2 weeks after the actual hearing, which is why we couldn't post it until today) in which he obviously thinks that the Royal designation is inconsistent with our identity as an independent country. Truly laughable to say the least, but here it is for your amusement.

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENCE

EVIDENCE

OTTAWA, Monday, November 22, 2010

The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 4 p.m. to examine and report on the national security and defence policies of Canada (topics: the role of Canada in NATO; and national threat assessments); and to consider a motion to change the official structural name of the Canadian navy.

Senator Pamela Wallin (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: I call to order this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence on Canadian national security and defence policies, including Canada's NATO role, the national threat assessment, and a look at changing the official structural name of the Canadian navy. We will not be dealing with Item 4 on today’s agenda; that is Senator Rompkey's motion in the Senate.

The committee has been studying a motion by Senator Bill Rompkey that asks the Minister of Defence to change the official structural name of Maritime Command to “Canadian Navy.” In conducting this study, some committee members have also suggested that Maritime Command revert to an earlier name, the Royal Canadian Navy.

[...]

We will continue our discussion about the name of the Maritime Command, or the navy, as it is commonly known, with our final witness today, Senator Bill Rompkey.

Senator Rompkey is the author of this motion which asks the Minister of Defence to change the official structural name of Maritime Command to “Canadian Navy.” He will be our final witness today, but probably not our last in this series.

Welcome, Senator Rompkey. We are very pleased to have a colleague sitting in that chair.

Would you like to make some opening remarks?

Hon. William Rompkey, Senator: Yes, I would. However, I would first like to thank you very much for the expeditious way in which you are dealing with this matter because I and others are hoping that we can deal with it before the end of the naval centennial year.

You all have before you exhibit a and exhibit b, as Perry Mason would have described them, naval centennial pins and naval centennial promotional materials that clearly say they are on behalf of the “Canadian Navy.”

I introduce, as exhibit c, this copy of Canadian Naval Review of spring 2010, which has as its title Canadian Navy Centennial Issue.

I show you that to make a point of what is real at the present time.

I am a Canadian. I was not born a Canadian; I was born a British subject. I was 13 when my country joined with this country. I was 17 when I joined the Canadian navy. It was the Royal Canadian Navy Reserve that made me a Canadian, ironically enough, because it introduced me to Canadians across this country that I had never met before. I spend some time in Halifax and I spent some time in Esquimalt, and I met Canadians from all across the country. I am a Canadian, as the Anglican baptism service says, “by adoption and grace,” and by choice, so I start with that proposition.

However, I am here on behalf of those who have served in the navy since 1968, and they have not served in the Royal Canadian Navy; they have served in what they call the “Canadian Navy.” Their navy is the “Canadian Navy” and it is those that I think we should keep in mind.

I moved the motion on behalf of those who did not serve because I think we need to look forward. I do not think we, in this centennial year, should be looking backward. I think we have to look forward. We have to acknowledge what is in the present and what is going to be.

I would like to read, if I may, briefly, several paragraphs from the speech I made in the house because I do not want to miss any important points.

The view of moving forward and not backward was anticipated by Lieutenant-Commander Alan Easton in his excellent account of his World War II sea service in his book 50 North. He recalls a wartime conversation with a senior RN officer:

We went on to speak of tradition. He said that in the RN tradition was a heritage of which they were very proud, and in a sense was the moral backbone of the service. “You are not far removed from it yourselves, you know. You are part of the Empire and much of our stock is British.

I am not sure he knew the French were here beforehand, but a portion of our stock is British.

He continued:

That's so, sir, I acknowledged. But, although we learned your customs and in fact were patterned after the Royal Navy, I feel, and I think most of us feel, that we have no direct right to your traditions. Nor, could they apply really, because, what made them occurred mainly before we were in existence.

Our tradition, I suggested, is possibly being made now.

That point of view, I believe, would be shared by the majority of those serving in the navy today and by many who have retired. For half of the hundred years that the navy has existed, those who enlisted did not serve in the RCN. The RCN disappeared with a wave of Paul Hellyer's wand. Unification was seen as an insult to the many who had served in the RCN because it instantly and arbitrarily took away symbols and traditions that were part of their long and distinguished legacy of service. Surely, bringing back the designation RCN today would be doing the same thing to those who have served over the past 42 years. What of the innovations that are truly Canadian? Now women serve and command at sea; now we have bilingual warships; now we have a diversity of people from many ethnic and racial backgrounds reflecting the unique mix that is Canada itself. These are traditions that are in part handed down and are in part earned by Canadian sailors who never served in the RCN but who proudly served in what is commonly known as the Canadian navy. Like those who suffered from unification they should not have their accomplishments cast aside.

The men and women of today's navy know that for some time they have been working more and more closely with the USN whose continent we share. Indeed, they interface more and more with foreign navies who identify them as the Canadian Navy. Francophones have been in what is now Canada longer than any, except for the First Nations and Inuit. Francophones do not use “Maritime Command” when identifying the navy. For them, the French word for navy is “La Marine.” Navy/marine is a term that has survived 42 years of official, political and statutory deletion.

Vice-Admiral Dean McFadden has pointed out how closely the story of the navy parallels the development of Canada. Both came from humble beginnings but aspired to contribute beyond the shores of the country. Both modelled themselves on remarkable institutions of Great Britain. Both came of age in the crucible of war. He could have added that just as Canada has emerged from the shadow of Britain to tread the world stage as a respected and able nation in its own right, so did the Canadian Navy emerge from the shadow of the RN to become a world-renowned navy in its own right. It has become a navy reflecting the diversity, creativity, competence and multi-culturalism of the country itself.

This chamber is not the Royal Canadian Senate, although we owe much to British origins; we are the Senate of Canada. We are Canadians with our own constitution and identity. So it is with the Canadian Navy, with its own insignia, customs, practices and history.

The connection with the sovereign is acknowledged through the presentation of the Queen's Colours, which recently occurred for the third time in Halifax. Additionally, the use of HMCS is a practice well accepted by today's sailors.

The face of young Canada is rapidly changing. The demographic is no longer one of British, or even European, ancestry. The talent pool for the future navy has no connection with the royal designation. As the population ages, the navy is in an almost life and death competition with every other industry. If the navy does not attract more Aboriginals, more francophones, more of the anglophone and francophone immigrant communities and visible minorities, it will die a slow death.

Maritime Command is a bland nonentity. . . . The time has come to institutionalize the name “Canadian Navy/La Marine Canadienne.”

Finally, I know there was a lot of discussion about what other countries do and the fact that other countries have kept the term “Royal.” Last week I was in British Columbia studying lighthouses with Senator MacDonald, and the same case was put to us, that many countries had done away with lightkeepers. Our research shows that is not entirely true, but that is the allegation. Senator MacDonald made the comment that when he was young and he told his father he wanted to do something that his father thought he should not do his father would say to him, “If everyone else jumped over the wharf, would you jump over too?”

We are a country in our own right, with our own traditions and heritage. Thank you, Madam Chair, for hearing me.

The Chair: Thank you very much for appearing before us today. We have a long list of questions all ready to go, so we will start with Senator Dallaire.

Senator Dallaire: Senator Rompkey, I believe it was 1986 when the government of the day invested something like $43 million to put the three services back into service dress. Do you remember that time frame? Are you familiar with the time they did that? Did you perceive that there was a sense of pride that was created by the return to three separate uniforms?

Senator Rompkey: Absolutely.

Senator Dallaire: At that time, the navy did not go back to the navy blue; it went back to black. Also at that time, the army did not go back to khaki; it kept the green and the air force got its blue pretty well back. Do you think that because they did not get exactly what they had before, that maybe was a pejorative side to the encouragement of having your separate uniform?

Senator Rompkey: The uniform that I remember was black. The uniform that I wore was black, so they have gone back to black. If I recall uniforms, senator, it was not navy blue but black. I stand to be corrected. I think they have gone back to what it was, but it clearly is a morale booster and a question of identity.

Senator Dallaire: I can certainly speak for the army. However, do you believe the new uniforms to be a significant factor in the continued operational effectiveness of these forces? Do you believe that by introducing this new element you can boost the morale of the forces?

Senator Rompkey: I do not mean to be trite, but I was thinking tonight that the Montreal Canadiens used to be called the Montreal Maroons. If you asked the people of Montreal to go back to the Montreal Maroons and if you took that CH off the sweater of the Canadians, what would that do to morale? What would that do to the morale of the team and the people? Morale is very important.

Senator Day: I thought they were called “les habitants.”

Senator Rompkey: Morale is important and those symbols of morale are very important.

Senator Dallaire: Is it not a fact that members of the naval branch, the Maritime Command, throughout the terrible years of unification and destruction of the soul of the army, navy and air force by trying to unify it, still kept the term “navy” in all kinds of paraphernalia. Is it true that they kept all kind of expressions of their morale and their entity?

Senator Rompkey: Yes, and that is why I distributed the materials tonight.

[Translation]

Senator Pépin: You told us to look ahead. I really want to look ahead, but for the Canadians who served in the Royal Canadian Navy, it is a question of identity. This change in name will affect them, and I suggest we give them a special decoration. Perhaps we could have some kind of recognition process for them. These soldiers are between 85 and 90 years old; there are very few of them left. One of my uncles is in this situation. It seems to me that they could be given a pin of recognition, for example, and then we could open the door and change the name to the Canadian Navy.

[English]

Senator Rompkey: To my knowledge, there is no one serving today who was in the Second World War. Those veterans of the Second World War still wear their RCN uniforms. Whenever they go to a mess dinner, to a Naval Officers' Association, they will wear their RCN uniform; but there is nobody from the RCN serving today.

Senator Pépin: That I know.

Senator Rompkey: The other thing I wanted to say was there are some from the Second World War in the Naval Officers' Association of Canada. However, as you know from the testimony of Admiral Summers, the Naval Officers' Association has taken the position that the navy should be called the “Canadian Navy,” even though some of their members have experience in the Second World War. The same is true for the Royal Canadian Legion. They took a decision not to revert to RCN.

[Translation]

Senator Pépin: I agree with the name Canadian Navy, but out of respect for the oldest veterans of the Royal Canadian Navy, we could find a way to recognize them as such, and then open the door to the rest.

[English]

Senator Rompkey: They will always be veterans of the RCN.

Senator Manning: I would like to thank our guest for being here with us today. To think he was on the short list for the next lieutenant governor of Newfoundland, but anyway.

I certainly have been intrigued by your motion in the house. We have had several discussions in private and I am delighted that you are here today. As you know, my feeling is we should go back to the “Royal Canadian Navy.” I hope I am not looking backward, but I am looking at honouring the accomplishments of the navy over the past 100 years.

I do not think there is a right or a wrong to this issue. You quoted Senator MacDonald's comments. My father used to tell us, even if you are on the side of the road by yourself and everybody else is on the other side, it does not mean you are wrong; it means you are lonely. I guess we all learn from our fathers and mothers.

Coming from Newfoundland and Labrador, and wherever we are in Canada, valuing our ancestry is important because while valuing and remembering our past as we prepare for the future and embracing our identity.

I guess my biggest issue, and what I want to get you on record as stating, is that when the changes were made with unification in 1968, it was a blow to the morale of all the forces at the time — the change in uniform, the elimination of the executive curl to the navy especially.

If we get to a point where it is “Canadian Navy,” I am okay with that, while I still push the fact that it is “Royal.” I do not push “Royal” for the simple reason of our history with the monarchy, as I said to witnesses and I said to you. My ancestry is Irish, so it is not necessarily from the monarchy point of view as much as I see it as a distinction — a clear distinction and an honour. I point to institutions like the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the Royal St. John's Regatta, the oldest sporting event in North America.

I am sure you have talked to many people, veterans of yesterday and the soldiers of today. I just wonder what you think at the end of the day.

I certainly want to take it from “Maritime Command.” I want to see that abolished because, to be honest with you; I think if you asked 10 out of 10 people on most days, you would not get an answer on “Maritime Command.” Most people would not know it. We know our army, navy and air force. We know the great work they have done.

From your point of view and all the people you have talked to, can you give us some indication? If we choose one or the other, I know life will continue on, as one of our witnesses said — soldiers do what they are asked to do.

Senator Rompkey: Life will continue on. You would have to make some changes. Those pins would no longer read “Canadian Navy.” The bumper stickers would no longer read “Canadian Navy.” The website would no longer read “Canadian Navy.” The letterhead would no longer read “Canadian Navy.”

You would have to make many changes and they would be costly. They would not be exorbitant, but they would be costly. There is a dollar figure attached to going back to “Royal Canadian Navy” which we should not discount. However, that is not what you asked and you asked a very important question.

Rear-Admiral Fred Mifflin's testimony was instructive in that regard. He said he had not met anybody in his travels who wanted to go back to “Royal Canadian Navy.” Fred moves in navy circles more than I do today.

I encourage you to go on a navy ship, those of you who have not, and actually talk to the people who live on that ship. I had the pleasure of sailing from Cupids to St. John's about three or four weeks ago. A lot of people on that ship, HMCS St. John's, are from my province. I did my own little informal survey on the quarter deck. I must say that people on that ship serve in the Canadian navy and are very proud of it. They really have no knowledge of the Royal Canadian Navy. It is not part of their identity, who they are or who they work for.

I have not done an exhaustive survey and I am not aware of any polls. However, I have asked people about it over the past year or more, and my conclusion is that the majority would rather serve in the “Canadian Navy.”

Senator Manning: You are almost there.

Senator Day: He has it. It is in his soul, I know it.

Senator Manning: In terms of logistics, Maritime Command is currently the official name. Therefore, the official name is not “Canadian Navy” at this present time. Is that correct?

Senator Rompkey: Right.

Senator Manning: Therefore, the soldiers and people who are serving in the Maritime Command today have never served under the Royal Canadian Navy or the “Canadian Navy.”

Senator Rompkey: They call themselves the “Canadian Navy.” That is how they are known and identify themselves.

Senator Manning: I know that.

Senator Rompkey: Officially, that is right.

Senator Manning: Officially, it has never been called that. They have found a way back to “Canadian Navy” from Maritime Command as an opportunity to identify themselves.

You kind of answered part of my second question. You are not aware of any polls among the people who are serving today, are you?

Senator Rompkey: I am only aware of informal polls. It is only anecdotal evidence; there is no hard evidence.

Senator Manning: The argument you are putting forward is clearly an argument that, for the past 42 years, these men and women have not served in the Royal Canadian Navy and, therefore, do not identify with that term. That is basically your argument.

Senator Rompkey: Right.

Senator Manning: Before you went out and discussed this over the past several months, you served in the Royal Canadian Navy, as I understand it.

Senator Rompkey: In the reserves, yes.

Senator Manning: In the Royal Canadian Navy Reserves. Were you convinced to change your mind or were you always —

Senator Rompkey: No, I was convinced to change my mind.

Senator Manning: You were convinced to change your mind from the conversations that you have had, is that right?

Senator Rompkey: That is exactly right, and I think it is a good point: I was convinced by those I talked to.

Senator Day: Thank you. Senator Rompkey, it is great to have a fellow senator here before us. I am taking a position contrary to yours. I just want you to know that so you do not feel that I am ambushing you.

Senator Rompkey: It is a democracy. One of the beauties about Canada is that is a democracy and the second is that it has a Canadian navy.

Senator Day: It does not, which is the point. That is why we are here. It has a Maritime Command. You and I know that, but you keep calling it the “Canadian navy.”

Senator Rompkey: No, they call it the “Canadian navy.”

Senator Day: This is a centennial document. This would have been approved. The one hundredth anniversary was celebrated this year, and it commemorates the Maritime Command. The commanding officer, presumably the Chief of the Navy, must have approved these celebrations.

Senator Rompkey: Right.

Senator Day: Do you agree with us that the “Canadian navy” is not an official name? “Canadian navy” is not the name, yet we see documents like this produced by the navy using an unofficial name.

Senator Rompkey: Good for them.

Senator Day: Therefore, if we change the name to the “Royal Canadian Navy” there is absolutely no reason why they could not continue to use the same documentation and call it the “navy.”

Senator Rompkey: If you change it to the “Royal Canadian Navy,” you would have to redo all that.

Senator Day: Why? They are using it now when it is called Maritime Command and they are using “Canadian navy.” If we change it to the Royal Canadian Navy, they could still use this stuff.

Senator Rompkey: However, “Royal Canadian Navy” would be official.

Senator Day: You do not think “Maritime Command” is official.

Senator Rompkey: It is official. That is my problem.

Senator Day: That is my point. It is official, yet this is being used.

Senator Rompkey: Yes, it is.

Senator Day: You agree, then.

Senator Rompkey: I think Senator Segal brought up the issue of covert activity.

Senator Day: Second, have you talked to the senior naval command with respect to this change?

Senator Rompkey: Yes.

Senator Day: We have been told that Maritime Command commanding officers have passed the word down through that there are bigger fish to fry.

Senator Rompkey: That is true.

Senator Day: So you agree with that.

Senator Rompkey: I agree with that. You need ships more than a name change.

Senator Day: It is not likely in a military command structure where the top boss says, “Cool it on this issue” that you will hear any comments from anybody else.

Senator Rompkey: I am not sure he said, “Cool it.” He just said he had bigger fish to fry. He did not say, “cool it.”

The Chair: We will be taking testimony, just for the record. He will be coming.

Senator Rompkey: Okay.

Senator Day: That is my terminology, but “let it lay” instead of “cool it.” Would “let it lay” be more appropriate?

The Chair: He did not say that.

Senator Rompkey: They could have done the same with the executive curl.

Senator Day: Yes, they could have.

Senator Rompkey: It is in the same general category. It is not in the category with ships, weapons and recruitment. It is not in that category, but it is in the category with the executive curl and it is relatively easy to do. The curl really did not cost very much.

Senator Day: However, as I understand it the executive curl was not an initiative by Maritime Command. It was a political initiative.

The Chair: No.

Senator Day: But it was not an initiative by the Maritime Command commanders.

Senator Rompkey: The chair is shaking her head.

The Chair: I do not think that is the order in which it came. That was very much coming up from the —

Senator Day: The command did not ask for it.

Senator Rompkey: Well, whatever.

The Chair: We will ask him when he comes.

Senator Day: We will ask him when he comes.

Senator Rompkey: They like it. They agree with it.

Senator Day: We know they liked it, once they were given it.

Senator Rompkey: The point here is that this can be done fairly easily with the stroke of the minister's pen. That is what I would like us to ask the minister to do because it is relatively easy and relatively inexpensive.

Senator Day: I just have one other point that I would like you to clarify with respect to recruiting. In the words from the speech that you gave in the Senate and which you talked about here, you mentioned recruiting and how important it is to recruit from a broad sector of the public nowadays and how we have a multicultural society. Are you suggesting, therefore, that HMCS Winnipeg, HMCS Victoria and HMCS St. John’s are making it difficult to recruit?

Senator Rompkey: No.

Senator Day: Why were you talking about recruiting in light of changing the name to —

Senator Rompkey: That is the name they use in recruiting now; the name they use in recruiting is the “Canadian navy.” If you watch the TV ads, and they are wonderful, they are on behalf of the “Canadian Navy.” Some of them say, “Fight with the Canadian Forces,” but some of them say, “Fight with the Canadian Navy.”

Senator Day: Therefore, your point is that the wording is used to help with recruiting.

Senator Rompkey: Right.

Senator Day: However, if they said fight with the “Maritime Command” —

Senator Rompkey: Oh, absolutely.

Senator Day: We all agree that “Maritime Command” should go.

Senator Rompkey: Right.

Senator Day: You are telling us that the title “Maritime Command” has already gone; in effect and unofficially, Maritime Command is not being used.

Senator Rompkey: It is not being used, but it is not gone.

Senator Day: No, unofficially is what I am talking about.

Senator Rompkey: Unofficially “Maritime Command” is not used in promotion, as I understand it, and you have evidence in front of you.

Senator Day: Yes.

Senator Rompkey: It is on behalf of the “Canadian Navy.”

Senator Dallaire: This argument on recruitment is perhaps a little simplistic. What do you think the introduction of “Royal” will do to recruiting in the Province of Quebec and to the million other Franco-Canadians in this country?

Senator Day: Yes, I think it is important to face that question.

Senator Rompkey: You may be able to answer that question, senator, more easily than I can because you come from that province and I do not.

Senator Manning: Answer your own question. I am interested.

The Chair: No, we will have other testimony on this.

Senator Day: What does it do to Royal 22e Régiment?

Senator Dallaire: It was first an Infantry battalion called the 22e Régiment and asked to become “Royal” in 1926, and the Queen asserted that, and that was fine. However, we are now in 2010. To seek Royal Assent for, let us say, the “Canadian Navy” would be a different exercise. In addition, I remind you that none of the new units created since 1968 has the term “Royal,” and there is a reason for that. There was no demand for that term to come back within any of the new units created in the Canadian Armed Forces.

The Chair: Thank you.

Senator Mitchell: I have nothing to add to the excellent case that you made. I could not augment it; I could not improve on it.

Senator Rompkey: Actually, I was going to say the same about the remarks you made before I got here.

Senator Mitchell: I will repeat those, thanks.

To use Senator Manning's analogy, I do not want you to feel that you are alone on that side of the street because you are not. You made an excellent case. I will ask some questions that might seem to be leading, but justifiably so.

I have a feeling that “Royal” conjures up an era of a shroud of colonialism that covered Canada that does not reflect the present era. In this era, we can have true pride as an independent nation in the world. That independence was very hard fought for by all of our services and certainly by the naval services of Canada in our history.

Senator Rompkey: There was a revolt in the navy just after the war. A review was commissioned, headed by Admiral Mainguy, who was captain of destroyers in St. John's during the war. The Mainguy report identified exactly that, namely that there were certain practices, insignia and customs that the Royal Canadian Navy at that time wanted but which were denied because many of the officers in the Royal Canadian Navy had come from Britain, and those who had not had a mid-Atlantic accent, if you know what I mean.

There was a movement, and the Minogue report helped to change that and to institute Canadian practices and Canadian customs. They started growing from about 1950 onwards and have continued.

Senator Mitchell: I would like to address the precedent that some of our colleagues are trying to draw between “going back to the curl” and therefore legitimizing going back to “Royal.” You see, I do not buy that precedent. I think there is another precedent. Resurrecting the curl is necessary to distinguish a service. Resurrecting a name without “Royal,” simply the name “Canadian Navy,” is distinguishing a country, a country that deserves to be distinguished internationally as a country of independence, as a country of a new era of a future where it is not beholden to other nations and their monikers.

Senator Rompkey: That is exactly right. The executive curl, if you remember the testimony from Admiral Mifflin and Admiral Summers, and so on, was to distinguish them from airline pilots and commissionaires, although Admiral Fred Mifflin said he would be happy to be identified as a commissionaire because many of them come from the Armed Forces.

You are right. The curl is to identify you as being part of the international navy community. That is what it says. “Canadian navy” says you are representing a nation.

Senator Mitchell: Exactly. I guess as a final comment, in my heart of hearts, I cannot see how “Royal” in front of “Canadian Navy” can in any way, shape or form augment, enhance, inspire greater pride than simply “Canadian” all by itself. Why do we need a crutch?

The Chair: Do you have any sense of what this means for the other two services?

Senator Rompkey: No, not really, although we have never had the “Royal Canadian Army.” We have always had the Canadian army. You raise a good point, namely that there has never been a “Royal Canadian army.” There has only been a Canadian army. In a sense, going to the “Canadian Navy” is simply as a reflection of the Canadian army.

What the air force will want to do, I have no idea.

The Chair: Senator Plett wanted to give testimony as well today.

Senator Plett: Chair, I was the shortest one last round, and I will be again.

The Chair: You were.

Senator Plett: First, I find it exciting that I am on the same side of an issue as Senator Day, and I realize that all is right in the world because I am not on the same side as Senator Mitchell. The problem, of course, with being on the same side as Senator Day is that he somewhat asked the questions that I was going to ask, but I do want to continue on that just a bit.

Senator Rompkey, a number of times you referred to the fact about going back to the RCN would be a slap in the face of the soldiers that are serving —

Senator Rompkey: I am not sure I used “slap in the face.”

Senator Plett: No, that is correct. You did not use those terms. Absolutely you did not, but you implied — and I am not sure whether it was insult — that it would not be what they would want.

Senator Rompkey: Yes.

Senator Plett: As Senator Day and Senator Manning have said, we do not have a Canadian navy; we have Maritime Command. They are printing things at someone's command, but certainly not because it is official.

When this name is changed, and I have every reason to know that it will be, either to “Royal Canadian Navy” or to “Canadian Navy,” I want you to know, sir, that I will not only put this on to either a bumper or somewhere, if it is “Canadian Navy” I will put it on it proudly. I am equally sure that our fine men and women in uniform, in the navy, will be proud to serve in the “Royal Canadian Navy” if that is the name. I do not accept the fact that they will say that something has happened to belittle their stature.

Yes, we served at Vimy Ridge as the Canadian army, and wonderful on us. I support that wholeheartedly, and I am so proud. If we have the name “Royal Canadian Navy,” everyone will understand that we are the Canadian navy. We are the “Royal Canadian Navy” in Canada. Those are religious comments.

There was apparently a survey done at the Naval Officers Training Centre that revealed that 80 per cent of junior-serving officers were in favour of returning to “Royal Canadian Navy.”

Senator Rompkey: Can you table that survey?

The Chair: Yes, before we put that into testimony, we need to have some facts.

Senator Plett: Fair enough.

Senator Rompkey: Can you table it?

Senator Plett: In all fairness, a number of people have used unsubstantiated comments about what their polling has revealed. I am not sure that we need to table it. These are unsubstantiated, and I am simply reading a question to the senator as to whether or not he is aware of such a survey.

Senator Rompkey: No, I think I said in an earlier answer very clearly that there is only anecdotal evidence. There has been no poll to my knowledge and there is no hard evidence. I said quite clearly, I think, that I spoke to people on the upper deck and on the lower deck, and my conclusion was that they served in the “Canadian navy” and would rather do that.

However, there is no hard evidence. If you have some, I would be glad to see it.

Senator Plett: Thank you. I have already taken you up on your suggestion about getting on to one of our fine vessels. It is in the works.

Senator Rompkey: If you get on to HMCS St. John's, she will get you to the port that has more bars per capita than any other city in Canada.

Senator Plett: Wonderful. That is also a plus.

The Chair: Committee, our time is up. This better be five seconds.

Senator Day: There have been a number of suggestions of surveys and doing things. I am hoping that this committee can take the time to do those surveys, go on the ships and find out for ourselves before we vote on this.

The Chair: I think that would be informal. That would be more anecdotal evidence. We do not have the capacity to do an actual poll.

Senator Day: The witness has suggested that this is something we may want to do. I agree that we should do so before we vote on the motion.

The Chair: I will take that under advisement.

Senator Dallaire: I would totally disagree inasmuch as we have seen what the navy thinks. We have seen what it thinks because it has related 100 years of history and it has called it the “Canadian Navy.” I think the chain of command should be held in front of this committee to give us what it thinks it sees the future of the navy and, ultimately, it will be held accountable for whatever answer it gives and not a poll from the forces

The Chair: Which we will do three weeks from today. Senator Rompkey, thank you very much for being here. The meeting is adjourned.

(The committee adjourned.)

The Testimony of Commander Thain

2010-12-09T04:17:00.000-08:00

Unfortunately the admirals had gotten to Commander Thain before he testified, but his testimony was very useful in describing the intense peer pressure that was brought to bear upon him beforehand. I believe Cmdr. Thain is supportive of RCN but was instructed by certain admirals in the Naval Officer's Association not to push for it. Admiral "I have bigger fish to fry" McFadden was subsequently put on the defensive when Cmdr. Thain's testimony came to light.

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENCE

EVIDENCE

OTTAWA, Monday, November 22, 2010

The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 4 p.m. to examine and report on the national security and defence policies of Canada (topics: the role of Canada in NATO; and national threat assessments); and to consider a motion to change the official structural name of the Canadian navy.

Senator Pamela Wallin (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: I call to order this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence on Canadian national security and defence policies, including Canada's NATO role, the national threat assessment, and a look at changing the official structural name of the Canadian navy. We will not be dealing with Item 4 on today’s agenda; that is Senator Rompkey's motion in the Senate.

The committee has been studying a motion by Senator Bill Rompkey that asks the Minister of Defence to change the official structural name of Maritime Command to “Canadian Navy.” In conducting this study, some committee members have also suggested that Maritime Command revert to an earlier name, the Royal Canadian Navy.

We have not heard much testimony on that, but today we are pleased to hear from retired navy Commander Chris Thain (Retired), president of the Winnipeg branch of the Naval Officers’ Association of Canada.

Commander (Ret'd) Chris Thain, President of the Naval Officers’ Association of Canada branch in Winnipeg, as an individual: Good evening, madam chair, honourable committee members. It is a privilege to appear before you today. Security and defence being a fundamental responsibility of government, I consider the work of this committee to be of the utmost importance, so I thank you for the time allowed for me to speak to you regarding the motion put forward by the Honourable Senator Rompkey to change the structural name of Maritime Command to “Canadian Navy.”

I am a retired naval reservist who joined the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve in 1957, as a member of the university naval training divisions. I received my royal commission in 1962 and held the rank of lieutenant navy when unification arrived in 1968. I retired in 1985 with the rank of commander, having served as Commanding Officer of HMCS Chippawa in Winnipeg from 1978 to 1981. I speak to you today as president of the Winnipeg branch of the Navy Officers' Association of Canada. My purpose is to encourage support for Senator Rompkey's motion.

Many would see the change to “Canadian Navy” as simply another step in what has been a long process of moving away from the effects of attempted integration and unification. In part it may be that, but it is not just a step back to reclaim something of the past. It is a positive move that would replace a term used only because it is required in official conversation and documents with one that is used in everyday conversation, in all sectors of the military and by the general public both here and abroad.

If it were only a step back to the past, then many of the members of the Winnipeg branch would call for a return to the “Royal Canadian Navy,” but it is not a step back. It is a step forward, replacing outdated terminology with what is in common use. Not only is “Maritime Command” outdated in service use, it is a term with little meaning to the Canadian public that unfortunately can be decidedly apathetic when it comes to things military.

Coming from the mid-continent, I can tell you that for those in much of the country it sounds like the title on the office door of someone with some authority over something to do with oceans and may be only applied to the Maritime provinces.

The motion speaks of the naval centennial and recognizes the service of Canadian naval personnel. As an English-speaking Canadian, “navy” and “naval” are the terms I use when speaking of the sea-going component of any country's Armed Forces, be it the U.S. Navy, Russian Navy or any country that sends warships to sea.

Passage of Senator Rompkey's motion encourages the Minister of National Defence to replace an awkward, publicly misunderstood term, only used in official speech and writing, with a term that is commonly used throughout the military and understood by the general public in this country and abroad.

I would also like to note that for those who are or have been in the naval service, the term “navy” has far more than a simple denotative meaning. The word “navy” has, and has had for many years, a positive connotation all its own. Men and women proudly refer to themselves as being in or having been in the navy, a term that carries a very real sense of pride and camaraderie with all sailors of the world, a feeling not evoked by the term Maritime Command.

In this centennial year for the Canadian navy, we continue to honour our past with the welcome return of the executive curl. We continue, as we always have, to honour the linkage to our origins and the monarchy with the designation of our ships as Her Majesty's Canadian Ship. As we look to the future, we do so as a Canadian navy, proud of its roots, proud of its accomplishments and proud of its current reputation among other navies of the world.

I only ask one question. I do not speak French, but a French-speaking member has informed me that he believes the stated translation as “Marine Canadienne” is misleading as it could also refer to the merchant navy. He believes that the translation should be “Marine National Canadienne” so there is no ambiguity with “Marine Marchand Canadienne”.

In essence, the Senator Rompkey's motion calls for the sea-going component of the Canadian Armed Forces to be officially referred to by a name that to everyone everywhere reflects the reality of its very nature and purpose, the “Canadian Navy.”

The Chair: Thank you very much, Commander Thain. I appreciate that and your succinct approach. We have a lot of strong feelings on this committee, so I will say, as a gentle reminder, before we begin that we are not actually taking testimony from committee members, we are taking questions. We have so many questions today. We will start with Senator Dallaire. Please be short and to the point. We have a lot of people to run through in our very brief time.

Senator Dallaire: Imagine trying to get a general, who is now an apprenticed politician, to work on brevity. That is quite a challenge.

The Chair: I will put a stop watch on it.

Senator Dallaire: I acknowledge that the French translation, which has an interesting dimension that has been raised, would require an official translator, but I would contend that “La Marine Canadienne” has been used in quite regularly in Quebec City, where I live, and by two of my children, in fact, who were in the naval reserve.

Was the Royal Canadian Navy Volunteer Reserve identified as an actual entity that also ended with unification?

Cmdr. Thain: It was part of the Canadian navy. It was not a separate entity. We were reservists within the Canadian naval forces.

Senator Dallaire: When we are looking at officers who served in the Second World War and so on, you were not identified as “Royal Canadian Navy” — brackets “R” for reserve, is that correct.

Cmdr. Thain: There were several designations. There were voluntary reserves; there were reserves. If you looked at my commission, you would not know that I was a reservist. My commission is a commission into the Canadian navy.

Senator Dallaire: The Royal Canadian Navy at the time?

Cmdr. Thain: Yes.

Senator Dallaire: Thank you very much.

Senator Plett: I want to say I am from the same part of the country that you are from and from the same city, so welcome here. I can identify with the comment you made about “Maritime” having a connotation that it is only a small part of our country that is being represented, so I support that.

I have a bit of a preference for “Royal Canadian Navy.” My preference for this is largely because I believe that it is about according Canada's naval forces the respect that they deserve. It is about honouring our sailors by restoring a historical name, one under which many fought and died, a name that instils pride and respect.

Your argument today has been mostly — although I identify that your preference is “Canadian Navy” — about changing the name from “Maritime Command” to “Canadian Navy.” I would like to hear a bit of the argument about why you think “Canadian Navy” would be better than “Royal Canadian Navy.” I want to say I will accept “Canadian Navy” with pride, if that is the outcome of this committee and the Senate.

Cmdr. Thain: First off, it was because I was addressing a motion that referred to “Canadian Navy”; it was not a motion to go to “Royal Canadian Navy.” When it came up, it was discussed nationally by the Naval Officers' Association of Canada, as it was discussed nationally by many organizations with military and naval ties.

It is a strange issue. If we had never lost the “Royal,” it would be there and nobody would question it. To bring it back raises the possibility of people seeing it as a move back toward colonial ties. It is not the Royal Australian Navy or the Royal New Zealand Navy, which carry on; they never lost their “Royal” designation so it has been a continuum.

The Naval Officers' Association spoke to senior officers in the navy and said what do you want us to do? They said there is nobody in the navy now who ever served under the RCN. You would have to be in the navy 42 years to have done that. Therefore, we do not want to do anything that we do not see as absolutely necessary, that it might upset people. We do not want to raise flags that could cause problems, so let us just go to “Canadian Navy” and let it go at that.

I spoke to the Royal Canadian Legion national convention in Winnipeg this summer. They had a motion on the floor to advocate for a return to the “Royal” and that motion was defeated after long argument for the same reasons. If “Royal” had always been there, had been carried through, it would be there without a problem. To go back to it might cause problems nobody wants. You would not have mutiny on the coasts if it came back, but the navy is not advocating for it. I will put it that way.

Senator Plett: Strangely enough, I had a member of the media talk to me today about this. That individual suggested that we may not ever have entirely done away with the name “Royal,” which was a strange comment to me — that, in fact, this would be quite simple because the name is still there. Is there any truth to that? Is that gone? Would that be a larger process than having “Canadian Navy”? That is my last question, chair.

Cmdr. Thain: I believe there are still Royal Canadian regiments. We still have Her Majesty's Canadian Ships. Some people will say there should not be any sort of public upset at putting “Royal Canadian” sailors on board Her Majesty's Canadian ships, but again, the HMCS has been there; it is part of our history. We are not returning to it as it has never gone away.

We might be having this same debate if somehow, in 1968, we had gone to “Canadian” ships rather than “Her Majesty's” — the debate of whether we go back to it. Again, it would be seen as a contentious issue to go back to it once it has been lost.

Senator Day: Explain to me how many serving naval officers would have served using the executive curl. I am trying to apply your argument to the executive curl.

Cmdr. Thain: The navy has always had something distinctive over the rank on its sleeve. For us, it was the executive curl. When we lost that, we lost the distinction not just in colour of uniform when we went to green and so on, we lost that distinction on our sleeve. Whether it is in various navies, various things on the sleeve, the navy does have that distinction on the top rank stripe on the sleeve.

It is looked on very fondly, and we have never lost it on our mess dress. It was only on the walking out uniform that it went.

Again, there are young officers in the navy who say: Gee, that looks neat. However, to those who have been around for any length of time, the return of that curl meant something to them.

Senator Day: That is because there was a lot of goodwill associated with that and a lot of pride in distinctiveness.

Cmdr. Thain: Yes, sir.

Senator Day: Is that not the same for the “Royal Canadian Navy”? I am an old trademark man and I used to work in that area. I know the value of something that has an association with it that existed for a long time. My political friends here will understand when someone adopts a political name like the Green Party, how quickly that rose because the name has an association. It was not entirely new.

What I am looking at with RCN, “Royal Canadian Navy,” is the same thing as I see with the executive curl. It is something that has an inherent value that will come back and give pride to all of the serving members, as well as those who are no longer serving.

Cmdr. Thain: I tend to agree with you. It puts us in a difficult position because the navy has sort of said to the Naval Officers' Association of Canada: Do not push it. We have bigger fish to fry and we do not want to get everyone upset about something that we can live without.

I spoke to the executive officer of HMCS Chippawa the other day, and he said: Gee, it all sort of felt good when we were down in the States and someone would call us “RCN” and you perked up a little bit. It was sort of nice. However, he said the crew of HMCS Winnipeg was in town fairly recently, and talking to them, they sort of shrugged and said: No, the “Canadian Navy,” yes, we want to go back to that. They are quite happy with Her Majesty's Canadian Ship, but they do not have that same link to being the “Royal Canadian Navy” that those of us do who served as such.

Senator Day: And they did not have the same link to the executive curl that some of you had who served back previously.

Cmdr. Thain: They had it on their mess kit.

Senator Day: Yes. How do you think the serving members would feel who say: Oh, yes, I am working with the “CN” now?

Cmdr. Thain: That came up, and I doubt that you would use “CN” as we used to use “RCN.” We would just say “navy.”

Senator Day: For that reason.

Cmdr. Thain: Yes.

Senator Day: The second point is how pervasive is the word down from the top of the navy, telling people we have bigger fish to fry; do not make any comments on this?

Cmdr. Thain: I am not sure. Fairly pervasive, I would think.

The Chair: I guess my best attempt to have people not testify is not working, so I will try again; Senator Segal.

Senator Plett: I did a good job.

The Chair: You did a pretty good job.

Senator Segal: I have two brief questions. The first one is was the executive curl not something that united our navy with all the other navies? It was not about going back to a pre-unification status; it was about reminding everyone that our uniform was a naval uniform by definition. It had nothing to do with the Royal escutcheon, per se.

Commander Thain: That is correct. Back in 1968, another grizzled sailor said to me, “Sir, a Canadian sailor has more in common with a Russian sailor than he has with a Canadian soldier.” There is a basic fundamental truth to that statement. That executive curl takes us back into the naval community of the world.

Senator Segal: I say this because of my very high regard for the work of the naval reserve and its ability to provide technically adept and flexible young men and women to be of immense value to the regular force, responsible for patrolling our coasts. Would you share with us from your experience, for which we should all be grateful, the quality and the tone of the debate that took place either at the Royal Canadian Legion or at the Naval Officers’ Association of Canada? Clearly, some people of goodwill who believe in strengthening the navy are of the strong view that the “Royal” would be constructive and helpful. I do not happen to be of that view, but I respect their reason. Could you give us a sense of the debate back and forth so that we better understand?

Commander Thain: The debate centred on how it will be perceived by the general public. We are very conscious that the general public, as I said in my opening remarks, stand aside from the military. They do not understand much about the military, and some view it a bit askance. The military is very careful in how it deals with the public. There is concern about public perception and whether this might be a step back to some sort of colonial link. We all know it is not; but then we would have to convince the general public that is not the case. That was the general tone of the debate at the Legion.

Senator Manning: Thank you and welcome. I will follow up on some of my colleague's comments and questions. I will not pretend to have the knowledge that you have, sir, in that you joined in 1957 and I was born in 1964. Needless to say, I am sure your expertise speaks louder than mine, but I have been intrigued by some of your comments.

I want to touch base, if I could, on the unification in 1968, the changes to the uniforms and to the name from Royal Canadian Navy to Maritime Command, and the feeling among the troops back then.

Maybe you could give us some idea of whether there was a cost to morale. Certainly, changes to the uniforms created a big issue and loss of the executive curl was another issue. How did that play out, in your experience, among the personnel?

Commander Thain: It was a terrible hit to morale at the time for all the forces, but I do not think the navy was hit any harder than anyone else by it. It was a loss of distinction. Someone once said that we have more in common with the Russian navy than we have with Canadian soldiers. When you try to integrate army, navy and air force — three forces that have entirely different lifestyles, do different things and have more in common with those in other countries that do the same thing. It was the unification and trying to bring it into one force. I am sure there was some reason to try to integrate some of the supply chain and other things, but to try to pretend that a sailor was a soldier was an airman wearing a different uniform with a little bit different training was a morale hit to the forces. Sailors felt they were quite a bit different than soldiers and I am sure soldiers felt they were different from sailors and airmen and so on.

Senator Manning: Certainly, it leads us to believe that. While the men and women of service are all under the Canadian Armed Forces, there are the separate entities of the navy, the air force and the army. One of the comments you made was about the loss of distinction. That is where it comes back to me because I support the “Royal Canadian Navy” name not because of Royalty or colonialism but as the distinction. I believe it provides a level of credibility.

You mentioned earlier that there would not be mutiny on the shores over it. I sense that most people involved want to see the name changed from Maritime Command to “Canadian Navy” or “Royal Canadian Navy.” I understand that some people support the use of “Royal” and others who support “Canadian Navy.”

As you said, you had a significant hit back in 1968 with unification. Since then, our army, our air force and our navy have continued supplying wonderful service to the people of Canada and to the people of the world; and we are proud of them. A few weeks ago, when the hurricane hit Newfoundland, the navy stepped up with the army and the air force. They continue to work in tremendous ways so it has not hindered their progress to do tremendous work. What is your take of going from “Royal Canadian Navy” to “Canadian Navy?”

Commander Thain: As I am sure Senator Dallaire will confirm, — a serviceman does what he is told and gets on with it no matter what he thinks of it. That is what happened in 1968; we got on with the job. If it goes back to “Royal Canadian Navy” or to “Canadian Navy,” the navy will continue to operate efficiently. You will thrill a lot of World War II vets and older service personnel if it is changed to “Royal Canadian Navy.” You would not upset the current navy if it were “Canadian Navy.” As I said before, if it went to “Royal Canadian Navy,” there would not be a mutiny on the coasts; life would carry on and that is what would happen.

Senator Pépin: I understand how important identity is. How does the Maritime Command name affect the navy identity?

Commander Thain: I am sorry, I missed the question.

The Chair: How does the name “navy” and Maritime Command affect the identity?

Commander Thain: Maritime Command is not understood by the general public to be “navy.” To the people on the street, when you say “Maritime Command,” they have no idea what you are talking about, unless somewhere down the road they have had a connection to someone from the navy. If I walk down the street and ask people what Maritime Command is, 9 out of 10 people will not have a clue what I am talking about. When you say “navy,” everyone knows what you are talking about. That is the difference.

Senator Dallaire: When I commanded Land Force Quebec Area, I immediately had to say “the army in Quebec;” similar terminology that the navy had as a problem.

However, when unification happened and the executive curl as part of uniform distinction was eliminated, it was not eliminated totally from the uniform; it was eliminated from the dress uniform and from the garrison uniforms but not from the mess uniforms. Is that correct?

Commander Thain: That is right.

Senator Dallaire: When the navy deployed from port, did the officers not wear the curl on their normal dress uniform in the last 15 years or so, in particular the submariners?

Commander Thain: Negative, to my knowledge, sir. The only time that the curl was worn was on mess kit.

Senator Dallaire: I have a bit more information; thank you. The curl has always been there, but the “Royal Canadian Navy,” as a term, ended with unification.

Commander Thain: Yes, sir.

Senator Segal: Our witness would be impeded from sharing covert information of that kind, even with a retired general.

Commander Thain: I like that term, “covert.”

Senator Mitchell: I would like to represent the other side and I am not making a statement.

It seems that, to some extent, and maybe to a huge extent, the use of “Royal” in front of “Canadian Navy”, and the arguments surrounding it, hinge upon what that conjures up. For me that conjures up a past that, to some extent — I do not want to say “betrays” because that is a powerful word — but belies the evolution of this country.

One of the greatest moments in our military history was winning at Vimy. That served to help us establish the distance from the colonial supervision of Britain. I am very supportive of the monarchy, but is there another way of looking at that? To me, it just drags us back into the past and belies that effort, those accomplishments and many of the great moments in Canadian military history.

Second, some say that it somehow gives us greater pride to say “Royal Canadian Navy.” I have a great deal of pride thinking about the Canadian navy. That is what we are.

Commander Thain: I agree. When HMCS Winnipeg was off the coast of Somalia involved with the pirates we got more front-page news about the navy than we had seen in the last 30 years, and the term “Canadian Navy” was used. It was “Navy” on the front pages and people were proud of the HMCS Winnipeg and what she had accomplished.

There is and will continue to be pride in the Canadian navy. I do not think that the term “Royal” is necessary for pride. We would have pride whatever it was called. Maritime Command is still proud of what they have accomplished. It is just an outdated term that is not recognized.

The Chair: If you went to “Canadian Navy” or even “Royal Canadian Navy,” what precedent would that set? What would happen to the other forces? Would we go back to “Royal Canadian Air Force” or could they be the “Canadian Air Force”? What about the army?

Commander Thain: I thought about that the other day as I drove out to my air command in Winnipeg for 17 Wing mess for TGIF. There is a building there with “Air Command” on it. That is up to the air force. Somehow that seems to fit more than “Maritime Command” fits with the navy.

The Chair: Thank you for that. We appreciate you coming today and your comments.

So what's the next step?

2010-12-08T06:01:00.000-08:00

So what's the next step, a commenter on the previous post asks. The next step is to continue building support from those who care deeply about this issue - namely, our distinguished veterans and ex-service men and women, and the associations with which they belong. The goal posts have changed significantly over the past month, so three things to note as we head into the new year:

1. The outcome from the Senate hearings investigating Senator Rompkey's motion that the name of Maritime Command be officially changed to the 'Canadian Navy' is highly uncertain. This is a critical point because if the Senate passes the motion, and the Government acts upon it (unlikely in my view), we are dead meat. Although there are numerous pro-RCN Senators cheering in our corner, it would be wishful thinking to believe they could successfully amend the motion and carry the day, but you never do know. But thankfully given the reality of the Senate being split on the issue, I am hopeful that the whole matter will now be kicked into the long grass for second sober thought.

2. The Canadian Naval Centennial is almost over, therefore the petition will be updated so that it continues to be forward-looking. Obviously these things have greater success when they are tied to events, and here we are extremely fortunate given the upcoming Diamond Jubilee in 2012. There is no question in my mind that our loyal veterans have a deep and continuing affinity for the Queen, and they will no doubt be supportive of any initiative that would strive to honour her long service to Canada.

3. The focus and target of our initiative has changed, and for the better. In light of Christopher McCreery's confirmation that the RCN and RCAF were never abolished, but continue to legally subsist within the Canadian Forces in the form of Maritime Command and Air Command, our petition can no longer be directed at Parliament. We cannot petition Parliament to restore that which was never taken away. This is a welcome development because it allows us to morph from a potentially divisive campaign into a popular veteran's grassroots effort to honour the Queen.

Canadian organizations are now in preparation mode for the Diamond Jubilee. Our intention is to be part of that process from a veteran's and ex-service point of view. Our team is currently recruiting the key people who will recruit the relevant groups and associations. This will take a few months, but we are well underway already. I will keep you apprised of significant developments.

It's simply a matter of etiquette, dignity & pride

2010-12-03T03:10:00.000-08:00

With the firm revelation from Mr. McCreery that the Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force continue to exist within the existing entity called 'Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces', that is to say that they subsist within the CF in the form of Maritime Command and Air Command, and given that Maritime Command is already being referred to as the Canadian Navy and Air Command as the Canadian Air Force, the recognition of the reality of the RCN and RCAF within the unified Forces should simply be done at the direction of the Minister of National Defence.

Indeed, it could be said that not using the Royal designation is, in fact, a breach of etiquette, if not protocol. The RCN and the RCAF were never abolished but re-organised. There never was any need for any reason to stop the use of the Royal designations with these forces as has been amply demonstrated with the welcome return of much of the traditional uniforms, ranks, et al to the Naval and Air forces.

All discussions related to this issue have now been rendered moot; including this petition to Parliament because it is not an issue for Parliament. The Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force exist already with the Canadian Army within the CF. It is simply a matter of identification updating and restoration.

This should be done forthwith.

An Astounding Revelation

2010-12-02T10:52:00.000-08:00

We noted this fact in the preamble to the petition, now we have it confirmed from no less a royal authority as Christopher McCreery.

30 November 2010
H A L I F A X

Mr. Kevin Pittman
Clerk of the Standing Committee on National Security and Defence
The Senate of Canada
Parliament
OTTAWA ON K1A 0A4

Dear Mr. Pitman;

I have followed with interest the deliberations of the Committee in relation to the possibility of altering the name of Maritime Command to either Canadian Navy or Royal Canadian Navy.

When King George V granted the Royal designation to the Naval Service of Canada in August 1911, the term “Royal Canadian Navy” came into use. We do not know the exact date that the King granted the designation; however the authority for the term was set out in a letter dated 16 August 1911 addressed to the Governor General. The letter explained;

His Majesty having been graciously pleased to authorize that the Canadian Naval Forces shall be designated ‘the Royal Canadian Navy’, this is the title to be officially adopted.

This message was forwarded to Prime Minister Sir Wilfid Laurier by the Governor General on 29 August 1911 and it was then published on page 1819 of the Canada Gazette dated 11 November 1911.

The granting of Royal designations continues to be an element of the Royal Prerogative within the Sovereign’s personal discretion. The granting of a Royal designation does not expire, rather it is an honour granted to organizations and institutions at the pleasure of the Sovereign.

An example that Royal designations do not expire, providing the parent organization continues to exist in some form, can be found in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. When established in 1873 the Force was known as the North West Mounted Police. In recognition of the important role that the NWMP played in the development of the Canadian west the Force was granted the designation Royal in 1904 and became the “Royal North West Mounted Police.” In 1920 the RNWMP was merged with the Dominion Police to create the “Royal Canadian Mounted Police.” Because the parent organization – the RNWMP – had been granted the Royal designation in 1904 there was no requirement to seek the Sovereign’s permission to continue using the Royal designation, even though the new organizational name was in a slightly reworked form.

…/2

There are also examples of Royal designations being revoked or ceasing to exist. This was true in the case of the Royal Canadian Humane Association, which was granted the designation Royal by Queen Victoria in 1894. The organization wound up operations in early 2001 and ceased to exist in February 2001. The organization was subsequently re-established in 2002 and on 23 April 2003 the Queen granted permission for the designation “Royal” to be used once again.

Had the Royal Canadian Navy been abolished or gone bankrupt it would be necessary to seek the Queen’s permission for the restoration of the Royal designation. However, this is clearly not the case. With the advent of unification in 1968 the three services of the Canadian Armed Forces (what is today commonly referred to as the Canadian Forces), namely the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and Royal Canadian Air Force, were merged into one service. The pre-1968 designations were not abolished but merely overlaid with a new organizational structure at the direction of the Minister of National Defence. To return the designation “Royal Canadian Navy” to use, all that would be required would be an organizational order signed by the Minister of National Defence.

Seeking the Queen’s consent for the use of the Royal designation and term “Royal Canadian Navy” would not be necessary as the designation “Royal Canadian Navy” continues to live on in the permission granted by her grandfather in 1911. As a courtesy, were the term “Royal Canadian Navy” to return to common usage, it would be appropriate for the Government of Canada to inform Her Majesty of this alteration in the designation of part of Her Majesty’s Canadian Forces. This would be done through a letter from the Governor General to the Queen.

Please to not hesitate to contact me if you or the Committee have any further questions.

With all kind regards,

Christopher McCreery

Senator Plett proudly shows off our petition!

2010-12-01T10:53:00.001-08:00

I had the honour of presenting Senator Plett with our 384 page petition last week, so that he could table it with the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence. All smiles for the camera, eh Senator!

For more happiness, you can read Christopher McCreery's letter at Althia Raj's blog, in which he articulates why no further permission is required from the Queen in order to continue the usage of the Royal designation for the Canadian navy. So much for the incorrect assertion from Canadian admirals (I have posted their unfortunate testimonies below) that this would be a difficult thing to accomplish. On the contrary, there would be nothing to it.

Royal Canadian Navy an 'elegant' name.

2010-11-30T21:40:00.000-08:00

A mostly good article except the disappointing part where he unjustly reduces the 5000 veterans and former military members who signed the petition into the cranky misnomer "monarchist". A simple scan of the many comments left by petitioners would clearly show that the vast majority of those who support this initiative are former naval and air force people. A sour point in an otherwise good news story.

OTTAWA — Changing the name of Maritime Command to the Canadian Navy — or CN — would cause confusion between it and the national railway, according to the dean of law at the University of Western Ontario.

Also, the Royal Canadian Navy has an “elegance” to it.

Those are two reasons Ian Holloway, who spoke at the Senate's defence committee Monday, wants the navy — officially called Maritime Command since 1968 — to revert to the old name of Royal Canadian Navy.

The Senate is studying a motion by Liberal Sen. William Rompkey, who wants to change the name to Canadian Navy.

Holloway, a former chief petty officer in the Navy, said doing so would be, "the wrong move" for several reasons, including "brand confusion" with Canadian National Railway.

"We live in a world of acronyms and in a Canadian context the acronym CN is already taken," he said. "To call it CN would risk brand confusion with our national railway."

Many have suggested a name change would invigorate the force with a better sense of identity and would undo some of the malaise caused when the three forces were joined into the Canadian Forces in 1968.

While everyone agrees the name Maritime Command is terrible, senators and witnesses are squaring off over whether to call it Royal or not.

Numerous retired members of the navy have suggested the rank-and-file don't want Royal in the name, and some senators believe it conjures up a colonial past that doesn’t reflect the modern Canadian navy as independent.

But a recent petition of monarchists has more than 5,000 signatures calling for the Royal Canadian Navy to be the name once again.

Unfortunately, polling the sailors themselves would be “inappropriate,” according to committee chair Senator Pamela Wallin.

"Feelings are strongly split on this," she said. "You can't really poll members of the military because it would be inappropriate for them to engage in what essentially will be a political debate.

"So we're just trying to pull together some of the evidence and comments so people know what the arguments are."

A recommendation from the committee on a potential name change is expected next year. This year was the navy's 100th anniversary.

bryn.weese@sunmedia.ca

The Unfortunate Testimony of Admiral Summers

2010-11-30T11:41:00.000-08:00

Note to Petitioners: Rear-Admiral Summers has changed his tune. He signed the petition, but is now not in favour of restyling the navy as the Royal Canadian Navy. That is hugely unfortunate, of course, but it is interesting that all recently retired admirals are singing from the same song sheet. Here is our third and final instalment of unfortunate testimonies by retired admirals - whom are of a completely different class - by the way - from the generation that came before them. Fret not, there are many veteran admirals (those over 75) who support our initiative.

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENCE

OTTAWA, Monday, November 15, 2010

The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 4 p.m. to consider a motion to change the official structural name of the Canadian Navy.

Senator Roméo Antonius Dallaire (Deputy Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Deputy Chair: Good afternoon, honourable senators, ladies and gentlemen, the staff, witnesses and guests. Welcome to this session of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence that is reviewing a motion proposed by Senator Bill Rompkey in the Senate, seconded by Senator Fraser, with regard to the name of the Canadian navy. I will read the motion so that we are all aware of what it says with respect to the aim of our exercise this afternoon:

That the Senate of Canada encourage the Minister of National Defence, in view of the long service, sacrifice and courage of Canadian Naval forces and personnel, to change the official structural name of the Canadian navy from "Maritime Command" to "Canadian Navy" effective from this year, as part of the celebration of the Canadian Navy Centennial, with that title being used in all official and operational materials, in both official languages, as soon as possible.

"Encourage" is a significant verb in this exercise.

That is the motion. It is not an insignificant gesture when we consider the impact of terminology, tradition and the ethos of the members of the forces in general and, in this particular case, the navy.

Today, we have a naval flavour to the exercise. I have to warn you that I am wondering whether I am qualified to be chair as two of my children are in the naval reserve. However, I have a son in the infantry, so I think that will balance it out.

[...]

The Deputy Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, our last witness today is retired Rear-Admiral Ken Summers, currently the Vice-President of the Naval Officers Association of Canada. Rear-Admiral Summers commanded our troops in the first Gulf War in 1990 and was also Chief of Staff of the Supreme Allied Commander (Atlantic). He held that position until his much-too-early retirement in 2000.

He is a CBC military analyst; we see him often. He is also Co-chair of the successful Naval Centennial "Homecoming Statue" project, which was a great success.

Admiral, do you have opening comments?

Rear-Admiral (Retired) Ken Summers, Vice-President (Former Commander Canadian Fleet Atlantic), Naval Officers Association of Canada: Yes, I do.

Good evening, chair and members of the standing committee. It is a privilege and a pleasure to appear before this committee. I have always believed this committee has been one of the most productive, relevant and non-partisan committees in Parliament　— one which is not afraid to tackle tough issues. By its history, it is also not afraid to mince words when the final report is made. That is all the more important to me because your domain is security and defence, which is the fundamental responsibility of government to its citizens.

You have heard what I have done.

With respect to the motion being considered, my father was a chief petty officer in the Royal Canadian Navy. He served during World War II aboard those famous corvettes during the Battle of the Atlantic, from Halifax to St.　John's to Londonderry and up into Murmansk in all the ice. He died in 1975 and there was a White Ensign on his coffin. If he were here today, he would oppose Senator Rompkey's motion in favour of a return to "Royal Canadian Navy."

My son is a lieutenant-commander in today's navy. He has proudly served at sea and is now doing his penance at NDHQ. If he were asked, he would be somewhat puzzled and perplexed at my father's response and would wholeheartedly embrace the proposed motion and the name "Canadian Navy," for to him, that represents reality today, both at sea and ashore, nationally and in the eyes of other nations.

I am of the generation of sailors from that transition period between the navy of yesteryear and the navy of today. I joined the RCN in 1963 and proudly wore my midshipman badges. Later, with the Queen's commission, my naval uniform was complete with the executive curl. Shortly thereafter, with integration, I reluctantly put on the greens of the Canadian Forces and the anchor badges of something called Maritime Command. I endured integration and the common rank structure and administration.

Throughout my 37 years of service, I was fortunate to spend much of that time in command: ship, squadron, the Canadian fleet, and as commander of the Canadians during the 1990 Gulf War. I was also at headquarters: Maritime Command Headquarters, National Defence Headquarters, the Canadian embassy in Washington, and NATO headquarters in Norfolk, Virginia. Since retirement, I have remained current on defence and naval matters. As the chair mentioned, I appear on CBC quite often.

All of that is to say that I believe I have a good feel for how the navy has evolved or morphed from the RCN to today's navy. More important, I believe I know how the navy perceives itself as well as how others　— our neighbour to the south, NATO allies and the RIMPAC nations　— view our sailors and our navy.

This year we celebrate the one-hundredth anniversary of the creation of the Naval Service of Canada, for that is what it was officially called back in 1910 under the incorporating act respecting the Naval Service of Canada. It was a year later that the King agreed to change it to the Royal Canadian Navy.

This year, the themes of the naval centennial are: Honour the past, celebrate the present and commit to the future. How very appropriate.

Canada's navy does honour its past. The Royal Navy provided the very foundation on which the Canadian navy was created, and it grew to be the fourth largest and arguably the third most efficient navy at the end of the Second World War. Much of this credit must go to the Royal Navy, which was directly or indirectly responsible for so much of our training and expertise prior to the 1960s. This proud historical linkage has been honoured in virtually all naval events held this past year across the country.

Since the mid-1960s, the Canadian navy has evolved and become truly independent of our "mother service," if you would. The Canadian navy evolved from a North Atlantic-centric, anti-submarine-focused navy to a smaller, professional and more versatile navy able to respond globally to crises, aggression, terrorism, piracy and humanitarian disasters, all the while protecting the maritime approaches to Canada and the vital commerce that is key to the country's future.

Of equal importance, senators, our sailors have evolved, too. No one in uniform today served in the Royal Canadian Navy. With the return of the naval uniform in the 1980s, our sailors truly thought of themselves as members of the Canadian navy, not Maritime Command. This was increasingly reflected　unconsciously, as I recall, in writings referencing our Canadian navy. The only real question we had was whether the "N" in "navy" was a capital or not.

The motion put forward by Senator Bill Rompkey recognizes the evolution of our service and our sailors, and puts the emphasis not on the past but on the present and the future, and it represents reality.

This reality is further borne out when one considers how our allies view us. The United States Navy, our NATO allies and the RIMPAC nations have never thought of our navy as Maritime Command or elements of the Canadian Forces. We were seen as and referred to simply as "the Canadian navy." Indeed, in NATO headquarters and elsewhere one would more often than not see "CN" after the name of an officer or sailor.

As the centennial approached, there was a discussion within many branches of the Navy Officers Association of Canada about putting forward a resolution calling for a return to "Royal Canadian Navy" during the centennial year. While those who served in the RCN were sympathetic to this nostalgic view, it did not resonate at all with those who joined after integration or those in uniform today.

After much reflection and discussion, and in recognition of the one-hundredth anniversary of the credo of "honour the past, celebrate the present and commit to the future," the NOAC was strongly of the view that such a proposal would be a step backwards rather than looking to the future. I understand that other large organizations such as the Royal Canadian Legion had come to the same conclusion.

In this naval year, we have honoured the past with the return of the naval executive curl to our uniform, and we continue to cherish the royal linkage we have through HMCS, Her Majesty's Canadian Ship. We have celebrated our present navy's accomplishments and service to Canada in recent conflicts, humanitarian disaster missions and operations such as anti-piracy. It is therefore most appropriate to commit to the future by passing Senator Rompkey's motion that represents reality today with a formal structural name change to "Canadian Navy" with a capital "N."

Thank you for your attention, senators. I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have on this issue or any naval issues you may wish to pursue.

Senator Segal: I believe that Rear-Admiral Summers is the Canadian who commanded the largest fleet of multinational ships ever after World War II in the logistics fleet for which he was responsible in the first Gulf War; is that correct?

Rear-Admiral Summers: During the first Gulf War, Dusty Miller was the actual commander while I was the overall commander. That was the only major role given to a non-American during the Gulf War — the responsibility for logistics supply for all the ships operating and fighting in the Gulf — and it was a major task.

Senator Segal: How many ships would have been under Canadian command at that point?

Rear-Admiral Summers: We only had three ships of our own there, but in total there were 50 or 60.

Senator Segal: A substantially larger number than we had in our own navy at that time?

Rear-Admiral Summers: Oh, yes.

Senator Segal: Can you share with us, to the extent that you feel comfortable doing so, the dynamics of the discussion that took place at the Naval Officers Association of Canada? It strikes me that as we talk about people who have a strong belief in tradition and also a strong commitment to the present and future navy, very few focus groups would be more representative of those two sides than the Naval Officers Association, yet they came to the conclusion that they did. To the extent that you can give us the tonality or feel of that discussion, it would be helpful to committee members to hear your comments in that regard.

Rear-Admiral Summers: The debate was held in a number of branches, and it was very emotional. Many of our members are aging. In fact, I am one of the younger ones. Many of them identify with the Royal Canadian Navy. That was a cherished time in their lives, and they feel strongly about it. They felt that we should consider passing a resolution for this type of name change. However, from 1966 on, many were not in the Royal Canadian Navy, and although the heritage and history is there, they felt strongly that they were not of the RCN.

Anyone in uniform today, including my son — and I get it in spades — does not identify with the RCN. They are not really sure what that is.

The organization honours the past. So many of our members are members of the past. However, the navy recognizes the sea change that has taken place in terms of our capability and how we have changed from something that was North Atlantic-centric to something global for the future. We realized that the wise and prudent thing was to not look backwards as an organization but rather to look forward, and that is the direction we took.

Senator Segal: I realize you have been out of the chain of command for a while, but could you give us your own assessment of our relative status in terms of interoperability? For example, I was led to believe that when our ships sail as part of a U.S. task force or a NATO task force, our commanding officers have the same clearance as their American colleagues in terms of access to strategic data that is necessary for the execution of the mission. I was told that that level of interoperability is in fact greater between us and the Americans than between us and the Royal Navy despite our many cooperative ventures and training with them, specifically in the submarine area.

Rear-Admiral Summers: I could give you some examples. When we were going to the Gulf War, I had the option of sidling up with the Royal Navy. In fact, they approached me about getting together to form a Commonwealth squadron. One reason I was opposed to that was their interoperability capabilities. They were using HF types of communications as opposed to the satellite and instant communications that we had. Recognizing the threat there might be in the gulf, we needed information right away rather than relying upon HF, which may or may not come through.

Interoperability has always been a major concern of the Canadian navy. Some of your previous witnesses would know how much stock we have put into maintaining that interoperability with the United States Navy. During and subsequent to the Gulf War, we were probably the only nation that had complete interoperability with the United States Navy. That is why, in a number of the operations from 1990 onward in the gulf and elsewhere, they have turned to the Canadians to be commanders. We are the ones who are interoperable with the Americans and can command the other forces. We have developed a legacy in that regard, which is very important. It is all due to our capability to be interoperable with everyone.

Senator Lang: Following up on Senator Segal's questions, how large is the Naval Officers Association of Canada? What is your membership?

Rear-Admiral Summers: We have about 1,800 regular members and a number of associates who are not naval officers but are value-added to the organization.

Senator Lang: To follow up on the question about coming to the conclusion that the organization did, was that decision taken strictly by your executive organization, or did you poll your membership?

Rear-Admiral Summers: The motions came from a number of organizations and were debated in the branches. Our executive is drawn from members across the country. We discussed the matter at some length and came to that conclusion.

Senator Lang: After your debates, would you describe the decision as a consensus?

Rear-Admiral Summers: Absolutely; it was a consensus across the board. Even those who took the nostalgic view and favoured the RCN realized that the organization had to be looking forward and not back.

Senator Lang: You said that you understand that other large service organizations such as the Royal Canadian Legion have come to the same conclusion. Could you expand on that as well?

Rear-Admiral Summers: I had heard that the Royal Canadian Legion had come to that conclusion, so I asked about that. I gather they have testified that they looked at their membership and came to the same conclusion to look forward and not back. That surprised me. I thought the Royal Canadian Legion would be more willing to go back to "Royal Canadian Navy" as opposed to "Canadian Navy." In fact, my understanding is that the Royal Canadian Legion has agreed that "Canadian Navy" is the way to go.

The Deputy Chair: The Naval Officers Association of Canada exists, but is there something in the navy for the other ranks? Have the other ranks been polled in some way similar to the officers?

Rear-Admiral Summers: There are a number of naval organizations, but members of the Naval Officers Association of Canada tend to be just the officers. There are active chief and petty officers’ associations on both coasts. They are service oriented as opposed to being involved in advocacy and defence issues. Other organizations, such as the Royal Canadian Naval Association, the Navy League of Canada, and Maritime Affairs, get involved in some issues. A number of independent naval organizations are seized with defence issues, depending on the organization.

The Deputy Chair: Did they pronounce themselves in this regard during this year's festivities?

Rear-Admiral Summers: To my knowledge, no. I do not know. Certainly on both coasts the chief and petty officers' associations were active in the centennial year, but they are more service oriented to their membership and look after the welfare of those in their group.

Senator Patterson: Admiral, I was intrigued with your observation that for those of us who feel it is important to cherish the royal linkage, as you put it well, it is more than nostalgia. I think it is a reverence to history. Your point is that this royal linkage or a reflection of our history can continue to be reflected through the way we describe Her Majesty's Canadian Ships.

If we adopt the term "Canadian Navy" and not the term "Royal Canadian Navy," do you think it is conceivable that this could lead us to finding another way to name our ships?

Rear-Admiral Summers: I would hope it would not. Even those who joined after the RCN hold dear to HMCS. I cannot see it changing to CNS or something like that.

Look at what has happened this past year. I go back to the credo to "honour the past, celebrate the present and commit to the future." Having elements such as honouring our past is important, and HMCS is one of those elements.

The Deputy Chair: As Vice-Admiral Buck explained, they are getting down to the unit level. They have their own establishments and rules. Trying to change the name of a unit is quite a significant exercise, even if it is not a Canadian navy ship. That is a whole different world of complexity than the command level of changing a name. It could be explained, but only to raise the significance that these are names of fighting units. That is like changing "Black Watch" to something else, which does happen, but that would be quite a regressive action.

Forgive me; as chair, I speak on this only to inform.

Senator Mitchell: Admiral, I want to get more detail. Maybe I missed it. You said the Royal Canadian Legion supports the idea of "Canadian Navy." Was an official motion passed at a convention, or was it an executive decision?

Rear-Admiral Summers: I think they had an AGM. I am on shaky ground here. This whole question was discussed, and they decided at the time that they would not support renaming the navy to "Royal Canadian Navy."

Senator Mitchell: I intend to be less provocative with this question than some of my colleagues across the way will think I am, but we had four witnesses today who categorically did support and are supporting the "Canadian Navy" idea. I am racking my brain to figure out where the idea of "Royal Canadian Navy" comes from, if not only from this kind of nostalgic view of a romantic era that was nowhere as near romantic as we think it to be today. Is there some other basis or argument for that?

Rear-Admiral Summers: Are you talking about the recent desire to return to "Royal Canadian Navy"?

Senator Mitchell: Yes, all of a sudden, out of the blue.

Rear-Admiral Summers: I think the centennial brought it back. From 1910 on, we were called the Naval Service of Canada. Rather than go to "Royal Canadian Navy," I would rather see us called the Naval Service of Canada. Looking back over the last 100 years has caused us to revisit this whole question. I think this was seen as coming up along with the executive curl. It has not been a hot button issue for the last decade. There has been no continuous push for "Royal Canadian Navy," other than the nostalgic view of a number of our members.

Senator Plett: Senator　Mitchell referred a number of times to the fact that this is an issue of nostalgia. Now he says that it is about romance. I am nostalgic; my wife at times has called me a hopeless romantic.

We have heard four witnesses here today, and all of them have done a great job of presenting their views. I do not think the entire committee and the four witnesses are far away from agreement. I am not sure whether it was Rear-Admiral Mifflin or Vice-Admiral Buck who said that there might be some strong issues in certain parts of the country. I want to be careful that I do not put words in either of their mouths.

Overall, I have felt the sentiment that most of the folks in our present navy — your son and others, for example — are not real big on supporting "Royal Canadian Navy," but I have not felt that much negativity toward the suggestion. It is more that they are the new breed, the new people, and certainly this nostalgia is not there. They say, "Why do we need ‘Royal Canadian Navy’?" I am wondering whether they would actually put up a strong defence to that option.

I will jump around a bit before you answer. You said that the Royal Canadian Legion held an AGM. You did not want to be quoted on it, but you thought they might have said that they would not support this motion. Is that the same as opposing? Were they just saying that they are not necessarily supportive of it, or would they actually oppose it?

Lastly, does the Royal Canadian Legion have any intention of changing their name to the "Canadian Legion," or are they big on keeping "Royal Canadian Legion"? I think there would be strong opposition from most of the legion’s membership if we dared to go that route.

Rear-Admiral Summers: First, I am encouraged that all of the four witnesses have been saying the same line. I come from the West Coast and do not get a chance to collude on this issue. My personal view comes out of the association after talking with folks there.

As to whether the present people would oppose it, I suppose they would not. I can tell you that they would not like it. In many ways, it would be the same as going back to "Maritime Command." It is not what they think they are. They are the Canadian navy.

I mentioned this unofficially in writings. I can recall writing stuff down and not know whether to capitalize that "N" or not. In the writings, it eventually got to the point where I would make it a small "n," but I was really thinking a big "N." That went on for 20 years because the term "Maritime Command" did not mean anything.

Dare I say — and perhaps the chair can speak to this as well — when they went through integration, sailors could identify with a ship, their ship. They could identify with the squadron, perhaps. They could identify with the coast. However, to identify with something called "Canadian Forces" was a bridge too far, so it never caught on. You became an element of the Canadian Forces or Maritime Command. It was lumped into that thing up there. It never took hold with our sailors. When you got back into the blue uniform, as I mentioned, you felt you were the Canadian navy. When you were away, that is how you were regarded.

At my headquarters in Norfolk, Canadians were "so-and-so (CN)" because that is the way they saw us. I mentioned it a couple of times, but that was the reality.

This motion by Senator Rompkey reflects reality. It would be extremely well accepted by the navy of today and, in fact, the navy of the last 40 years.

Senator Plett: One of the witnesses suggested that if we were to poll the veterans, of which you are one, as are the other witnesses today, we would get more veterans wanting "Royal Canadian Navy" than just members of the Royal Canadian Legion. If we were to poll personnel in the navy now, we would get the opposite. Would you agree?

Rear-Admiral Summers: If you wait another 10 years and then do that type of poll, you will find that the number of people voting for "Royal Canadian Navy" will be less than today. That is the reality of the "Royal Canadian Navy" option. The people who served in the RCN are getting on. I do not think people in uniform today would willingly accept to go back to "Royal Canadian Navy," pure and simple.

Senator Plett: You referred to our allies. We are all in agreement that "Maritime Command" is not acceptable and that we need the word "navy." Admiral Buck said that if you ask anyone in the navy now where they are serving, they say "in the navy." I think we are agreed in that respect.

However, you suggested that many of our allies do not know why we would call ourselves what we do. I do not think you necessarily said it, but you inferred that they would not understand why we would want to go to "Royal Canadian Navy." I point out that the British call their navy the Royal Navy, and there is the Royal Australian Navy, the Royal New Zealand Navy, the Royal Netherlands Navy, the Royal Danish Navy, the Royal Norwegian Navy, and at least 11 others. Not all countries are opposed to the designation "Royal," and I would certainly consider some of them to be our NATO allies.

Rear-Admiral Summers: Your point is well taken. I acknowledge that, and it is true, but I guess we have not had anything like that. Maritime Command was out there, and it was not understood, so they said "Canadian Navy." That is what we are known as.

Senator Peterson: You have been clear that the current members of the force would prefer "Canadian Navy." Maybe some of the veterans would like "Royal Canadian Navy." Where does the military hierarchy stand on this matter?

Rear-Admiral Summers: I do not know. If you had them speak to you, you could certainly ask them. Quite honestly, I think they are seized with other issues, such as shipbuilding, as opposed to executive curl, name changes and so forth, with all due respect to the motion. I am not sure exactly where they stand, but I think they would probably be supportive of "Canadian Navy."

There is another element of this debate that has not come out yet, namely, the young people of today. One of the problems that the navy faces is recruiting and bringing people on board, particularly people that, perhaps, come from out west, from Asian nations and so forth. They would identify with something that is nationally named "Canadian Navy," whereas if it were named "Royal Canadian Navy," it might not have the right connotation that they might perceive given where they came from. As well, one of our provinces might have an adverse reaction if it was named the "Royal Canadian Navy," for perhaps the wrong reasons.

From the point of view of perception and attracting people into the navy, looking to the future, I would suggest something that is nationally named would be far more attractive than something that was named decades ago.

Senator Peterson: I was on a frigate this summer as part of the "parliamentarian forces." I think the captain was 38, and the age dropped from there. I was a senior citizen. They have a lot of pride and they are gung ho. I was totally impressed. I can see why they would like to have their own identity.

Rear-Admiral Summers: It is interesting talking about the people. I was up here not that long ago talking with a number of MPs and senators, as well as with Vice-Admiral Buck. People who had the luxury of going to sea on the ships said, "If you want to solve a problem with the navy, just get those young sailors out telling people about Haiti and anti-piracy. Your people are the best advertisement for what the navy is all about." If you look at the people, they are the Canadian navy. They are not the "Royal Canadian Navy"; they are the "Canadian Navy." That is the way we should be going.

The Deputy Chair: I do not know whether the Canadian navy's engineers are still being trained in the U.K. or whether they have gone "North American," as have the army and air force. Has that been resolved, or is that still in happening?

Rear-Admiral Summers: Until the 1960s, almost all training for our engineers and operators was done over in the U.K. Some of it was in the United States, but the vast majority was done in the U.K. In fact, Canadians used to go over from Morrisburg. One of my first officers at Royal Military College spoke with a British accent. I found out that he came from Morrisburg, but when we went over there, he adopted the wardroom accent. When he came back, he was more British than the British. That type of training went on for the longest time.

We have basically been weaned off of that, but our people still attend specific courses over there, such as submarine training. We also do training down in the U.S., very specific courses on satellites, for example. That reliance on the engineering world many years ago is not the case anymore, but whenever the best training is required, that is where we send our people.

The Deputy Chair: That is not a policy anymore; excellent.

The Royal Canadian Legion does not have a reason to change its name. We are looking at changing "Maritime Command" to "Canadian Navy," so that is an impetus to look at all the angles of the issue. They will also change the flag of the command.

I noticed that the army and the air force do not have the Crown any more, but the navy still has it on its anchor. Was that something that just stayed? Do you know if there is there a reason for that?

Rear-Admiral Summers: No. It was part of the tradition, I guess.

The Deputy Chair: It was the old ensign, and they kept it that way. I was involved in changing the army one in 1995, and the Crown was taken away at that time.

Even though they are busy, would you recommend that this committee ask the commander of the navy and his chief warrant officer to give us their comments as serving officers and NCOs?

Rear-Admiral Summers: It would be worthwhile. As sailors, they have their finger on the pulse better than I do. The head of the navy would be good and the commander in chief would be great. You might want to try to bring in a commanding officer. That is someone who is down with the fleet at sea right now.

I will go back to a quick point about the Royal Canadian Legion. If you look at the membership of the legion now, you will find that for a number of people to be in the legion, they do not need to have served. All sorts of people are members of the legion now who have never worn a uniform. That is one difference between a number of the organizations.

The Deputy Chair: It was a pleasure to see you again. Thank you very much for your instructive information, comments and responses.

(The committee adjourned.)

The Unfortunate Testimony of Admiral Buck

2010-11-30T10:17:00.000-08:00

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENCE

OTTAWA, Monday, November 15, 2010

The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 4 p.m. to consider a motion to change the official structural name of the Canadian Navy.

Senator Roméo Antonius Dallaire (Deputy Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Deputy Chair: Good afternoon, honourable senators, ladies and gentlemen, the staff, witnesses and guests. Welcome to this session of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence that is reviewing a motion proposed by Senator Bill Rompkey in the Senate, seconded by Senator Fraser, with regard to the name of the Canadian navy. I will read the motion so that we are all aware of what it says with respect to the aim of our exercise this afternoon:

That the Senate of Canada encourage the Minister of National Defence, in view of the long service, sacrifice and courage of Canadian Naval forces and personnel, to change the official structural name of the Canadian navy from "Maritime Command" to "Canadian Navy" effective from this year, as part of the celebration of the Canadian Navy Centennial, with that title being used in all official and operational materials, in both official languages, as soon as possible.

"Encourage" is a significant verb in this exercise.

That is the motion. It is not an insignificant gesture when we consider the impact of terminology, tradition and the ethos of the members of the forces in general and, in this particular case, the navy.

Today, we have a naval flavour to the exercise. I have to warn you that I am wondering whether I am qualified to be chair as two of my children are in the naval reserve. However, I have a son in the infantry, so I think that will balance it out.

[...]

The Deputy Chair: Our next witness today is Vice-Admiral (Retired) Ron Buck, National First Vice President, (Former Chief of Maritime Staff) Navy League of Canada. He joined the navy in 1967, commanded a number of ships and was involved in the project management of upgrading of ships, TRUMP as an example. He also commanded training systems and was involved with a major management restructuring of the Canadian Forces, known as MCCRT, after the massive budget restrictions in the early 1990s.

Vice-Admiral Buck was made the first Commander of Canadian Fleet Pacific and appointed Commander of Maritime Forces Pacific in 1998. He was promoted to vice-admiral in 2001 and was made Chief of the Maritime Staff, which is what we are talking about today. In September 2004, he was appointed Vice Chief of the Defence Staff. He retired in 2006.

Admiral, welcome. If you have an opening statement, please proceed.

Vice-Admiral Buck: Thank you, I do.

I am speaking in two capacities; one is in my Navy League capacity. The Navy League was founded in 1895 without a "Royal," but it was influential in the creation of the navy in 1910. I am also speaking in my capacity as a retired commander of Maritime Command, or in parlance that Canadians would understand, as commander of Canada's navy. One of the problems that I will touch on is that to the Canadian public, "Maritime Command" is absolutely meaningless. It means nothing.

I am proud of the accomplishments of Canada's navy, "Royal" or not, in its first 100 years of service. When the Naval Service was established in 1910, it was first named the "Naval Service," and latterly in 1911, as you heard from Admiral Mifflin, it was named the "Royal Canadian Navy."

It is instructive that in several documents written around that time by an individual named Louis-Philippe Brodeur — the first Minister of the Naval Service and Minister of Marine and Fisheries — he refers to the "Canadian Navy," not the "Royal Canadian Navy."

Committee members heard an excellent synopsis by Rear-Admiral Mifflin about the history of the navy. It is true that the Canadian navy, when it was established as the RCN, and until it came of age during a uniquely Canadian epic battle, which is the Battle of the Atlantic, was patterned on and greatly dependent upon support of all kinds from the Royal Navy. It mimicked the Royal Navy. However, by war's end, the RCN was carving out a uniquely Canadian role, which was first seen in Korea and blossomed through the Cold War to the present. During the Cold War, Canada's navy was a highly capable anti-submarine warfare navy. Today, it is a small but highly competent, general-purpose global navy. The navy continues to deploy wherever required to support a wide range of operations, ranging from anti-terrorism to anti-piracy to humanitarian aid or to patrolling and enforcing the sovereignty of our own waters.

After unification in 1968, Maritime Command was created as a command within the Canadian Forces. The professional head of Canada's navy today is both a commander and a staff officer to the Chief of Defence Staff. Both roles are critical and need to be maintained in any name change.

Outside of the Canadian Forces, the title "Maritime Command" is essentially meaningless because it is not clearly descriptive of what it is. "Canadian Navy," on the other hand, is very descriptive. It is for this reason that I am supportive of a name change to better clearly identify for Canadians the name of their navy. I feel strongly on the subject.

By the way, I had a father and uncle who proudly served in the RCN. I love the RCN, but I agree with the admiral.

As proud as I am of having had the opportunity to serve in the RCN, I believe that any name change from "Maritime Command" should not be to return to the "Royal Canadian Navy" but rather to "Canadian Navy," establishing it as a command element of the Canadian Forces. I can expand on that in questions if you wish, senators, but that is important. That command structure gives the commander of the navy the appropriate authority as the professional head of the navy to generate Canadian naval forces. I believe that reflects Canada's original intent to look to its own sovereignty as an independent nation. It is true to Louis-Philippe Brodeur’s own words, but most importantly, it is true to the uniquely Canadian institution that is Canada's navy of today, in particular, the men and women who serve proudly in that name.

The Deputy Chair: Thank you for raising an interesting dimension with respect to the terminology used for the chief of the naval forces and the command dimension. As the committee works its way through this study, we may require some clarification in that regard.

Senator Peterson: Thank you for your presentation. I agree with you that "Maritime Command" does not mean anything. I think most Canadians think it refers to the Canadian navy. When they read about all this, they might be quite perturbed that the name is something different. Do we have any sense of how the Canadian public feels about this issue?

Vice-Admiral Buck: You would have to divide the public into two tranches: veterans and the majority of Canadians. You know what veterans would like. They would like "Royal" because that is what they served in and that is completely understandable.

However, average Canadians, which are about 90 per cent of all Canadians, know virtually nothing about its navy, not even its name. I strongly support anything that can be done to support serving men and women and that can make Canada's navy resonate for Canadians. In that vein, I believe that "Canadian Navy" does that.

I also believe that legally, in a structural sense from the point of view of the Canadian Forces, it is relatively easy to do. All that must be done from a documentation standpoint is change the command name from "Maritime Command" to "Canadian Navy" and structure it as a command element of the Canadian Forces.

Senator Peterson: You think that this can be done in isolation, without involving the other two segments of the Canadian Forces.

Vice-Admiral Buck: No. If this motion were to be approved, I would think the government would engage the Canadian Forces through the Chief of the Defence Staff. I suspect there would be a discussion of not doing one but of doing them all. I cannot speak for the Canadian Forces, but that is what I would expect.

Senator Lang: I would like to comment on the practical aspect of changing the name. If we changed it to "Royal Canadian Navy," it would go through the same procedure and would not have to be done differently.

Vice-Admiral Buck: No, it would have to be done differently.

Senator Lang: Could you explain that?

Vice-Admiral Buck: If you want to return to "Royal," that would take more than an internal action of the Department of National Defence.

The Deputy Chair: We will have the clerk check this out, but if I am not mistaken, when we unified and became Maritime Command, the term "Royal Canadian Navy" was not reduced to nil strength. You can have a regiment reduced to nil strength but it is still on the books. The name "Royal Canadian Navy" was actually struck.

Vice-Admiral Buck: It does not exist.

The Deputy Chair: It was eliminated from the order of battle of the Canadian military. You can bring back "Canadian Navy" because that is within our purview. However, we would have to seek Royal Assent to use the term "Royal." We cannot go back to "Royal" automatically because it has been eliminated. The Queen must agree to "Royal." That can be done, obviously; it is not impossible.

Senator Lang: I do not want to belabour this point, but would that require legislation or strictly the consent of the Queen?

Vice-Admiral Buck: No, it would require the consent of the government, but not necessarily legislation and the Queen's consent.

Senator Plett: Who decides what our naval forces should be called? As I understand it, the name is not defined in law. Section 14 of the National Defence Act states simply:

The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces.

Furthermore, the Minister of National Defence can at any time issue a ministerial order to alter the name. Am I correct? Would that not apply to "Royal" as well?

The Deputy Chair: No.

Senator Plett: It would not?

The Deputy Chair: Not to "Royal."

Vice-Admiral Buck: However, the minister can, through a ministerial order, create elements of the Canadian Forces. There are a number of types of elements: units, formations and commands. The navy, the army and the air force are all structured today as commands. The minister would have the authority, if he chose to do so, to change the name of the command today called "Maritime Command" to "Canadian Navy."

Senator Plett: We would not need an act of Parliament, would we? Could the minister do that on his or her own?

Vice-Admiral Buck: That would be within ministerial authority. You will notice that in the act there is no description of the structure of the Canadian Forces or the Canadian Armed Forces.

Senator Plett: Thank you for that.

Would you not agree that "Royal" designations are the norm and not the exception?

Vice-Admiral Buck: Again, I believe that the Royal Canadian Navy grew out of the Royal Navy. Today, if you were to compare the navies, even the internal structure and operating inside a Canadian ship versus a British ship, you would find it different. In this country we have many fine institutions. A number are "Royal," but many are not.

I believe the serving men and women today, none of whom served in the Royal Canadian Navy, need to be comfortable with any change. As you heard Rear-Admiral Mifflin say, I believe they would be very comfortable with "Canadian Navy."

Would most be comfortable with "Royal Canadian Navy"? Probably. Would some not be comfortable? Certainly, and it would create controversy, not just within the navy. It would create controversy inside the Canadian Forces vis-à-vis the army and the air force. It would be quite significant controversy, I would suggest. Regrettably, it would also cause great controversy across the country and, potentially, Canadians would continue to see the navy as not being a uniquely Canadian instrument.

Senator Plett: I stated earlier that my main reason for supporting "Royal" is not necessarily because of my allegiance to the Queen, but out of a sense of consistency. Members of the Canadian Forces swear allegiance to the monarch, do they not?

Vice-Admiral Buck: Yes.

Senator Plett: Would that not create some inconsistency?

Vice-Admiral Buck: No. We have the Canadian Forces. There is no "Royal" title in the Canadian Forces.

Senator Plett: Why would the Canadian Forces be opposed? Why would they have a problem with us going to "Royal"?

Vice-Admiral Buck: It would create controversy about what to do and how to deal with the two other services. It would require significant activity outside of the Department of National Defence.

Is it doable? Yes. However, I suggest to you that if the Canadian Forces and the minister of the day decided that the army would be called the "Canadian Army," the air force would be called the "Canadian Air Force," and the navy would be called the "Canadian Navy," that could be done with a stroke of the pen and people would be very happy.

Senator Plett: As a closing comment, I might want at some point bring a motion forward to change the name of the air force to the "Royal Canadian Air Force."

The Deputy Chair: That will be an exercise for another day.

I would like to assist in the response. In 1968, we created a number of new units, which was a massive change up until then because we were chopping units left, right and centre. All the new units that were created do not use the term "Royal," including the 1st Canadian Division, which fought in World War I and which has just stood up as not being accredited "Royal."

Again, I repeat: If desired, the Chief of Defence Staff, through due process, could go to our Commander in Chief and seek Royal Assent.

Senator Plett: On that note, who is our Commander in Chief? Is it the Governor General?

The Deputy Chair: Yes, but he is not the "Royal" Governor General. That is exactly right.

Senator Plett: However, is not the Governor General the Queen's representative?

The Deputy Chair: That is correct and proud of it, too, I am sure. He looked very smart recently in uniform overseas.

Senator Segal: I want to impose on our witness and make use of his experience through a very distinguished career both as a commander of a ship and as the commanding officer of the entire navy.

If the government were to make the change to "Canadian Navy" or to "Royal Canadian Navy," looking at the two options that people are discussing, what would actually happen on ships at sea and with regular and reserve forces? Would there be an assembly? Would the commanding officer of the ship explain why this change has been made? Would the officers on the ship be invited to a wardroom to express their views or any concerns they had?

If this committee were to recommend one of the two options, "Canadian Navy" or "Royal Canadian Navy," it would still be the minister's prerogative to so decree or not. Let us assume all of that happened. What do you understand would then happen on Canadian ships at sea or under the sea and at reserve units across the country?

Vice-Admiral Buck: Practically speaking, the commander of the navy would provide background material that would flow down through the chain of command, outlining the rationale for the change throughout the Canadian navy, right down to the fleet level and then the unit level, which is, of course, the ship. The discussion in the wardroom that you suggested would in all likelihood happen.

Once that kind of direction is given, there is no debate about it. That debate needs to happen beforehand.

I agree with Admiral Mifflin that if you were to ask the average serving sailor or naval officer what they think about a name change, the vast majority would prefer "Canadian navy." With veterans, that would not be the case.

Senator Segal: There is often a difference between the official name of an institution and what people refer to the institution as in day-to-day parlance. We may refer to the Senate as Canada's upper chamber. Thousands of Canadians may have another name for what we do or another title for our institution. One of the great things about a free society is that its citizens have the absolute freedom to do that.

On an unaided word association test, when asked where they work, would the vast majority of those who now serve under Maritime Command refer to it as Maritime Command or the navy?

Vice-Admiral Buck: They would say the navy. The navy is the navy. It is known as the navy or the Canadian navy.

Senator Segal: In your judgment, that is the mindset that now exists amongst the men and women who are now serving, and their families.

Vice-Admiral Buck: Yes.

The Deputy Chair: When the army was established as Mobile Command, it was illegal to use the term "army" in any official correspondence or even to say "army" for a number of years after unification. That, of course, wore off and currently "army" is used quite commonly.

Thank you for that clarification.

Senator Mitchell: In response to the point of Senator Plett that if you swear allegiance to the Queen your organization should be called "Royal," we swear allegiance to the Queen, but I do not believe he is suggesting that we should be called the "Royal Canadian Senate."

I do not know what the term "Royal" conjures up that strengthens, enhances or furthers the image, morale or presence of the Canadian navy. As I said to an earlier witness, some of the greatest moments in our military history have been battles won that established our presence as an independent nation. Vimy Ridge is classic in that regard. I know that to use the term "Royal" conjures up an era that is not all that happily remembered by those Canadians who were alive during it, that is, a sense of colonialism and of being of lesser stature than other countries in the world. That is what "Royal" conjures up for me in this context.

Why is "Canadian" not sufficiently powerful and identifiable to define the navy? Does the addition of "Royal" to that moniker not bring less Canadianism rather than more Canadianism to the name of our Canadian navy?

Vice-Admiral Buck: I agree with that. I have to go back to 1911. Two things happened shortly after the navy was created. The first is that the Canadian government proposed a unique flag to fly on its ships, a White Ensign with a green maple leaf on it. The United Kingdom said no. Then there was a debate about language to be used inside the navy, and the direction given was that only one language was to be used.

That is ancient history, but I believe that the men and women of Canada's navy today would see no advantage to adding the word "Royal." "Canadian Navy" is what they want to be known as.

Many Royal Navy sites now frequently refer to it as the U.K. Navy. I am not suggesting they are going away from "Royal." They are not, but we are seeing changes in the common usage.

I believe that "Canadian Navy" would be the right way to go, but I also absolutely agree with Vice-Admiral Mifflin about inviting a number of naval personnel to appear before the committee, in particular the chief petty officers first class, the command chief of the navy and the chief warrant officer of the Canadian Forces, who, by the way, is a chief petty officer. They would give you an unvarnished version of what they think.

The Deputy Chair: The motion uses the following words: "That the Senate of Canada encourage the Minister of National Defence . . . ." I do not want you to speculate, but you were the vice-chief so you were close to the deputy minister, the minister and so on. In a circumstance like this, what do you think the minister would do after being encouraged by us?

Vice-Admiral Buck: He certainly would have a discussion with the Chief of the Defence Staff as the first step. On the assumption that the Chief of the Defence Staff was supportive, as I believe he would be, with a couple of caveats, I would think there would be a discussion with the commander of the navy on his views. One caveat is that in the discussion the chief would have with the minister, I would think the subject of how to deal with the army and the air force would come up. Structurally, it would be a relatively easy change for both of those services. I cannot speak for the army or the air force, but it is my sense that they would be in the same place as the navy.

The Deputy Chair: Unification legislation has not been annulled, as such, and the National Defence Act was modified. As Senator Plett indicated, they did not define the structures at the time, which was quite wise. It was left to protocol and the minister to process. However, if it is a command and the navy is recognized as the "Canadian Navy," would there not be a requirement to change some of the rules and regulations within the Canadian Forces to reflect that? Would we have to look at modifying or annulling the unification legislation?

Vice-Admiral Buck: I do not think so, because the powers and authorities of this thing that I keep referring to as "an element of the Canadian Forces" are defined by what it is. If it is a unit, it has certain powers and authorities. If it is a formation, it has greater powers and authorities. If it is a command, it has still greater powers and authorities. However, at the end of the day, only one individual has what is called control and administration authority over the Canadian Forces, and that is the Chief of the Defence Staff. All of that has to be approved by the minister. Structurally, there is very little change because you limit the authority of the institution, in this case called the Canadian navy, to that of a command. Therefore, it does not have the trappings of a separate service.

In practical terms, and Rear-Admiral Mifflin said it as well, since unification, inside the navy, everyone still refers to it as the Canadian navy. It is what it is. Most navies we work with call us the Canadian navy because they do not know what else to call us. I do not think it is that difficult to change.

I would like to go back to integration briefly as well. I am in complete agreement with integration. Unification is here and it will stay. I am supportive of it, and I am supportive of one institution called the Canadian forces, not three institutions called the army, navy and air force.

Part of the difficulty in all this, really since 1968, is that there was a move afoot — and you referred to it yourself, senator — to expunge, and I do mean expunge, anything that was navy, anything that was air force or anything that was army. I can remember a naval hospital in Halifax that had the naval crest on the building. It was ordered sand blasted off. Those things have left long scars and memories, but more for people like me because I lived them, as did the senator.

The young men and women of today know one thing. They are Canadian. They are proud of it, and they serve their country in an outstanding fashion. I think they would be fine with calling the "Canadian Navy," "Canadian Army" or "Canadian Air Force."

The Deputy Chair: The naval reserve has honorary captains. Would they argue a separate position than the regular force, do you think?

Vice-Admiral Buck: I do not think so, not the men and women who are serving today. For veterans, it would be different.

The Deputy Chair: What about the honoraries?

Vice-Admiral Buck: Some honoraries may well prefer that. That is probably true. Will they make a major issue out of it? Absolutely not. At the end of the day, the decision on what the navy should be called is not a decision for the honoraries to make. Luckily, there are fewer honorary captains and honorary colonels, far fewer, and superb ones, I might add, senator.

The Deputy Chair: We did not need that.

Vice-Admiral Buck: I do not think that would be an issue.

The Deputy Chair: Very good.

With respect to the naval reserve and integrating it within one navy, which I believe is also part of the concept, have there been limitations in naval reservists becoming fully employed within the whole of the navy in regard to capital ships, and is that something that has the potential to create friction within the navy?

Vice-Admiral Buck: No, because a decision was taken in the late 1980s to assign a number of specific roles to the naval reserve, one of which is to do one piece of the maritime surveillance. That is done in a class of ships called maritime coastal defence vessels. Those ships are, with one or two minor exceptions, totally manned by naval reservists. There is a port diving inspection team, which is a specific naval role. The navy has said, "We have a reserve and a regular force navy, so let us give them complementary roles to create one package." There are opportunities for naval reservists to augment major warships, and that still happens, but effectively the navy has integrated, much as the army has done to a greater degree through Afghanistan, if I can put it that way.

The Deputy Chair: Admiral, thank you for your clear and concise answers. It is most appreciated.

The Unfortunate Testimony of Admiral Mifflin

2010-11-30T09:07:00.000-08:00

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENCE

OTTAWA, Monday, November 15, 2010

The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 4 p.m. to consider a motion to change the official structural name of the Canadian Navy.

Senator Roméo Antonius Dallaire (Deputy Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Deputy Chair: Good afternoon, honourable senators, ladies and gentlemen, the staff, witnesses and guests. Welcome to this session of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence that is reviewing a motion proposed by Senator Bill Rompkey in the Senate, seconded by Senator Fraser, with regard to the name of the Canadian navy. I will read the motion so that we are all aware of what it says with respect to the aim of our exercise this afternoon:

That the Senate of Canada encourage the Minister of National Defence, in view of the long service, sacrifice and courage of Canadian Naval forces and personnel, to change the official structural name of the Canadian navy from "Maritime Command" to "Canadian Navy" effective from this year, as part of the celebration of the Canadian Navy Centennial, with that title being used in all official and operational materials, in both official languages, as soon as possible.

"Encourage" is a significant verb in this exercise.

That is the motion. It is not an insignificant gesture when we consider the impact of terminology, tradition and the ethos of the members of the forces in general and, in this particular case, the navy.

Today, we have a naval flavour to the exercise. I have to warn you that I am wondering whether I am qualified to be chair as two of my children are in the naval reserve. However, I have a son in the infantry, so I think that will balance it out.

If I may, Admiral Mifflin, sir, I will give a synopsis of your background of command in the navy. You were, at one point, deputy commander of the navy in the mid-1980s. You then took a significant step and became Member of Parliament for Bona Vista—Trinity—Conception in 1988. You had various cabinet appointments, including Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Minister of Veterans Affairs, and Minister of Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.

We do not have many flag or general officers who are successful in politics, and it is a pleasure to see you, sir, here today, after your successful career in that realm. Do you have an opening statement before we go to questions?

Honourable Rear-Admiral (Retired) Fred Mifflin, P.C., Honorary Chair, (Former Deputy Commander Maritime Command): Yes, I will give a little background, which I will keep as brief as possible. I appreciate that we want to get into a discussion.

[Translation]

It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon. If I may, I will speak in English. After that, I will answer your questions in English or in French.

[English]

In his May　27 motion, Senator Rompkey adequately described the history of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Navy and the Naval Service of Canada before that. I do not wish to repeat any of the figures or details that appeared in his motion.

There are parts of the history that I need to highlight, perhaps, because I think it bears directly on the motion. I know senators want to stick to the motion because that is why we are all here.

It is important to realize that the navy, in fact, stemmed from the fisheries protection branch of then the marine service of Canada before 1910. However, because of the goings on in Europe and the concern that we may have to defend our country with more than a few small guns and a fisheries vessel, the government of the day decided that we should have a self-sustaining navy. In May　1910, the Naval Service of Canada was formed with a few ships and a few officers to protect Canada against the enemy of World War I.

The navy of the day had a rough time because in 1911 the government changed largely because of the navy, and as an admiral and a politician, I can appreciate the turmoil involved in that.

The navy had many successes in the years that followed and a lot of turmoil. After the First World War, it was difficult to maintain standing forces, just as it is today.

In 1911, the navy was called "Royal," dubbed so by King George V, and Admiral Walter Hose, the captain of the first cruiser to be in the Royal Canadian Navy, 1914-15, became the Chief of Naval Service. He realized he would not get a lot of support for a standing navy, and therefore he had the foresight　— and it is still recognized in Canadian naval history　— to take half the naval budget of the day and not spend it on ships but on operating 18 reserve divisions across Canada. That was quite a step, if you can imagine the criticism he took from his colleagues because of that move. He took that step and encouraged the shipbuilding industry across Canada, on the East and West Coasts and in between, to be prepared to build ships. Therefore, in 1939 the navy of 13 decent-sized ships and about 2,500 officers and men became, by the end of the war, the third largest Allied navy — 100,000 people and about 375 ships. It was a 50-fold increase, which is incredible when you think of it.

After the war, of course, it became difficult to maintain the standing navy, army and air force, but the navy demobilized to a certain extent. There was a spike of interest during the Korean War when three active destroyers were on station at all times. The navy itself then started to decrease in numbers again because of no standing forces.

The size of the navy in 1964 was as follows: one aircraft carrier; about 30 decent-sized ships; 10 minesweepers and many auxiliary vessels. It was not a big navy, but it was not a small navy either.

In 1966, the Canadian Forces were integrated, partly because of an understanding from a previous report that there could be economies of scale if we integrated. Integration was a little controversial, but it managed to pass.

Between integration and unification, the bases were renamed. Instead of "Her Majesty's Canadian Ships," as far as the navy was concerned, they were named "Canadian Forces Bases." It caused a bit of heartburn but not a lot.

In February 1968, unification came and things changed dramatically. The Royal Canadian Navy, Royal Canadian Air Force and Canadian Army disappeared. We became the Canadian Forces. The uniform changed, the rank structure was all army, and a lot of customs and traditions were　in abeyance. I say "in abeyance" because most of us around this room know that customs and traditions exist for a reason. No one sits down and says, "Let us have this custom and this tradition." There is a reason for these customs and traditions, and they exist for that reason. We try to get rid of them and they will disappear for a while, but they will come back because they are natural. I always equate it to water seeking its own level; you get rid of this but it comes in the side door.

I commanded the HMCS Skeena as a lieutenant-colonel in a green uniform. I was with the Standing Naval Force. Vice-Admiral Buck, who is behind me, was with the Standing Naval Force. I was a member of the Canadian Forces and I was a lieutenant-colonel. However, the other 10 navy captains of the ships that I operated did not call me lieutenant-colonel; they called me commander. They did not say I was from the Canadian Forces (Maritime Command). They said I was from the Canadian navy, which suited me just fine; I had I no problem with that.

In speaking about customs, traditions and water seeking its own level, I am not here to knock unification. Integration was great. Unification was not as great. I think the aim was good, but the asperity of the execution caused the experience to be raw and the taste to be very bitter. I will not go into that as there is enough evidence on record.

However, there are interesting parts about this dissembling of unification as a result of a number of reports and the return of customs and traditions. In 1971, the minister of the day restored naval uniforms from rifle green to dark blue, or black　— close enough for government work. We were all happy with that. Instead of eight buttons, there were six.

I am sorry. In 1971, the naval rank was restored. It took until 1985 for the uniform to be restored, again in some modified form of the traditional Royal Navy type of uniform. Most people were happy happy to get back into a blue uniform. There was a major difference, though: Sailors did not wear what is called the rig of a sailor, which is a round rig. Everyone wore the same square rig — buttons, a certain collar and a peaked cap as a dress uniform.

The interesting thing about the dissembling of unification and the return of customs and traditions in uniforms is that, from lieutenant to rear-admiral, I do not remember anyone ever referring to me as being in the Canadian Forces (Maritimes Command). I always considered myself to be in the Canadian navy.

I am delighted that with the one-hundredth anniversary of the navy Senator Rompkey saw fit to propose this motion. He is asking to legitimize what is happening now. I will not speak to the air force and the army as they have their own mentors, but I suspect that they, too, may follow if this motion is passed.

As a former operator, I think it is essential to make another point. These traditions and customs are great, but I remember once asking a sailor who was complaining about his green uniform, "What kind of uniform would you like?" We had a good discussion, and he ended up saying, "Sir, if you were to give me the right conditions, I would go to sea in my birthday suit." That told me a lot.

I am not here to speak for Vice-Admiral McFadden, the Chief of Maritime Staff. However, I am here to say that any operational commander, as the chair would understand, would first and foremost wish　— if he had Aladdin's lamp　— to have a highly trained and sustainable force that can operate anywhere in the world against most kinds of enemies in defence of Canadian sovereignty. That would be the first and foremost desire.

"Canadian Navy" is a good thing and it should happen, the sooner the better.

Senator Plett: I will be very much to the point: Would you prefer "Royal Canadian Navy" versus "Canadian Navy"?

Rear-Admiral Mifflin: Why am I surprised to hear this question?

Senator Plett: I am surprised I was the first one allowed to ask, but I got it in.

Rear-Admiral Mifflin: My son was in the navy; he is working for General Electric in Connecticut now. I asked him a couple of weeks ago what he thought about this issue. He said it is not a big deal and that "Canadian Navy" would be fine. However, he never served in the Royal Canadian Navy.

I served in the Royal Canadian Navy, so what do I think? I think it would be great to go back to the White Ensign and all that stuff, but it will not happen.

Let us look at why it was the "Royal Canadian Navy." In 1911, we were still a dominion. Vimy Ridge happened a few years later. The Statute of Westminster was adopted in December　1931. However, until 1949, we still had to go to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of Britain as the court of last support after the Supreme Court. I see 1949 and not 1931 as being a real change where we were a country alone　— we were a country. That was solidified in 1982.

I have asked a lot of people how they feel about this motion. They all love　it. I have not met anyone who does not like "Canadian Navy," but I have not met anyone who wants the word "Royal" back.

Senator Plett: Is that right?

Rear-Admiral Mifflin: I also found that surprising.

Senator Plett: If you say no one in the public, you have now met one. I would prefer "Royal Canadian Navy."

Rear-Admiral Mifflin: Personally, I would not mind it either, but I have to remove myself from that.

Senator Plett: I appreciate that fact, but you would not have a problem with "Royal Canadian Navy," is that right?

Rear-Admiral Mifflin: Actually, I would. In my dreams I like it, but when I look at the young sailors and soldiers today, I think it is time we went Canadian.

Senator Plett: I would like a little more perspective on why you would not prefer "Royal Canadian Navy."

Rear-Admiral Mifflin: The reason for the "Royal" does not exist anymore. We have Her Majesty's Canadian Ship, which tells me it is part of Queen and country, but I do not believe we need "Royal" because we have removed ourselves from the traditions of the Royal Navy. We have our own traditions now, which are based on the Royal Navy traditions, but they are our own.

Senator Plett: I appreciate having our own traditions. The United Kingdom has the Royal Navy. There is also the Royal Australian Navy, the Royal New Zealand Navy, the Royal Malaysian Navy, the Royal Netherlands Navy, et cetera. I would suggest we are in a minority by not wanting the word "Royal." However, I do not want to debate it because that is not our purpose here.

Rear-Admiral Mifflin: I will make a comment. It is interesting that the Royal Australian Navy likes to call itself the Royal Australian Navy when Australians want to get rid of the Queen. It is a strange juxtaposition.

Senator Plett: I appreciate that, sir. I feel this goes beyond the monarchy, and I think there is a certain stigma attached to being called "Royal." To me it is not just our desire to keep the Queen in Canada; I think it is a great name.

Rear-Admiral Mifflin: I certainly appreciate your comments.

[Translation]

Senator Pépin: If we changed the name of the Canadian navy, don't you think that there would be people who would like to change the name of the two other services, the army and the air force?

Rear-Admiral Mifflin: Yes, certainly.

Senator Pépin: What do you think about that?

[English]

Rear-Admiral Mifflin: I am not as confident of the history of the air force or army as I am of the navy. However, I do remember that the Royal Canadian Air Force really started from the Royal Air Force. In World War I, we had 20,000 people serve in the Royal Air Force, or Royal Flying Corps I think it was. The Royal Canadian Air Force was established in 1923, with the title Royal Canadian Air Force, from Canadian Air Force. Similar to the navy, they accepted the Royal Air Force rank structure; they even used the roundel on their flag, same as the Royal Canadian Air Force. It was a tradition that was a logical progression.

Let us go back to the unification bill. The essential thing that happened there, other than customs and traditions, which were by no means small, was that the navy, the army and the air force had their own logistics service, were self-supporting as one arm, and became structural or functional commands. The navy more or less became Maritime Command and the army became what was then Mobile Command.

The air force did not then have an entity called Air Command; that came a few years later. If I remember correctly, they were subsumed into Air Transport Command and Air Defence Command. Later there was Materiel Command, Training Command and, a few years later, Communications Command. In fact, the air force got short shrift because there was no air command in 1968. It was not until later that people came to their senses and said that they needed a centre for people who fly and support airplanes. Air Command came a few years after the unification bill. I do not remember how many years, but the clerk could find that out.

It is a logical progression to rename the "Maritime Command" force the "Canadian Navy." I think there would be a natural inclination for the air force to want to become the "Canadian Air Force" although I do not know whether they would want to use the word "Royal." Senator Plett's point is well taken, but strangely enough it is not something that the serving members are keen on. The answer is that I would not be surprised.

The chairman could probably speak to the land forces better than I, but while the Canadian army disappeared, not all the regiments disappeared. Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry still exists as does the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery and many other royal regiments.

Senator Plett: The Royal Canadian Armed Corps is another.

Rear-Admiral Mifflin: Returning to the word "Royal," I am from Newfoundland where we have one of the best police forces in the world. They did not carry arms until a few years ago. They were the last force in Canada to wear side arms.

They were established in 1871, but they did not accept the term "Royal" until 1979, I think it was, when they became the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, the reverse of what we are talking about with respect to the navy.

Senator Segal: I wish to ask a question about operational reality.

Admiral, you have served, commanded and been in charge. We have a wonderful mix of young men and women in the navy, from all backgrounds, both francophone and anglophone. My experience with them at reserve and regular force units across the country is that they are very proud to be in the Canadian navy. They argue that they are more inter-operational with the American navy than with the British navy. They argue that no navy is as inter-operational with the American navy as ours. As well, they take the Maple Leaf flag seriously and are glad to see it at a point of significance on all our ships. For better or worse, as a kid I was opposed to the Maple Leaf flag, but I was only 14 years old at the time, I hasten to add.

My worry would be that despite everyone's best intentions, if we went to the term "Royal," as some have suggested with the best of intentions, with a strong belief in the tradition of that linkage, we might unfairly create a controversy within the ranks between those who see themselves as Canadian naval able seamen and all the rest, Canadian naval officers, and those who may have some affinity for the adjective "Royal."

I am interested in your view from an operational basis. Commanders of ships are in charge and controversies are managed, but you do not need Parliament creating extra controversies. My understanding of your testimony is that there will be no controversy around "Canadian Navy," that everyone in the ranks would be delighted with it, but that there might be an element of challenge around "Royal Canadian." I would be interested in your advice to us as to what that challenge might be.

Rear-Admiral Mifflin: I appreciate and agree with everything you have said, Senator Segal.

I talked about customs and traditions coming back, but they come back in a different form. I talked about the navy blue uniform. It was always a big issue, certainly with me, but what can you do when you are not in a position to change it? Generally speaking, there was a great lifting of morale when the navy went back into their blue suits. However, they were not blue; they were black, but that was good enough. They did not have the eight buttons; they had six buttons. I do not remember anyone complaining about that.

There is one thing they did complain about, though. It is funny how little things are so important. The navy rank structure did not have a curl. That is a little like being in the Maritime Command instead of being in the Canadian navy. When you have a curl, it means that you belong to your country's navy and you are there to protect. Without that curl, when people see you at an airport they are not sure if you are an airline pilot or a bus conductor. It was often embarrassing.

Senator Segal: Or the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires.

Rear-Admiral Mifflin: Yes, although that would have been okay with me.

It was not until this year that the government, in its wisdom, brought back the naval curl. I did not see admirals retiring or being fired because of the naval curl, but it was always in the back of the minds of many people. The naval curl was very acceptable. When you are commanding a ship at sea you need that curl to show your colleagues, other Canadians and foreigners that you are a ship's captain, an executive officer or an admiral, whatever the case may be. As I said, in 1972 I was in the Canadian navy, not the Royal Canadian Navy.

Coming back to the term "navy" legitimizes what we are doing now. As I said, I have not spoken to any serving member, an officer or an enlisted person, who would be comfortable with the term "Royal."

Operationally, we are Canadian and I can operate with the "Canadian Navy." I can operate with the "Royal Canadian Mounted Police" because they are "Royal" for another reason. I can operate with the "Royal Canadian Artillery" because they are a regiment that has been around for a long time. Operationally, it would be nice to legitimize what is happening now.

Senator Manning: I welcome my fellow Newfoundlander and Labradorian to the table. I will not argue with any of the history you have given of the Royal Canadian Navy. I heard you talk about the state of the navy in 1964, but that was the year I was born, so I cannot argue with you about that.

As a fellow Newfoundlander and Labradorian, I know that customs and traditions are important. We have always prided ourselves on ours. Having not yet been convinced otherwise, I support the designation of "Royal," not so much with regard to the monarchy itself, because I am a born and bred Irish Newfoundlander, but because I have known several veterans, many of whom have passed on now, who were proud to say that they served in the Royal Canadian Navy. Two of them were my uncles, and they wore their uniforms with great pride.

The impact of any change to the name is what concerns me. Senator Segal just talked about that. When the change was made to go with "Maritime Command," with unification and all, what did that do to the morale of the seamen and seawomen?

Rear-Admiral Mifflin: Let me put it another way, in answer your question. It was more the rank structure or the uniform. I have to bring this up again. This is not an old saw. It has long since been custom to wear the proper flag. At about the same time, the White Ensign went. I speak to a lot of veterans' organizations. They still fly the white ensign, which is all right with me.

Many things have changed, but I think the thing that affected the sailors the least was the naming of Maritime Command because they were still in ships at sea, in the navy. You could not call it anything but the "navy" because, when you go to sea on ships, you are in the navy. It was Maritime Command, yes, but it was still the navy. That was in 1968. It has been the navy ever since, and it will be the navy forever more. It would be nice to be called that.

Senator Manning: Regardless of what Parliament does, it is still the navy.

Rear-Admiral Mifflin: Yes.

Senator Manning: Growing up, one often hears of the young people who are involved in the Royal Canadian Sea Cadets Program, for example. Eventually, they move on, and I know of a couple that have graduated from the Royal Military College. Some day they may become members of the Royal Canadian Legion or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. There seems to be a distinction. Apart from the forces, we have the Royal St. John's Regatta, the oldest sporting event in North America, going on 180 years now. There is something about that word "Royal" that creates a distinction.

I listened to Senator Segal talk about the work that is done with the navy in the United States. You mentioned the present seamen and seawomen. You stated that you have not heard anyone support "Royal," but as they say down home, people who are in favour of something are usually not that talkative. It is when you are against things that you come out and speak. Are you comfortable that that would be the contention of the people serving in the navy today? Would there be any people who would have a major problem with being called the "Royal Canadian Navy" versus just the "Canadian Navy"?

Rear-Admiral Mifflin: Before I answer — and I think that is a key and important question — I want to go back to traditions again. I would commend to the clerk and the committee, if you can get a copy of it, the Mainguy report of 1949. From 1945 to 1949, there was angst in the Royal Canadian Navy for a number of reasons but mainly because our officers, Canadians, were trained in Britain. Many of them had served in the Royal Navy during the war, before the war and after the war. Canadians were speaking with what was called a mid-Atlantic accent, and the communication between officers and the men was not what young Canadians who joined the navy expected it to be.

There were three mutinies, which was unheard of in Canada. That led to a commission of three people chaired by the Rear-Admiral Rollo Mainguy. The Mainguy report essentially established the Royal Canadian Navy as a Canadian navy. Believe it or not, until then, Canadian officers did not wear "Canada" on their shoulders, which was a major point of concern for seamen. They believed that their officers should do that. They did in the regiments of Canada, and the Royal Canadian Air Force had it, so why did naval officers not wear "Canada"?

The thread of that report is that we basically stemmed from the Royal Navy and used the Royal Navy to help us and train us. In fact, we got their ships to start our navy. However, we are now the Canadian navy. They did not say that, but that was essentially the thread of the report.

I think "Royal Canadian Navy" would cause a lot more angst than "Canadian Navy." The "Canadian Navy" would go over very well. There are those who would say that would be okay, such as the senator and me to a certain extent. Some might say, "Yes, they decided on ‘Royal Canadian Navy,’ so no big deal," but the preference is "Canadian Navy." I can tell you and assure you of that.

Senator Manning: You talked about 1949 and the real change that we saw, and you mentioned accents. We saw a lot of change in 1949 when Canada decided to join Newfoundland, and our accent has been brought forward since.

Do you have any suggestions on how we can gauge the opinions of the men and women serving today in relation to what we are doing here?

Rear-Admiral Mifflin: Yes. You are talking to a guy who retired in 1988. I suggest you call some of the command chief warrant officers and talk to one, two or three of them — the command chief warrant officer of Maritime Command, the Canadian Forces chief warrant officer. These guys are perhaps a lot closer to the details of running the Canadian Forces than people who are more involved in sailing ships and looking after other things. That would be one concrete suggestion that the committee might consider.

Senator Mitchell: I am compelled by the nostalgia of it all. I think we are all compelled by nostalgia. Without being partisan, I would say perhaps those more conservative are more compelled by nostalgia.

While we remember the era of the Royal Canadian Navy in positive terms — and there are all kinds of reasons for that — we forget that the term "Royal" conjures up a period of time when Canada was much a part of the Dominions of the British Empire and was not as independent as it is today. I do not mean to belittle the navy at all, but I do not know it as well because my dad was in the army and we did not talk about the navy. Vimy is a classic case. Given what Canadians accomplished, something that no other national force could accomplish, we were given much more independence on the world stage and away from Britain. I do not want to use a term like "Royal" that conjures up the dependence and colonialism of that era. In effect, if we say "Royal Canadian Navy," we dilute the purity of the Canadian naval brand. Could you comment on that?

Rear-Admiral Mifflin: I think you are absolutely right. It is in line with my feeling on the matter.

I was in Oshawa last May as part of the one-hundredth anniversary of the Canadian navy. It was astounding. Something like 300 people were on parade in Oshawa, a strong naval city. I am sure most of the veterans there would love to go back to the term "Royal Canadian Navy." Many veterans, as Senator Manning suggested, would love to see that come back. I have nothing against that. I do not have a problem with it. However, we are here to make conditions more palatable for those who now serve. We will be finished with this committee and off to something else. The people who will wear this will wear it for a long time.

Senator Mitchell: Well said.

While Senator Manning and others have listed a number of institutions, venerable as they are, with the designation "Royal" — the Royal Canadian Legion and Royal Canadian Mounted Police — I could list a number of institutions at least as venerable, perhaps more venerable. We do not say the "Royal Canadian Parliament." We do not say the "Royal Canadian Senate" or the "Royal Canadian House of Commons." We do not say the "Royal Canadian Courts of Justice." We say "Canadian."

Do you have any idea what percentage of the navy servicemen and women today were even alive during the era when the navy was called "Royal" so that this tradition would at least mean something to them?

Rear-Admiral Mifflin: I could not tell you. I would say there is no serving member today who was in the Royal Canadian Navy. Vice-Admiral Buck, who is more current than I am, might be able to tell you.

Vice-Admiral (Retired) Ron Buck, National First Vice President, (Former Chief of Maritime Staff), Navy League of Canada: None. I was the last flag officer, 2007.

Senator Mitchell: Therefore, the argument of tradition versus the issue of what the current service people would want does not apply.

Rear-Admiral Mifflin: It does not apply.

Senator Mitchell: Why would we want to dilute the Canadianism of something as important as the Canadian navy?

Rear-Admiral Mifflin: I was born a British subject, but no one is more fiercely Canadian than I am.

The Deputy Chair: We have not touched on any of the legal dimensions of these terms nor on the fact that unification is still on the books and we have watered it down.

We have touched on the possibility that we can call it the "Canadian Navy," but if we want Royal Assent to recognize it as the "Royal Canadian Navy," that can be subsequently requested through proper protocol procedures — the Governor General to Her Majesty.

Admiral, you are still Honorary Chair of the Navy League of Canada; is that correct?

Rear-Admiral Mifflin: Yes, that is correct.

The Chair: That is not the "Royal Navy League of Canada."

Rear-Admiral Mifflin: No, but it is the Royal Canadian Sea Cadets.

The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, admiral. It was very kind of you to appear before the committee.

Rear-Admiral Mifflin: Thank you.

The Unfortunate Testimony of Mr. Milner

2010-11-30T08:15:00.000-08:00

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENCE

OTTAWA, Monday, November 15, 2010

The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 4 p.m. to consider a motion to change the official structural name of the Canadian Navy.

Senator Roméo Antonius Dallaire (Deputy Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Deputy Chair: Good afternoon, honourable senators, ladies and gentlemen, the staff, witnesses and guests. Welcome to this session of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence that is reviewing a motion proposed by Senator Bill Rompkey in the Senate, seconded by Senator Fraser, with regard to the name of the Canadian navy. I will read the motion so that we are all aware of what it says with respect to the aim of our exercise this afternoon:

That the Senate of Canada encourage the Minister of National Defence, in view of the long service, sacrifice and courage of Canadian Naval forces and personnel, to change the official structural name of the Canadian navy from "Maritime Command" to "Canadian Navy" effective from this year, as part of the celebration of the Canadian Navy Centennial, with that title being used in all official and operational materials, in both official languages, as soon as possible.

"Encourage" is a significant verb in this exercise.

That is the motion. It is not an insignificant gesture when we consider the impact of terminology, tradition and the ethos of the members of the forces in general and, in this particular case, the navy.

Today, we have a naval flavour to the exercise. I have to warn you that I am wondering whether I am qualified to be chair as two of my children are in the naval reserve. However, I have a son in the infantry, so I think that will balance it out.

[...]

Ladies and gentlemen, our next witness this afternoon is naval historian Marc Milner. He was a historian with the Directorate of History and Heritage at National Defence. He is Chair of the History Department at the University of New Brunswick　— a great school　— and is a member of the Board of Governors of the Royal Military College of Canada.

Dr.　Milner, welcome to this discussion. Do you have an opening statement for us?

Marc Milner, Naval Historian, University of New Brunswick: Yes, I do.

I would like to start by thanking the committee for the opportunity to speak on this subject. As many of you may know, I have a passion for the navy and its history, but I am not a hopeless sentimentalist.

A year or so ago, when I was asked by the office of the Minister of National Defence about the restoration of the RCN and the re-establishment of the executive curl, I said no to the RCN and was rather cool to the idea of giving the navy back the executive curl, although I am happy now. It looks sharp and identifies the wearer as a naval officer and not a firefighter. I think I was a bit adrift on that one.

I know you are debating and reviewing whether to restore the term "Navy" to our navy. I would submit this is not just a centennial issue. With the unification of the Armed Forces in the 1960s, the establishment of various "commands" fit into a concept of organization that was theoretically attractive but practically unworkable. When Maritime Command was originally established as a functional command, it included both the navy, as we understand it, and maritime air assets, including the Argus VLR — very long range — patrol aircraft for the RCAF and remnants of the navy's own ship-borne fleet of Sea King helicopters.

This did not last very long. By the early 1970s, all aviation had been "re-absorbed" under air force in Air Command, leaving the navy as the only permanent asset of Maritime Command. Even the navy's own helicopter fleet was now controlled by Air Command and seconded to MARCOM for operational purposes as the Maritime Air Group.

I argued in Canada's Navy: The First Century that the logic of unification was completely undone by changes in force structure within a decade of the act itself. That logic, I submit, and the lingering terminology from it has been even further eroded by the recently undertaken transformation of the Canadian Forces that has produced yet another level of "commands." These, by general consensus, make much more sense. We now have operational commands such as CEFCOM, SOFCOM and Canada Command. These are tri-service operational commands that function well by all accounts and make sense for our time.

I would have thought that the introduction of this new level of commands would have been sufficient reason to discard the Orwellian monikers that still lumber Canadian Forces nomenclature. In truth, I have to tell you, from the pointy end dealing with civilians, that these have never caught on and have never permeated the public consciousness as useful terms. Maritime Command, Air Command and Mobile Land Forces Command mean nothing whatsoever to ordinary Canadians. My students, colleagues, neighbours and the so-called gentlemen with whom I play hockey a couple times a week think in terms of the army, navy and air force. Indeed, I think the whole world does and it is time we did, too.

That said, as I mentioned, I would not go so far as to argue for the establishment of the "Royal Canadian Navy." I am grateful to see that the Senate's motion would see the adoption of simply the term "Canadian Navy."

Much of my professional career has been devoted to tracing the history of our naval service. In the early years when an association with both the empire and what was then the greatest navy in the world gave much-needed legitimacy to the fledgling service as it was struggling to find its own place, there was a good need to have that connection then. That place within our larger western alliance was forged in the trying work in the North Atlantic convoy defence and anti-submarine warfare of the Second World War. The old RCN became a world leader in both of these operations in the Cold War. In the process, it came to identify itself perhaps more than it ought to have done with the international brotherhood of anglo-American sea power than as a key component of Canada's national defence establishment. The RCN, which I submit went a little bit adrift from its spot in the early 1960s, paid a steep price for being out of step with Canada and with Canadian politicians in 1968, when it disappeared under unification.

In the 42 years since then, the navy has learned to be comfortable and proud of who and what it is. It has built on a Canadian tradition of excellence at sea and ashore. It has served Canada through thick and thin with professionalism and pride. It has not forgotten its roots, but it no longer needs to have itself identified, defined and legitimized by an association with anyone else.

For all these reasons, then, I heartily endorse the Senate motion and urge that action be taken to ensure that it passes through the house and becomes law before the end of this year.

The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. That is a note of optimism for our motion to become law.

Senator Segal: As an amateur historian, let me express my profound admiration for the work Dr. Milner has done on behalf of the discipline of history generically, military history specifically, and the Canadian navy particularly. We do not have enough of that work going on, and we are honoured to have you with us today.

Mr. Milner: Thank you.

Senator Segal: As a historian, I would like you to help us understand the point of inflection where, in your judgement, our navy became the "Canadian Navy" as opposed to the "Royal Canadian Navy." There is a lot of talk about Paul Hellyer and unification, which was one reality on the ground.

The other reality, I am told by seasoned naval officers, is that we developed an approach to how we deal with naval and maritime tasks. We developed our own protocol and engineering constructs. For example, we developed a mechanism that catches a helicopter before it lands and we developed towed array sonar, both of which are uniquely Canadian.

However, many of our colleagues care about the Royal connection and, for the right reasons, do not see any negatives in affixing the "Royal" proposition to "Canadian Navy" going forward. I think there might be some negatives, but I would rather defer to an expert view of where the inflection took place between "Royal Canadian" and "Canadian," and what that inflection actually means in terms of the mindset and the modern historical context of the navy.

Mr. Milner: It is a difficult and complex question. There is no single moment of conversion. It is all "on the road to Damascus;" it is a process. I would argue that the point at which that process becomes sharply defined is probably the locust years, if you want to call them that — the time that the navy spent in green as Maritime Command in the 1970s.

That said, the process of giving a definition to a unique Canadian approach to naval warfare and the expertise we developed as a world class anti-submarine navy, and to shaking out the old and bringing in the new, began in earnest in the 1940s. In the late 1950s and the early 1960s, the Royal Canadian Navy was deeply engaged in the process of trying to define itself as a national naval service with some kind of connection to the larger anglo-American navies. In some ways, the whole debate over unification was part of that battle for the heart and soul of the Canadian navy.

Those of you who are familiar with the history will know that when Mr.　Hellyer went out to Halifax to visit the navy, he found it too British, too Royal, too old worldly, too tradition bound and too European. In talking to a lot of people who experienced those years, you get two different opinions about what was happening.

Regardless, the consensus is that by the late 1950s the Canadian navy had begun to define itself as something separate and distinctly Canadian. Arguably, there were problems with some of the old guard　— some senior admirals and some officers — who had come through the older system of training in the Royal Navy.

By the 1950s, the Canadian navy had patriated most of its training; the fleet is big enough to do that. Even some of the British officers who transferred into the Canadian navy in the 1950s found that it was going through a transformation of identifying itself as primarily Canadian. How that process would have shaken out without the trauma of unification we cannot say.

The one thing was certain: The navy was sent off to a form of purgatory in the 1970s and it did a lot of soul-searching. It was a searing process. From my perspective, the navy that came out of that dreadful experience of unification in the late 1970s was more politically astute, self-aware and definably Canadian.

It is a process as opposed to a single event. It takes about 25 years to make it happen. By the time the navy gets into blue again in the 1980s, it knows who it is and it is comfortable in its own skin. It has taken about a generation to get there.

The Deputy Chair: You referred to unification in 1968 and the impact thereof, including the decisions by a number of senior naval flag officers with regard to what happened there. Perhaps you would say a word on that.

In the same year you had a new French Canadian ship, as a result of bilingualism. What has been the impact of French units and bilingualism on the atmosphere within the Canadian navy? Has that had an impact on its Canadiana?

Mr. Milner: The impact has been profound. I do not know if anyone is tracking all the details, but when I did the work for my book, prior work was pretty cursory.

The process of creating a national naval service out of the Canadian navy is part of the process of bilingualism and biculturalism. The naval reserve headquarters was established in Quebec. Although I stand to be corrected, I understand that there are currently no designated English-language units in the Canadian navy. There are bilingual units and francophone units, but no distinctly anglophone ones, and that is rather indicative of where the navy has gone.

We now have, which we did not before, a number of senior officers of French Canadian extraction. The navy has been embraced in Quebec as a service that people can join rather than being seen as an obscure punishment of being sent off to a primarily anglophone institution that only worships from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, with all due respect to people of that faith.

That process has been enormously beneficial to the navy and to Canada. Although the navy still has problems of being functionally bilingual when it wants to be, it is profoundly different.

I went to sea on board a Canadian frigate last spring for the first time in 30 years. I had not been to sea previous to then since 1980. It is a very different, modern, Canadian, self-aware navy with a fairly significant French-Canadian presence.

We do have a tie to tradition. We still have Her Majesty's Canadian ships. There is still that connection. The executive curl is back, which puts the navy identifiably into the band of brothers internationally. That is all great, but the navy does not need to get any legitimacy or any kind of self-awareness by going any further back into its history. I think it is in good shape that way.

The Deputy Chair: Could you say a word about naval admirals and unification?

Mr. Milner: As you know, the admirals probably fought reunification harder than anyone else. The navy certainly felt that the promise of Lester Pearson that key traditions would not be messed with was transgressed by Mr.　Hellyer when he was Minister of National Defence. They went to Ottawa and fought probably the hardest of any of the services to hang on to what they had, and I think with some reason. We have come back to the naval blue and the executive curl. If the navy had been able to be the "Navy" as part of unification in 1968, most of that objection would not be there. You may recall that at one point the plan was to adopt army ranks and have ships commanded by lieutenant-colonels and other nonsense like that.

It is true that the navy was not as well connected or as politically astute in the 1960s as it ought to have been. It did some things that in retrospect it might have done differently. We could argue about whether it was a service out of control and out of touch. I think it was certainly out of touch with what was going on in Canada socially in the 1960s, politically through the Quiet Revolution, through bilingualism and biculturalism. It tried to stay the course and it was broken as a result. However, the result of the whole process is a navy that is identifiably Canadian and very comfortable with what it is.

Senator Mitchell: Dr. Milner, I am tracking what you are saying. Committee members all have open minds about this issue, but I am definitely leaning toward "Canadian Navy."

I do not want to put words in your mouth, but it seems to me that what would be inferred by what you said is that to put "Royal" in front of "Canadian Navy" would make the name distinctly less Canadian.

Mr. Milner: In my personal opinion it would, yes. I do not think we need that.

I am the son of two veterans from a small anglophone New Brunswick community where all the Red Ensigns flew upside down and at half mast when the new Canadian flag came in. Truth be told, I was on the fast-track to join the Black Watch and never understood why they bagged that. Then I was going to join the Royal Canadian Navy but could not do it because they were in green.

I was traumatized by the whole experience of unification and the muting of those connections with the empire and the Crown. It does not bother me at this stage. I have spent my entire professional career wrestling with the relationship between the Canadian Armed Forces and primarily those of Great Britain in both of the two world wars and the post-war period. There are some great things that we can cherish from that legacy. I just think it would be a retrograde step that we do not need.

I do not know what liberty one can take in one's personal opinions. I do not think we are as republican as the Australians; I do not think we will go there, but it will be interesting to see, when her Majesty finally goes to her reward, whether we have a King Charles in Canada.

I just would not go there. I think that "Canadian Navy" works well, and I would stick with that.

Senator Mitchell: Further to your interest in the Black Watch, my father was in the Black Watch for over 30 years, so I share some of that tradition.

Mr. Milner: It was the maritime unit. If you wanted to join the army, you joined the Black Watch. I wanted to join the navy because I wanted to look like a sailor, but Mr.　Hellyer put everyone in green. I was traumatized by that, so I became a naval historian instead.

Senator Plett: Vice-Admiral Buck said earlier that he is proud of our Canadian navy. I believe I am equally proud, and I will be proud of our Canadian navy whether they are called "Canadian Navy" or "Royal Canadian Navy." I believe that all members of this committee are in agreement that we need to make a name change in that what we have now is not acceptable.

Senator　Mitchell said earlier that nostalgia had something to do with being a little more conservative. Maybe those of us who are a little older are more nostalgic; I do not know.

The issue of what Canada's naval force is called is not about the monarchy. I am very supportive of "Royal Canadian Navy," but to me it is about according Canada's naval forces the respect they deserve. I think we all feel the same way and just have differing opinions on how to do that. To me, it is about honouring our sailors by restoring an historical name. Many veterans would prefer "Royal," although some of the newer folks in the navy might not. Many fought and died under the historical name and the name instils pride and respect. It is for that reason that the navies of no less than 17 countries are proud of their "Royal" designations. To me it is not about the monarchy; it is about restoring history.

I do not think we should try in any way to belittle the "Royal" designation. As I said before, I will be happy if, at the end of these hearings and this study, we call our navy the "Canadian Navy." I will be equally proud of our navy if we, as I hope we will, call it the "Royal Canadian Navy."

That is a comment. Sir, I would certainly appreciate your response.

Mr. Milner: My sentiments, in some ways, are exactly yours, although the little voice in the back of my head says we do not need to do the "Royal Canadian Navy" thing. The navy has been something else for 42 years, which is a substantial portion of its 100-year existence. It has been called something before. It was the Canadian Naval Service for the first year of its existence. I do not think it got the Royal Canadian Navy moniker until February 1911.

I was at sea last spring for about a week on board HMCS Fredericton. There is no sentiment there whatsoever to return to "Royal Canadian Navy" that I got from anyone, from chief pretty officers or lower deck officers. They are all quite a bit younger than I am. The traditions they uphold are the ones that we all cherish and think are important, but they are making history with Canadian patrol frigates and have done so for the last 20 years. They are patrolling the waters of Asia and the South Pacific, engaging in all sorts of operations that, for them, are vitally important, and creating a new tradition of a globally deployable, efficient, medium-sized navy. Much of what they do has almost nothing to do with the North Atlantic, with convoys, with ASW, with the kinds of things that defined the early stages of the Cold War navy. I think it is okay to make new traditions and build on the old. Over the last 40 years, the Canadian navy has made its own traditions, building on the strengths that it created in the post-war period and on experience.

I have argued in a number of things I have written that the Second World War was Canada's formative naval experience. It defined a role for us. After the end of the Cold War, we grew out of that role. As you may know, even the command arrangements in the North Atlantic have changed, and we have been doing different things for about two decades. If you talk to the young men and women who man the fleet, they are present-minded. They are thinking about their careers and where they have been in the last 10 years. I think they have a vote, if that is the right term for it. I detected no consensus there or no groundswell of opinion that going back to "Royal Canadian Navy" would do anything for them.

That said, with the exception of the air detachment and some of the technicians on board, the army cadre and some others, the navy would like to be the navy, unequivocally, which I think is an excellent idea.

Senator Plett: I certainly agree that these young men and women who are serving our country so well should have a voice in this matter. I am ever hopeful that I may be able to spend a few days on a frigate some day. If I do, maybe I will conduct an unofficial survey as well.

The Deputy Chair: I would like to ask a supplementary question, if I may. You have tied the name to an operational refocusing of the missions of the navy, particularly in the last 20 years, which is an interesting angle in identifying it as a new navy, and a significant one. Do you think moving the navy farther north into the Arctic and giving it capabilities like that continues to reinforce that argument?

Mr. Milner: I think it does. For most of the Cold War, the navy was focused on hunting submarines in the North Atlantic and doing the same thing in the Pacific to some extent. As naval historian Richard Gimblett pointed out to me, the navy's principal operational area for the last 20 years has been the Indian Ocean. Refocusing on the Arctic, if and when those Arctic offshore patrol vessels are built, will capture the enthusiasm of some of the navy. I think the deep-water, blue-water guys will still want to go charging half-way around the world to do interesting things in faraway places.

However, it is a different kind of navy from the one that I saw at some length in 1980 which, in many ways, was the height of the Cold War, focused on finding nuclear-propelled and nuclear-equipped submarines in the North Atlantic, building strongly on that wartime and early Cold War tradition. The fleet we built, the Canadian patrol frigates, were built entirely to do that job. They provided us with Laurier's tidy little fleet of 5,000-tonne vessels that can steam the oceans of the world and support Canadian foreign policy around the globe. They have been doing that for two decades.

One of the things that struck me when I wrote a new chapter for the second edition of Canada's Navy: The First Century, which came out about a year ago, was the extent to which the navy itself, as an institution, has not only been exceptionally busy, but it has been drawn away from the first Gulf War in 1990-91 to a different kind of operational environment. They do practice ASW but not all that much. Much of what this navy does is quite different and exceptional.

When I went on board the HMCS Fredericton in Istanbul harbour, I was not struck by the state of readiness and the presence of 50-calibre machine guns all loaded up and ready to go, fore and aft; I was struck by the fact that the bridge was lumbered with flak jackets and helmets hanging all over the place. These young men and women, who have been involved in a war where an RPG or a suicide bomber in a Zodiac or drug runners or people smugglers or someone with an AK-47 or a 50-calibre machine gun in a high speed boat might take a shot at them, have been doing this kind of stuff for the last 20 years. They are building their own tradition of excellence with respect to boarding services, fighting pirates and supporting the world order out there. They identify with a different kind of navy from the one that most of us still have in our minds.

The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. That is an interesting dimension.

Senator Peterson: Of the 17 nations who have "Royal" in their name, have they ever had anything other than that and, to your knowledge, have they ever debated a change?

Mr. Milner: The short answer to the first question is I simply do not know, sir. The second answer would be pretty much the same.

If we still had the Royal Canadian Navy, obviously we would not be having this debate. I am always a bit leery. It was a great shame that unification passed in 1968. That was then; this is now. Calling it the "Navy" would be great, but I am afraid my knowledge of what has gone on in the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal New Zealand Navy is thin at best. My apologies.

Senator Manning: Dr. Milner, I am interested in having you elaborate on something in your opening remarks. You recommended not to restore the name RCN, and you were cool to the idea of the executive curl, although you are happy now.

Mr. Milner: Yes.

Senator Manning: First, why were you cool to the reinstatement of the executive curl? Is there a possibility that some day you may be happy with "Royal"?

Mr. Milner: I expect I could be happy. I am a Groucho Marxist. I can change any time. It depends on the issue.

Part of what I have done in my career as a naval historian is to track the attempt by the Canadian navy to wrestle itself out from underneath or out from the sometimes smothering embrace and not very happy embrace of the imperial fleet in the Royal Navy. The work I have done on the Canadian navy in the Second World War and even in the 1950s suggests a lingering problem of identity. The Royal Navy was often sharply critical of our navy during the Second World War, when it was composed largely of hostilities only. The navy had difficulty at different stages of getting operational control over its own forces and doing the things it should do with its own navy in its own waters. Elements of the Royal Navy were understanding and supportive. Sometimes, when they were in the midst of a big crisis or war, it tended to roll over the Canadians and see to the bigger issues, and we would get lost in the shuffle.

Certainly, the lower deck personnel in the Second World War, given the ratings in the lower deck in the period after the war, the mutinies that were instigated during that period and the pressures that the fleet was under in the 1950s — felt that they were a Canadian navy first. They did not belong to some international brotherhood of the sea; they were Canadians serving their country and their ships at sea. If I had my way, although regular naval officers would not like it, I would put the navy in a wavy curl like the RCNVR to distinguish them from Americans, Brits and others who wear straight stripes. However, I realize that the regular force navy was not going to wear that one.

I was a little anxious when I got a call from the minister's office about shaking it up too much, partly for the reasons I have already mentioned. The navy seems to be very comfortable with what it is and what it has accomplished, and I thought the idea of reverting to more trappings of the imperial navy and the connection with Britain was unnecessary. I thought it might be more disturbing than beneficial.

That said, I saw the executive curl on a flag officer's uniform in Halifax in June for the first time. To me, it just looked right. It is the first time in my career that I saw a Canadian naval officer who I thought was unmistakably a naval officer. We might have done it in many ways. There might have been a triangle up there or maple leaf over the cuff if the Coast Guard had not had it. They needed something to distinguish them from other navies and other people who wear dark uniforms with gold stripes, like airline pilots.

In one of my traumatizing experiences, I had a chance in 1980 be to aboard HMCS Annapolis when she went into the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland, and everyone on board the ship was wearing green. No one at the U.S. Naval Academy knew who or what they were, even though the ship was alongside. I thought that was traumatic. Putting the navy back in blue was good, also getting the executive curl back, but I am not sure about the RCN. Sorry.

Senator Manning: "Not sure" means you are thinking, at least. I appreciate that.

Mr. Milner: As I said in my preliminary remarks, I am a hopeless sentimentalist and hopeless romantic, but the navy should look ahead; and looking ahead, it should be the "Canadian Navy," but I am trying to stick to my guns here.

The Deputy Chair: I was with the U.S. Marine Corps in 1980, and the comment I got in Quantico was they thought that Canadian ships were manned by marines.

You mentioned "Canadian Armed Forces" a couple of times, and you mentioned "Canadian Forces" a couple of times. Both, if I am not mistaken, are authoritative names. Do you have any comment on one or the other? Is that of any concern?

Mr. Milner: No, those debates are of more interest, perhaps, to people within government and people who have to draw up legislation, write it and enact it. I do not have a preference. I have seen it both ways. I assume legally it is still "Canadian Armed Forces," but we still talk about "Canadian Forces."

One thing that animates me about this proposal to restore the name of the navy, and I come back to a point in my preliminary comments, most of the people I know who generally support the idea of an armed force could not possibly tell you what Maritime Command is. Most Canadians still do not think about those sorts of things in those ways. We still talk about armies, navies and air forces. If we could get away from some of those rather bizarre legacies of unification and get back to some basics, that would help the ability of Canadians to connect and understand what their Armed Forces are doing as well.

I would urge you to make a make a motion to re-establish the air force — although I leave it to you whether we want to go to "Royal Canadian Air Force" — and the army, and have a chief of army staff, a chief of air staff and a chief of naval staff instead of the gobbledygook we have now.

Senator Segal: In your opening comment, Dr.　Milner, you were very forthcoming, and, as it often does at my advanced age, it takes a while for things to sink in. You were good enough to say that you were asked to reflect on this in your role as a historian in the Department of National Defence about a year or so ago. Can you help us understand the context of that request? Was it in preparation for the centennial celebrations? Was it because the department was giving some thought to a name change? I know that CMS McFadden has said that "Maritime Command" sounds like an obscure insurance company based somewhere near Truro. He was being supportive of the general proposition.

Can you help us understand the context of that request? It would be informative for the committee to have a sense of that, without violating your oath of secrecy and all those other good things. I do not know whether historians have oaths of secrecy.

Mr. Milner: We are supposed to be ethical. I do not know if we have an oath of secrecy.

It was simply a call from one of the executive assistants in the minister's office, saying, "We are proposing doing two things. We are proposing to give the navy back the executive curl as part of the centennial, and to change the name back to the 'Royal Canadian Navy.'"

My response was very similar to what I have given you this evening, which is, if you will pardon the metaphor, "Don’t rock the boat; the navy is doing well."

I was pleasantly surprised — again, that is the hopeless romantic in me — to see a naval officer with an executive curl, and Canada flashed up, which was a nice combination.

I still feel strongly that after 40 years of the navy serving as something other than the Royal Canadian Navy, and with the last 20 years of the navy doing new and interesting things, by our standards, with a group of fairly young people looking to a future career, there are no sentiments that they would want to go back to "Royal Canadian Navy." They are happy with who they are, what they are doing and being Canadian about it.

Senator Segal: Would it would be fair to say that one of the things that the Canadian navy is now known for is the effectiveness of joint operations? A ship off Haiti is there to provide security, medical support and logistical support. That is becoming one of the hallmarks of the Canadian navy's operations worldwide. In fact, "Canadian," independent of the "Royal" issue, is a brand that means a certain kind of navy operation, one that can be quite combat-focused when necessary but can also do other things in support of our national interest. Is it fair to suggest that that brand has been developing for some time?

Mr. Milner: It has been developing since the end of the Second World War, and as a distinctive Canadian brand for whatever it was — 13 years — in strange-coloured uniforms. However, 30 years since then it has been developing increasingly, as you point out, in operations we are quite good at and the world recognizes us for that. Those operations are a long way from the traditional big helicopter, ASW, sonar submarine-chase operation in the North Atlantic. Historians still have not written how this new tradition shakes out, but people in the fleet are building on that tradition and making new history even as we speak.

It would be retrograde to go back to the past to create a new name. I think "Canadian Navy" as a brand is a great one.

I do not know how far you can take this, but as many of you know, that kind of connection in the past, certainly in the 1950s and 1960s, created some mischief for the Canadian Forces and UN operations. In the navy's case, it allowed a Canadian ship to sail into a British port where there were civil disturbances, and because they thought it was a Royal Navy ship flying a White Ensign, a British design, that pacified the town without a Canadian sailor having to go ashore.

It is important for us to distinguish ourselves from the pack, and that is why I would stick with "Canadian Navy." That is us.

The Deputy Chair: About a year and a half ago, there was a lengthy article on the Canadian navy and peacekeeping. I think you were moving down to that argument, Senator Segal.

Dr.　Milner, thank you very much for your eloquence and direct responses. I wish you well at UNB.

Mr. Milner: Thank you, General Dallaire.