Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 10 - Evidence - Meeting of November 29, 2010
OTTAWA, Monday, November 29, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 4:02 p.m. to consider a motion to change the official structural name of the Canadian Navy.
Senator Pamela Wallin (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Senators and ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the November 29 meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence.
At least at the beginning of our meeting, we are continuing our look today into Senator Rompkey's motion:
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.
That is the motion before us. We have been hearing testimony for the past several weeks on this question.
We have with us today Dr. Ian Holloway, Dean of Law from the University of Western Ontario. Dr. Holloway is a former Chief Petty Officer in the Canadian navy, and has contributed to a new book just published called Citizen Sailors: Chronicles of Canada's Naval Reserve, 1910-2010. We will need to have you back on another day to give testimony on the naval component of our reserves, which is another of topic under our consideration.
Welcome, and please proceed with your opening statement.
Ian Holloway, Dean of Law, University of Western Ontario, as an individual: It is an honour to be with you. I was telling Senator Day before we began that it is a treat to meet him, as I come from his senatorial district. I am a colleague of a classmate of his at RMC. Senator Dallaire was a graduate of our university and played volleyball at CMR with one of my colleagues. Senator Wallin, you are also a graduate of Western. I am sure you would not remember this, but I wrote you a fan letter when you were the host of Canada AM. You replied to it, and I still have that reply at home.
The Chair: I have a copy of your letter on my wall.
Mr. Holloway: Yes, I am sure you do.
As Senator Wallin noted, I joined the Canadian navy as an Ordinary Seaman at the age of 16 and left as a Chief Petty Officer. I spent much of the 1990s living in Australia, where I was commissioned as an officer in the Royal Australia Navy. It was from the RAN that I retired. Over my time in the service, I served at both at sea and ashore. I served in a number of ships. Ashore I served in various establishments in Canada; the United States; Great Britain; Australia, of course; and Norway.
As Senator Wallin noted, I am one of the contributors to the centennial history of the RCNR. I am also the author of the official history of HMCS Scotian of the Naval Reserve Division in Halifax.
I am honoured to be here with you today because I want to argue as strenuously as I can that to rename Maritime Command ``Canadian Navy'' would be precisely the wrong move. The right move would be to restore the name by which the navy was known in three wars, and that is ``Royal Canadian Navy.''
There are five reasons I want to proffer to you, and I hope we might have the chance to explore them in question period. The first is that we live in a world of acronyms. In the Canadian context, the acronym CN is already taken. As my colleagues in the business school would put it, to call it the CN would risk ``brand confusion'' with our national railway. That is a serious point.
Second, the acronym ``RCN,'' the name ``Royal Canadian Navy,'' has an elegance and grace to it and rolls off the lips in a way that Maritime Command does not. ``Canadian Navy'' does not either to the same degree. That is why our allies continue to refer to us as the ``RCN.''
Third, the name ``RCN'' is more accurately descriptive of the constitutional state of affairs by which the naval forces of Canada were established.
Fourth, ``RCN'' is the name rooted in history; it is the name under which we had the third largest navy in the world at one point.
That leads me to the fifth point, which is that the navy needs to view history as something more than just the celebration of the past. It needs to learn to view history as a tool with which to prepare for the future. Institutions that are durable embrace and use their history; they do not try to turn their back on it. That is the fifth reason why the proper course of action is to rename our navy ``RCN.''
That is all I have to say by way of opening statement, senators. I am happy to take any questions.
The Chair: That is wonderful: Brief and to the point. Since we began this discussion when Senator Rompkey's motion was put forward, there have been a lot of responses on both sides. The debate has been very passionate and fervent.
Has this been an issue that has been brewing for a long time?
Mr. Holloway: Yes, it has. It has been brewing since 1968, and that is the reality. If you go to virtually any naval establishment in this country, whether one of the regular establishments on the coast or one of the reserve establishments inland, you will see on prominent display the white ensign under which our navy served under in three wars. That is not the same issue precisely as the title ``RCN,'' but it is part of the same piece: The rank and file in the navy still embrace their history in a way that some are not willing to use.
The Chair: I do not want to pre-empt the questions, but I suppose I am trying to get at the fact that nobody wants ``Maritime Command.'' However, then the paths diverge and that is where we are at present.
Mr. Holloway: That is right.
Senator Dallaire: In response to a couple of your five points, I would like you to tell me why the Maritime Command, in its centennial year, used ``Canadian Navy'' throughout its informal documentation, and why in that centennial year did they not want to revive or pull out of the drawer the ``RCN,'' if it is so significant?
Mr. Holloway: I do not know. You would have to ask them, but I can say why I think it was a mistake for them not to do so.
In January, I published an op-ed piece in the National Post in which I argued that the navy was blowing its centennial. They were proposing to host a number of pleasant events, and I attended some of them, as I am sure did you as well. However, in terms of using the centennial as an opportunity to develop and grow its political constituency, it was missing the boat.
We all live in the present. I remember hearing Admiral McFadden talk about the executive curl. He said it was worth six weeks of fuel for our ships. That is true, and he has to live in the present, but we also need to think about the long-term future.
Let me offer one illustration of why I think the agnosticism about tradition is so harmful to the long-term interests of the navy. I have a nine-year-old daughter. The other day she had a friend over and I said to them, draw me a sailor. They drew a man in a round cap with a V-neck and bell-bottom trousers. They did not draw someone in a suit and tie. To me, that spoke volumes about what the navy will need to do if it wants to be embraced by the Canadian public. We turn our backs on our history and that is a big mistake.
Senator Dallaire: They did not go back to that uniform because when they looked at the modern equipment and the application of combat requirements, they went to a much more practical uniform on board ship, and even in the dockyard. They took a decision to move to the modern era in that regard. Certain elements were brought back but other elements moved forward.
I come back to your point in regard to the titling. You agree that the brand is fundamental to a product.
Mr. Holloway: Yes.
Senator Dallaire: You certainly argue that reviving or bringing back the old brand has a link with the history of the navy. What I do not understand is your argument about how by bringing back that old brand, you are necessarily looking at the present and the future in regard to the nature of the navy by adopting a ``Canadian Navy'' option versus a ``Royal Canadian Navy'' option.
Mr. Holloway: Let me say again, if we call it the ``Canadian Navy,'' that will not help the brand at all, because ordinary Canadians will confuse it with Canadian National Railways. That expression ``CN'' is already taken in Canada. As a matter of practical, small ``p,'' political fact, it has to be off the table. It will not work in terms of this component of our Armed Forces branding itself.
The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over again and to expect a different result. Since 1968, there have been at least four, maybe five programs of fleet renewal that have been developed by the navy. To someone like me, someone who wore a uniform for most of his adult life, they made perfect sense. However, the fact that none of them was implemented in the form in which they were proffered suggests that this claim of modernity, of placing the Armed Forces in the modern context has not worked, as we know from recent history.
To keep on doing that, to keep making earnest arguments about the military requirements — which might make sense to me and which certainly would probably make sense to you — we know does not resonate with the Canadian public.
Why is it that seeing those young men and women dressed up in scarlet uniforms in the summer is among the most popular tourist attractions in this country? Recent times have not been particularly kind to the RCMP; why is it that they have not come out worse than they have? It is because of the iconic status that they have garnered for themselves, which is associated in the Canadian mind with red serge, Stetson caps and oxblood gloves.
Our own history in the Canadian Forces, contrasted with what we know of the success of the Foot Guards and the Canadian Grenadier Guards — other regiments like your own, which have ceremonial components — juxtaposing those two make it as plain as day to me that trying to say that we are going to be modern is wrongheaded.
Senator Dallaire: If I am correct, there was no uproar from any particular quarter during the centennial year, which is ebbing now, in regard to saying ``Canadian Navy.''
In fact, I have two children in the naval reserve, and they do not say ``Canadian Navy''; they just say ``navy.''
The argument of ``CN'' being confused, I think, is a bit of an extrapolation in regard to talking about the navy. However, my point is that the Canadian Armed Forces started in 1871, regular force. Previous to that, they were reservists or British; previous to that, they were French. There is nothing of that regime in our accoutrements in any way, shape or form; yet we created, if I am not mistaken, 14 new units in 1968 and not one of them has the term ``Royal'' in them, and they are all French.
Mr. Holloway: You know that history much better than I do, senator, so I defer to you on that. However, the 12e Régiment blindé du Canada does not have the name ``Royal'' in it, but they have royal accoutrements as part of their uniform. I collect cap badges of units of the Canadian Forces that have been represented in the law school since I have been dean. One of my badges is the 12e Régiment blindé du Canada and its crown is as prominent as in the Royal Canadian Regiment.
I would also say that as recently as the 1990s, there have been three regiments of the Canadian army that have petitioned successfully to have the name ``Royal'' attached to them: the Royal Regina Rifles, the Royal Westminster Regiment and a third one that I am forgetting.
It was not long ago, from your province, Senator Manning, that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary successfully petitioned to have the ``Royal'' title attached to it. To suggest that the Royal appellation is 19th century stuff is not accurate.
Senator Dallaire: I come from a regiment that was created; it does not have ``Royal,'' but it has all the royal accoutrements. It is a horse artillery; and the navy, although it is Maritime Command, if you look at that flag, it has a crown on that anchor. The fact that it is not called ``Royal'' did not take that crown away.
Mr. Holloway: That is right.
The Chair: I have a follow up on that. When you said that one of the groups you mentioned petitioned to have the ``Royal'' prefix added, petitioned whom?
Mr. Holloway: Her Majesty the Queen.
The Chair: We would have to go —
Mr. Holloway: No, I do not know this but I understand there is a legal opinion in the government somewhere which holds that it would not be necessary to have to go back to Her Majesty to revive this title.
The Chair: That is something I do not think we have quite resolved.
Senator Plett: Madam Chair, you asked one of the questions I was going to ask. I will make one or two comments. Since you are on exactly the same side of the issue as I am, I do not need to ask a lot of questions. I have at least revealed my preferences.
You have talked about the Royal Winnipeg Rifles and I think you mentioned the Royal Westminster Regiment, the Royal Regina Rifles and the Royal Highland Fusiliers, of Guelph. I am told they did it only as recently as 1998, so there is certainly evidence there.
I was going to ask about a legal opinion that you have at least given us your best advice on.
Madam Chair, last week I spoke about something, and I think I used the word ``survey'' but I possibly should have used the word ``petition.'' For the record, I want to state that I was told last week I should not say things without having some backing. I have in my hand a petition signed by 5,054 people. They are veterans, citizens and residents of Canada and call themselves ``loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen.'' They have signed a petition very much supporting the ``RCN.'' It is not just a few of us around the table here who support that.
If we take the ``Royal'' out of navy, would that in any way impact the ``splice the mainbrace'' that is apparently quite common and popular in the navy?
Mr. Holloway: It is popular but not common. In my 21 years, I spliced the mainbrace once.
The Chair: On the legal opinion, have you researched this or do you —
Mr. Holloway: No, I have not, senator.
The Chair: Therefore, we do not know whether people have been asked about this even in the course of the last year.
Mr. Holloway: I am told that an opinion was prepared, but I have not seen it and I do not know who prepared it.
Senator Manning: I want to welcome our guest here today and I would like to echo the words of Senator Plett. I am also a strong proponent of returning to the ``Royal Canadian Navy,'' so I want to be sure we are aware of that.
The people who are on the other side of our argument have come forward with some of their reasons for promoting the renaming to the ``Canadian Navy.'' I would like to ask you a couple of questions on the testimony we have received from others to get your comments.
We have heard that none of the people serving in the navy today have served under the title of ``Royal Canadian Navy'' and that they are not more or less accustomed to that name. Even though we have not even had evidence of it — it is more or less conversation — some people have come forward and said that because they have not served with the ``Royal Canadian Navy,'' they are not more in tune with that and they would be more in tuned to ``Canadian Navy'' versus ``Royal.'' That seems to be one of their arguments. I would like you to comment on that.
Mr. Holloway: Everyone who has served at sea has served on a ship that has the title Her Majesty's Canadian Ship. Everyone who wears the uniform swore an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty; everyone who wears a uniform wears a badge with a Crown on it. To suggest that they are unaccustomed to connections with royal service is ridiculous and patently inaccurate.
I am arguing that this would be a forward-looking move, which is the navy trying to use its history to generate further support for itself in the future.
It matters not to me whether anyone currently in uniform actually belonged to the RCN. What really matters to me as someone who cares about, believes in and spent most of his adult life in the navy is what the navy can do to engender greater support amongst Canadians. That is what the navy must do to prosper in the future.
Although I teach at a law school and not a business school, I will attempt to speak like a dean of a business school. The branding, as Senator Dallaire referred to it, is absolutely critical. In the martial and military context, the brand is inextricably intertwined with history, martial values and glorious deeds of the past. It cannot be solely rooted in the present.
The RCN was the third largest navy in the world and it was the RCN that had the very first Canadian casualties in action in the First World War — they were four midshipmen of the RCN. The last Canadian casualty in action in the Second World War was an RCN officer. It was the RCN that embarked on the very first Canadian mission on behalf of the UN. Those are all things that the RCN did.
To say that the navy in the 21st century cannot connect with Canadians is wrong, in my judgment.
Senator Manning: Some may find it strange, but my ancestry is 100 per cent Irish. People have asked me why I support renaming it to ``Royal'' because of past differences that have existed. However, I believe it is not my connection to the ``Royal'' as much as my connection to history and what I believe is something that we need to be proud of.
I find that one of the most important things we have as an individual, groups and as a country is our identity. I have heard from people who are serving that ``Maritime Command'' does not give them an identity. It erases their identity to a great extent. It is important that we have that connection that identifies the people who serve in the navy as being part of that.
Are there any legal implications that you are aware of in regard to making that change to ``Royal Canadian Navy''?
Mr. Holloway: No, there are administrative implications, but no legal ones.
Let me link that part of the question, if I may, with your reference to your Irish ancestry. I was an officer in the Royal Australian Navy, as I said. The Irish streak runs much stronger through the Australian culture than it does the Canadian culture. Australia went through a process of unification of higher command, as we did in the 1960s. However, they continue to embrace very proudly their connection with the RAN. Senator Dallaire, their shipboard dress is as practical as ours but their ceremonial dress makes them look like sailors.
That goes to the second part of your question. I have heard people ask, ``How could you have someone wearing a green uniform or an Air Force blue uniform serving if the RCN existed again?'' First, it happened before 1968. Second, it happens in Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand now. I have spent a lot of time in India over the years, and it happens there.
It happens that someone who belongs to the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery happens to be posted to Stadacona and appears in a parade alongside members of the RCN. There is an administrative component to that, but that is what happens now. Therefore, no, I do not think there are any legal impediments at all.
Senator Manning: As you are fully aware, we have the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have the oldest sporting event in North America, the Royal St. John's Regatta and we have one of the proudest groups of soldiers, the Royal Newfoundland Regiment. We all hold those very dear to our hearts and they have spoken for themselves in the way they carry themselves. It is true with the RCMP, et cetera.
I hear what you say in regards to the ``Canadian Navy'' versus the ``Royal Canadian Navy.'' I am just wondering if you could give us a sense of the history regarding the people involved in the Royal Canadian Legion and others outside the group that is serving today. To the people that you talked about to the future, it seems that one of the counter- arguments we hear is that our navy now serves soldier to soldier more so in the American Navy, for example, than we do with Britain's Royal Navy.
Those are the arguments we are hearing in relation to why it should be a certain way. It is a very weak argument, if you ask me, as to why we should not rename our navy the ``Royal Canadian Navy.'' If you would comment on that part of the argument we have received in regard to where they serve now.
Our navy is serving all over the world, from what I understand, but maybe just touch on that, please.
Mr. Holloway: It is true that the navy spends more time operating with the Americans than with the British, but that has been true since 1957 at least. That does not carry a lot of sway.
It is also true that Americans, as often as not — at least the USN — if speaking about our navy in correspondence still refer to the ``RCN.'' To me, the argument in favour of ``RCN'' is not about us wanting to be British; we are not British and have not been British for a long time. It is about us wanting to embrace our Canadian identity, one that was forged in war and honed in the service of the UN, an identity that reflects all the great Canadian values and one that we should not be ashamed of at all.
To me, that is not about being British, it is about being Canadian. If anything, it is more important for us to be Canadian if we are spending more time alongside the USN. It is more important for us to have a name that is elegant and one that reflects history.
Speaking of the USN, the flag that is worn at the bow of a warship is called ``the Jack''; that is why the British flag is colloquially known as the ``Union Jack'' — it is a naval expression. After September 11th, the USN reverted to the form of naval Jack that was used during the revolutionary times. It is red and white stripes with a snake on it, and the caption reads ``Don't tread on me.''
As part of their move to rekindle a spirit of patriotism, love of country, love of service and connection with the past, the Americans brought back a revolutionary war flag that was more than 200 years old. To suggest that because our fleet operates alongside the USN, we would look backwards because we embraced our history, I do not think is right — in fact, the contrary. I think the Americans might think that is a navy that has confidence in itself, one that knows its past and is proud of it, not ashamed of it.
The Chair: Notice I did not make any comments about testimony being given by committee members.
Senator Lang: I have a couple of questions for you. First, you made the statement that the allies referred to our navy as the ``Royal Canadian Navy'' oftentimes. Do you want to elaborate further on that because this is the first time we have heard that comment.
Mr. Holloway: I had lunch today with a colleague of mine who is still employed at NDHQ. I told him that I would be coming to speak to you and it was he who told me.
I knew that was still the case in my day. I was in the communications branch of the navy and I dealt with messages all the time. As I said, I served in Britain, Norway and the U.S., and regularly we would see our navy referred to by foreigners as the ``RCN.'' I was surprised and delighted when my friend, who is still employed at NDHQ, today told me that is still the case. What I am repeating to you is hearsay that I heard today.
Senator Lang: To follow up on as far as the navy is concerned, we had witnesses a number of weeks ago who indicated that the rank and file of the present complement of navy members supported the name ``Canadian Navy.'' Of course, this is a younger generation, but you were part of that for a period of time as well; would you say that is true? We are getting conflicting messages here.
Mr. Holloway: It is interesting; this is very sensitive because the rank and file will take their signals from whatever the admiral wants. That will dictate what the rank and file wants, to an extent.
I had an email exchange with a serving chief petty officer who is still in the service and I told him about this. He did an informal polling where he works and he said it was split about 50-50. It is a very unscientific data set but half of the serving members that he polled were in favour of ``RCN.''
If I may, senator, one other thing on that point is that when there was the debate about whether the executive curl should be brought back, people said the same sorts of arguments we are hearing today. It is backwards looking; we have been wearing this uniform since 1968 and so forth.
How long did it take for every serving naval officer to have that curl put on the uniform? It was days, weeks at the most. It was well accepted. I asked my lunch companion today if people were upset about the executive curl. He said, on the contrary, they all embrace it.
I am not in the service. I can say this with conviction but without absolute knowledge. However, I do not believe there would be a backlash of any sort among the rank and file if the name ``RCN'' were restored.
Senator Lang: I will pursue that a little more. I want to go on the record to say that no member here is ashamed of our naval history. There is a possibility of name change and that is all we are dealing with. We are all proud of our men and women who have served in the navy and its past history. We have acquitted ourselves very well.
I think it is important that we have on the record here a witness who has said, contrary to what has been said in the past that there was overwhelming support within the rank and file for ``Canadian Navy.'' Now we are hearing it may be 50-50. It is important that be on the record.
Senator Day: Mr. Holloway, thank you very much for being here. I had an opportunity to look at the survey that Senator Plett referred to. In fact, I just looked at it today and his figure was 5,054 and the figure that I have is another 50 have signed it. We are obviously generating some interest because it is up over 5,100 now. It is moving along. It is 5,103; I finally found the exact figure.
One of the interesting points I noticed here is in the whereas clauses. Michael J. Smith has generated this petition with the 5,100 names. In one of the whereas clauses, it says:
And whereas the Royal designation of the Canadian navy was executed by a Royal Proclamation which has never been revoked, and that the Canadian government and the Canadian Forces are required to resume usage of the express ``Royal Canadian Navy'' if the expression ``Canadian Navy'' is used in any official capacity;
That goes further than saying it is open. They are saying that because back in 1911 or whenever it was that the Canadian navy became the Royal Canadian Navy, and that has never been revoked or rescinded, any time ``Canadian navy'' is used it has to be ``Royal Canadian Navy.''
Mr. Holloway: That does not sound right to me. I have read that as well.
Senator Day: I thought that was quite interesting that it was required. I was trying to track this down and it is important we get a legal opinion on that. I have seen the briefing note but it stops short of helping us with that issue.
The problem is the issue was raised by Admiral Buck, a retired admiral who was here. He raised it, indicating that we would have to go back to the Queen, but everyone else I hear from suggests it is not necessary, that the name is in the bottom drawer.
The Chair: It was part of the orchestrated email campaign, which I know has circulated. However, I did receive others to say that was not the case, but I think we need an answer.
Mr. Holloway: You may recall that the Halifax Rifles were re-established last year. It is a reserve regiment. I think Minister MacKay's position at the time was that he did not have to go back to the palace to have this regiment. It does not have ``Royal'' in the title but it is a regiment in the Queen's service. In the lingo, it is in suspended animation. They did not have to seek royal permission to re-establish one of the Queen's regiments.
Senator Wallin said you want to get a legal opinion which is what you must do. I do not think you would have to go back to the palace.
Senator Dallaire: The regiment was not struck off strength; it was not struck off the order of battle. It was reduced to nil strength. I believe and I support that we should go to the Directorate of History and Heritage at the National Defence Headquarters have them give us the formal response in regard to whether the ``RCN'' is still in existence or whether it was struck off strength.
Senator Day: Thank you for that intervention Senator Dallaire.
I am also in receipt of a note bringing to my attention that a Mr. Chris McCreery says a royal name change would not require approval from the Queen. He goes on to say that the royal proclamation was not revoked. Therefore, the document signed by King George V still exists. All that would have to be done is for the Minister of National Defence to say okay. I do not know if you know this Mr. McCreery.
Mr. Holloway: I am acquainted with him.
Senator Day: I have not met him, but I will follow up on that. I want to mention an interesting coincidence. I received a note from the 12e Régiment blindé du Canada from a serving officer. You had mentioned that particular regiment, and this serving officer says:
Not only is the idea of a Canadian crown central to our political system and society but it is of vital importance to our Canadian Armed Forces. It is a root from which all authority and order is derived and from where all honour and distinction is brought through the Canadian Forces honour system.
Therefore, he is strongly in favour of the restoration of ``Royal Canadian Navy'' and ``Royal Canadian Air Force.'' I thought I would bring that to your attention.
I have received 146 emails on this issue, and 136 of those are in favour of the ``Royal Canadian Navy'' designation.
Like my colleagues, when we support the same point of view, it is basically a matter of saying, ``Thank you very much for your points.'' However, you made a point with respect to Admiral McFadden. You said the executive curl is ``six weeks of fuel for our ships.'' Can you expand on that?
Mr. Holloway: I took the point to be that the cost of redoing people's uniforms was equivalent to six weeks of fuel for a frigate.
Senator Day: Was there a suggestion that, therefore, he would rather have the six weeks of fuel than the executive curl?
Mr. Holloway: I cannot put words in his mouth. That was the point I took, but I cannot say that.
The Chair: We cannot have third-party testimony.
Senator Day: It was helpful to have some clarification. What were we supposed to take from a comment like that?
The Chair: That it is expensive.
Senator Day: Exactly, and we would rather do something else. I think your point was that operations and what is happening today are important to these commanding officers.
Mr. Holloway: As they must be. They live in the present; they command our forces, which are on operations as we speak. However, we also have to think about and plan for the future.
Senator Manning: Madam Chair, I have one clarification on that point. If we are talking about changing the name to ``Canadian Navy'' or ``Royal Canadian Navy,'' it will cost us either way. The general consensus is that people want ``Maritime Command'' gone.
Senator Patterson: I would like to thank the witness for bringing two new viewpoints and arguments we had not heard in weeks of testimony. The first was that the name of the navy should respect the Constitution of Canada, or as you said, the state of affairs by which Canada was established.
I would just like you to elaborate a little on that. I know we are a constitutional monarchy. Can you go further and tell us whether it has to do with the Queen being the head of state? Take me further on that please.
Mr. Holloway: The Constitution Act, 1867, provides that the Command-in-Chief of the Armed Forces is vested in the Queen.
We say in Canada that the Governor General is the commander in chief but that is not constitutionally accurate. The Governor General is a delegate of the Queen. Command-in-Chief is vested in the Queen by virtue of the Constitution. Every serviceperson is in the Queen's service, which is why we all take the oath of allegiance the day we join.
The constitutional reality is that they are, like it or not, the Queen's Armed Forces. All things being equal, I prefer that the titles we give to organizations reflect the constitutional state of affairs.
Senator Patterson: I think it is a very compelling argument and I thank you for that.
The other point you made was about branding. That is a new point and is a fascinating one to me because this whole business of branding is really current stuff. There is a trend in the world toward these acronyms. It is ubiquitous in the military, as you know. Let us look at our Canadian banks: The Royal Bank of Canada is now RBC. There is CIBC and others.
I think you are saying that the only debate here is the name for the navy. We all agree that ``Maritime Command'' was a branding disaster. It has not worked and is not being used except officially. As my colleague said, we will have to spend money to get rid of that name in favour of a new one. Your argument is really whether we want ``RCN'' or ``CN''; did I get that right.
Mr. Holloway: Yes. Let us be honest and go around the table. What does the term ``CN'' conjure up? Does it conjure up warships on the North Atlantic or a shunting yard and the railway?
Senator Plett: Thank you for allowing me this supplemental, Senator Mitchell and Madam Chair. In reference to the ``CN'' and ``RCN'' debate, I want to know which change would be more costly: changing it to ``RCN'' or ``CN.''
Mr. Holloway: Five key strokes.
Senator Dallaire: It is immaterial. The government spent $43 million putting us in new uniforms in 1986.
Senator Mitchell: You will be surprised, as this comment is coming from me, but I think you run a very disciplined meeting and you have been very fair and kind.
I think Senator Patterson made my point. He has been very elegant in arguing his case, but I disagree with him. He said the Royal Bank of Canada is now RBC, so it is moving in the opposite direction from the point he wanted to make. CIBC was never ``royal'' and neither was BMO.
An Hon. Senator: It was ``Imperial.''
Senator Mitchell: Yes. Therefore, the trend has moved the other way, too. Thank you for making that point.
I was thinking that you argued very well and powerfully. Pretty soon you will be arguing for Royal University of Western Ontario.
I do not mean to put words in your mouth but you did say something that caught me — and I am only paraphrasing — when you said that somehow we want an elegant name, inferring that we had to have ``Royal'' in it. Are you therefore suggesting that ``Canadian'' is just plain old and inelegant, because it sure is not to me. It is very powerful and central to me. I am a Canadian. It means a great deal to me. I think it attracts and energizes people for what we can be in the future.
Mr. Holloway: No; I joined the Canadian Armed Forces and wore a green uniform for many years. Most of my adult life, I was in the Canadian Forces so I would be the last person in the world to be denigrating the patriotism or the commitment to our country of the people who joined the services since 1968. However, I do think that the acronym ``RCN,'' as an acronym, has a grace and elegance that the acronym ``CN'' does not have. That is my point.
Senator Mitchell: Yes, and if we brand ourselves as ``CN,'' I would argue ``CN'' would begin to have that again.
The second thing is that you said using ``Royal'' conjures up our history, our past and all that greatness. It is a powerful argument. We all know that there was greatness. I would also say there has been a great deal of greatness in the last 42 years that we have not been ``Royal,'' which we would diminish or not conjure up.
However, I also think the past you are talking about with ``Royal'' conjures up some elements that are not so great and inspiring, like the period of time when we were part of the Dominion and part of the colonial web. In fact, some of the greatest moments in our military history — Vimy, where Canadians fought and died like nobody else could achieve, it began to give us independence from Britain and establish us as a nation in our own right, where we could be proud enough to call ourselves ``Canadian'', without adding an adjective to make ourselves feel better. What about that juxtaposition of great and not so great elements of history that conjures up?
Mr. Holloway: When Sir John A. Macdonald, our founding prime minister, said Confederation will preserve the British connection, is that a shameful episode in our history? No, it is what happened, and it is the impetus that led the Dominion — as the Constitution still describes it, by the way — to be formed. I do not think those were not great parts of our history. On the contrary, I would say the RCN was one of the primary vehicles by which we acquired our independence.
International law says that a country becomes a country when other countries recognize it as such. On August 3, 1914, we had no status in international law apart from our status as a composite part of the British Empire. That began to change, partly because of Vimy Ridge, so that at British insistence, we were able to take part in the Paris Peace Conference and signed the Treaty of Versailles in 1919.
It was the RCN in the 1930s that projected Canadian values when we supported the putting down of an insurrection in Honduras. The RCN helped keep the Atlantic sea lanes open between 1939 and 1945. It was the RCN that brought the Canadian soldiers, the prisoners, back from Hong Kong. It was the RCN, within two weeks of the North Korean invasion of South Korea in 1950, that projected Canadian values. To suggest that the RCN was not part of the emergence of the Canada that exists today, I think, with respect, Senator Mitchell, is not the right way to read history.
Can I extrapolate from the point? One of the other things that one sometimes says is that the royal connotations suggest a lack of sensitivity to diversity issues; that they do not reflect the diversity of Canada today. I will say two things in that regard. For a long time, French Canadians have attended the Collège militaire royal and Royal Military College and that has not stopped them or dissuaded them. The RCMP has made tremendous strides in recent years in terms of becoming more diverse. I do not think that the simple inclusion of the letter ``R'' actually turns off people.
Senator Mitchell: If you look at the stats in the RCMP, they are not particularly diverse and they would disagree with you, as I do.
You have made the case that there is some reason to conjure up some good with ``Royal'' and there are other reasons, for me, to conjure up some bad with ``Royal.'' Even under the name ``Maritime Command,'' we have done some tremendous things that will not be recognized. I am saying I do not know why we have to put an adjective in front of ``Canadian'' to make it better.
Referring to precedence, you say we swear allegiance to the Crown in the navy, so why not call it ``Royal''? We swear allegiance to the Crown in the Senate. Are we going to call it the ``Royal Canadian Senate'' or the ``Royal Canadian Parliament''? No, so it is not a precedent.
Just as there are names with ``Royal'' in them, such as for certain colleges and regiments, there are also many organizations that do not have ``Royal'' in the name. For any organization that swears allegiance to the Crown, is that therefore a precedent for saying ``Royal'' should be in its title?
Mr. Holloway: The Senate has never been called the ``Royal Canadian Senate.'' Had it been for the majority of its history, then I might hold a different view. However, that is the difference. The RCN was called that for more than half its history, which included the three major wars in which it fought — the actions for which the Victoria Cross was won. To suggest that is a bad part of our history —
Senator Mitchell: I am not saying that. There is some good and also things that conjure up things we fought for, like independence and the Canadian brand.
Mr. Holloway: Do you not think the RCMP is the iconic Canadian brand, and the Hudson's Bay Company?
Senator Mitchell: It is not the Royal Hudson's Bay Company.
Mr. Holloway: No, but it is the Governor and Company of Adventurers of England Trading into Hudson's Bay; that is its proper name.
Senator Mitchell: It is not anymore. They got rid of it too.
Mr. Holloway: No, it is its legal name.
Senator Mitchell: They are not branding themselves with it, are they? I am looking to the future and the people who will be inspired to join the navy now are of a different culture and diversity. You could ask many Canadians; they never would have heard of the ``Royal Canadian Navy.''
Senator Dallaire: I will go back to the centennial, which brought all this about, and the impact on the other services. However, the significant point is that the centennial planning was not done on January 1, 2010. It was done a few years ahead of time.
Throughout that time and including the centennial year, you may think that the rank and file stand to attention and say, ``yes, sir, three bags full, sir,'' but the rank and file does express itself through various means, including brown envelopes and such things.
Has there been any complaint, any desire not to go ``Canadian Navy'' with the centennial, which is the relaunching of the navy into the new era, and an insistence or a movement to bring ``Royal'' into that centennial year of process?
Mr. Holloway: There must have been; otherwise, I would not be here today. Obviously, there were people in favour of bringing back the ``RCN.'' As I said, the unscientific data set presented to me by my chief petty officer friend suggests that at least in his workplace, half the people would be in favour of the ``RCN.''
I will say something about the centennial. I was born in the year of the golden anniversary of the navy, its 50th year. I was in the service on both the 70th and 75th anniversaries of the navy. I ask myself, from the 70th anniversary to the 75th anniversary, which I remember well, was there any enduring value? We had a great time. We had a lot of fun; but was there any enduring political capital that the navy generated as a consequence of the presumably millions of dollars it spent in those anniversary years? The answer is no, nothing. As soon as the bell tolled at the end of December 31, it was all forgotten.
That is how I began this whole thing, senator. I think the navy had a once in a century opportunity to use this celebration to try to do something different. We know what has not worked, so let us try to do something that has worked.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr. Ian Holloway, Dean of Law at University of Western Ontario. We should also say he is a former chief petty officer in the Canadian navy and has contributed to a new book, titled Citizen Sailors: Chronicles of Canada's Naval Reserve.
Mr. Holloway: Thank you very much for your time.
The Chair: Senators, we will now go in camera for a discussion of the many issues that are on our agendas — Arctic sovereignty, et cetera.
(The committee continued in camera.)