Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 9 - Evidence - Meeting of November 15, 2010
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, 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?
Hon. 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 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.
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.
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, Mr. 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."
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?
Last, 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.)