Canadian Navy, Air Force Name Change Divides NDP Caucus

The Huffington Post Canada     First Posted: 08/15/11 11:28 PM ET   Updated: 10/15/11 06:12 AM ET

The federal NDP caucus is split over the Conservative government’s decision to return a royal label to the Canadian navy and air force.
As Huffington Post Canada first reported, the Conservative government announced Tuesday a name change for the air and maritime divisions of the Canadian Forces. Maritime Command and Air Command will be now be called Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force, monikers last used in 1968 when the three branches of the military were unified. The Canadian army, which was officially called Land Force Command, has also been renamed Canadian Army.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay, who was in Halifax for Tuesday’s announcement, said the change is intended to help those in uniform reconnect with their past. He said the government felt compelled to right a historic wrong.

"Our Conservative government believes that an important element of the Canadian military heritage was lost when these three former services were required to relinquish their historic titles," MacKay told a news conference in Halifax.

The change is mostly symbolic, won’t affect how the Canadian Forces are run and is expected to be "low-cost" as logos and items are naturally replaced over time.

Although the NDP has known a navy name change was likely coming for more than six-months, the party's caucus still showed signs of internal divisions Monday on the sensitive "royal" label.

See a slideshow of reactions from Twitter to the royal name change below:

Story continues below

Steffani Cameron
1 of 10

Steffani Cameron
If it costs money, I\'ll facepunch someone. MT @danigray: ... adding ROYAL back to Canadian Navy and Air Force? http://t.co/nNqFYXb
Some Canadians were concerned that the name change would cost too much money. Government officials have said the cost of the change would be minimal.
Total comments: 253 | Post a Comment
1 of 10
Rate This Slide

  • 1

  • 2

  • 3

  • 4

  • 5

  • 6

  • 7

  • 8

  • 9

  • 10
Current Top 5 Slides
Users who voted on this slide
loading...

While some in the NDP support the move, officially, the party is against the Conservatives’ decision calling it "unnecessary and divisive."

NDP defence critic Jack Harris told The Huffington Post Canada Monday most Canadians, including many members of the navy, have been calling Maritime Command the Canadian Navy and Air Command the Air Force, and those are terms most are "happy" with.

"The re-introduction of the term royal is unnecessary and decisive. It has been the Canadian Forces for 40 years. A national institution should be unifying force and to call it anything but Canadian Navy and Air Force … should not be undertaken we are opposed to it,” Harris said.

But NDP veterans critic Peter Stoffer said he is full of praise for the Tories’ decision.

"Having the designation ‘royal’ … is a wonderful link to the past. It gives everyone who served in the army, navy and air force and served in various wars for King and Country and Queen and Country a real sense of pride," said Stoffer.

“I think it is a great thing for the government to do and I thank them for it," he added.

Stoffer denied that there was any dissent in his caucus on the issue, saying that if there were people opposed to the name change, he wasn’t aware of it.

The NDP, which has 59 seats in Quebec, may be following the Bloc Quebecois lead in calling the measure, which highlights Canada’s ties to the British Crown, divisive and insulting to Francophones.

"We have a wonderfully united NDP Party," Conservative Senator Don Plett, one of the proponents of the royal change, said tongue-in-cheek Tuesday.

"I have the highest regard for MP Stoffer…He is a great Canadian. I am not going to say that the others aren’t, but I think what we see is largely the result of the Bloc vote that the NDP got in Quebec (in the last election)," Plett said.

Tuesday’s decision "certainly strengthen ties to the Crown" but it’s about our history, he added.

Former Liberal Senator Bill Rompkey brought forward a motion last December calling on the federal government to rename Maritime Command the Canadian Navy. He later accepted a watered-down version of his motion that called only for a name change that included the word "navy," said Monday he had no plans to fight the new royal designation.

"It’s better than Maritime Command… I’m not going to cause a disturbance or a fight over it," Rompkey said from St. John’s.

“I think it reflects the fact that the Prime Minister is a monarchist,” he added.

Many in the military — including Defence Minister Peter MacKay — supported his position that "Canadian Navy" was most appropriate name change and that the ‘royal’ designation was an outdated label, Rompkey said.

"The government is the government of the day, it has the right to do what it wants to do it. It has chosen, and I don’t think we should cause an argument about it...at least we have the word 'navy' back into it," he said. "Sometimes half a loaf is better than no loaf at all," he added.

MacKay told reporters last December that: "I am listening to various opinions on this but what I am hearing predominantly from the Canadian Forces, and from the Canadian Navy in particular, is they like the name Canadian Navy.”

An official told Huffington Post Canada Monday that the reason behind the Tories’ decision was simply to "restore the historic identities of the Canadian armed forces that were lost in (19)68."

But the Conservative government has recently shown its pro-monarchy side, notably with back-to-back visits by the royal family.

The Monarchist League of Canada said Monday it was “absolutely thrilled” about the name change.

"From a monarchist perspective it is always good to see the visibility of the crown restored…for me, it underlines the fact that the military is non-partisan and that the Queen is the commander-in-chief of the military, " said its chairman Robert Finch.

The decision may catch some Canadians by surprise. The country's maritime and air command units have been using navy and air force logos that were officially "unauthorized" but branded themselves in recognizable terms to most Canadians.

"I don’t believe that was the right way to implement change," Plett, the Conservative senator said.

Plett said he was aware that the man in charge of the navy, Vice-Admiral Dean McFadden, who has since retired, was not in favour of the royal designation but said "off-the-record comments don’t carry the same amount of weight."

"The bureaucracy don’t always run things, nor should they. People who are responsible for making decisions, should make them," Plett added.

He pointed to an online petition titled “restore the honour” that was signed by more than 6,000 people and sought a return of the royal designation to the navy and the air force in time for the Queen's diamond jubilee next year.

"A lot of people wanted that change," Plett said.

In 1968, however, the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Canadian Army ceased to exist when they were unified through the Canadian Forces Reorganization Act — a move designed to improve the military’s effectiveness but resulted in bureaucratized names.

With a report from The Canadian Press

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CANADA

 
 
  • Comments
  • 253
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
02:58 PM on 08/17/2011
The poor NDP, the BC ones must support it and the Quebec ones have to denounce it...

This one will be tough to spin, unless we can change the french english dictionaries to translate Royal=Republic or something like that, maybe rename them when they are in Quebec E.G.
Quebec Army
Quebec Republic Air Force(Navy)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jamster88
02:33 AM on 08/17/2011
There is nothing 'sensitive' about the 'Royal' label.

We are a Constitutional Monarchy.

The communists that have a problem with that can move to the Republic to our south.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nete peedham
08:12 AM on 08/17/2011
Oh, the "communists". What are you going to drag out next? The "yellow peril"?
canuckjen
A life that is lived is a life of evolution.
09:33 AM on 08/17/2011
Oh. Give him time and he absolutely will.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
piceaglauca
The picture says it all....
11:43 PM on 08/16/2011
Why can't we ever be on the same page. 59 seats in Quebec is one time and the only time. Even their membership contradicts.
08:09 PM on 08/16/2011
The Liberals did a disservice to the Miltary when they took away the Royal designation to
appease Quebec. The Cannadian Citizenship act of 1947 makes all Canadians Royal
because our Citizenship was created by Royal Assent. Our Citizenship was a reward for
Service in Two World Wars. Canadians owe a great debt of gratitude to our Military.The Royal designation is part of our History. Most Canadians have proudly stated ; Yes I am Royal Canadian and damn proud of it ! Royal Canadian Air Force , Royal Canadian Navy and I
would suggest Royal Canadian Army. Now lets bring back the Airborne which is another travesty on the hands of the Liberals. One other thing the name of this Country is Not
Canada. The Name is The Dominion of Canada. Dominion ( Gods Favour ) Canada
( Setttlement ) Gods' Favoured Land .
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nete peedham
08:11 PM on 08/16/2011
You speak of God...is this the same one, common to Christianity, Mormonism, Judaism, and Islam...who, according to the story of Noah, is the world's first and most prolific mass murderer? Who made a "covenant" with Noah not to do it again? Then killed the first born in Egypt to help Moses out? Not only a thug, but a liar.

Sodom and Gomorrah? Where Abram's(or Abraham's) goons torched the city, killing Lot's wife when she turned around and saw them?

If a woman is raped, is that not evil? Is the rapist not equivalent to the devil?
Then where do you get off requiring the woman to carry the devil's seed to term?
02:16 AM on 08/17/2011
Dude, you have to relax. Obviously you're not a Christian..nor have you studied or lived the faith. Your references come from the Bible. In particular, the Old Testament. It is a series of stories that are meant to teach people how to live in God's favour.
All the books in the Bible are for interpretation. It is not a factual representation of exactly what happened thousands of year ago. The fact that these books are open to interpretation is the reason there are different variations of Christianity let alone different faiths.

Do you really think Noah lived hundreds of years?...Oh and the first born in Egypt killed was not to help out Moses, it was to show the Pharaoh that he was not superior over God. It was the last plague where the Pharaoh let the Israelites leave Egypt. Not just Moses.
Anyways.....See, interpretation.
canuckjen
A life that is lived is a life of evolution.
11:55 PM on 08/16/2011
First. The reason for the name change was not made arbitraril­y or to do a disservice to the military but for legitimate reasons - to indicate the amalgamati­on of the army, navy, and air force in one fighting organizati­on - to eliminate the fighting for money and equipment amongst the three units - to use the defence budget more effectivel­y in avoiding duplicatio­n of resources.

http://www­.sharenews­.com/famil­y/2011/04/­28/canada%E2%80%99s­-army-navy­-air-force­-form-unif­ied-milita­ry

Second. To say that our citizenship was a reward for service in two world wars is ridiculously ignorant. Were we somehow slaves before then? "In 1919, Canada was one of the signers of the Treaty of Versailles and was elected as an independent member of the League of Nations...by 1931, Canada and the other Dominions had become "autonomous communities... equal in status" to Great Britain"

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Canadian-History-2762/canada-independence-1.htm
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
spinnerator
07:57 PM on 08/16/2011
I find this article doubly annoying. I am a child of British immigrants, but I am a proud Canadian and see no need to adopt this Royal moniker. I have no beef with the Royals, I like William and Kate, I think they're wonderful representatives. This is a step backward in our evolution as an independent nation. Having said that, I'm fed up with this 'offend francophones' crap. 1759 the battle for the nation was fought on the plains of Abraham and the Brits won. The 'francophones' have been members of the British empire ever since, 252 yrs. Get over it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jamster88
02:36 AM on 08/17/2011
spinnerator: your 'belief' of the Royals is irrelevant, we are a Constitutional Monarchy, your opinion of what Royals should and should not do is totally besides the point. Moreover, the forces are not 'adopting' the 'Royal' moniker - they have in fact been 'Royal' forces for LONGER THAN CANADA HAS BEEN A NATION. We are merely returning the forces to their proper names after having been destroyed by the communist experiements during the 1960's.

It's about time.

P.S. If you don't like 'Royals' you need to move to the USA and have your Republic.
canuckjen
A life that is lived is a life of evolution.
09:35 AM on 08/17/2011
Ah, America - love it or leave it. Oh wait, the Canadian way is to stay and effect change in their country, Thanks for the advice but real change doesn't come from running away. By the way, "communist experiments"? Seriously, dude, take a clarity pill and back away from the American conservative talking points.
06:54 PM on 08/16/2011
Currently, the leader of Canada's democracy is the Queen (or GG), an innocuous symbol with no power. I cannot express how much more I prefer this system over a republic system where the leader is a divisive politician. (E.g., in republics)
I will rue the day when a Prime Minister is also the symbolic head of my nation. They are politicians, they are divisive, and they often have great swaths of people who don't like or even hate them. Lets not instill in them any more importance than they already have.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jamster88
02:38 AM on 08/17/2011
MrNose - you make a very excellent point.

Elected officials are crude and obnoxious because of the nature of politics.

At very least the Royals can aspire to some kind of nobility of spirit, even if not of social lineage of the leftists prefer to dismiss of that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
greysells2
grey cells matter
06:29 PM on 08/16/2011
Harper is sticking his finger in the NDP's eye by causing mischief for them in Quebec. I think that is why he did this now. Nasty partisanship that divides people at every opportunity. Timing is everything. Layton is on the side lines. NDP has not consolidated in Quebec yet, etc. So kick them while they are down. Its what I expect of Harper.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jamster88
02:38 AM on 08/17/2011
False.

Harper is doing the right thing, moreover, this name change was in the process a long time ago.

In some ways - this has been in the works since the 1960's when the name was changed to begin with.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
greysells2
grey cells matter
05:54 PM on 08/16/2011
I favour the following names: The Canadian Navy, The Canadian Army, and The Canadian Air Force [ listed in order of precedence ]. Each force is on an equal footing and all of my proposed names emphasise the unifying concept of "Canadian". Unit designations within a service may still include the word "Royal" if there is historical precedent for it now or if the monarch wishes to gtrant such a designationb in the future. These "Royal" designations would be more local and it will be easier to develop a concensus on a name change. The historical name "Royal" for the three forces or commands may divide Canadians and is a throw back to the Colonial times. I am especially mindful of the sensitivities of my fellow citizens from Quebec who are historically less robust in the support of the English Monarchy. We do not need to stir up this contoversy. My second point is that discussions should have taken place with Canadians to solicit their views prior to the Harper Government making its seemingly irreversible announcement. We could have taken the time to do this as we taxpayers pay for our armed forces and deserve a say and there was no over arching reason to rush ahead with this decision. Why now? And why so fast?
04:56 PM on 08/16/2011
If people (especially MPs) cannot construct complete and coherent sentences thorugh Twitter, they shouldn't be using Twitter at all.
canuckjen
A life that is lived is a life of evolution.
11:18 PM on 08/16/2011
Really, who should be using twitter at all whether people are constructing complete and coherent sentences or not.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jamster88
02:45 AM on 08/17/2011
Twitter only allows 120 characters!
04:10 PM on 08/16/2011
Since they revoked the armed forces name change from 1968 back to Royal does that mean the Queen is once again our commander-in-chief?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jamster88
02:46 AM on 08/17/2011
The Queen never was our 'commander-in-chief' , however, she has been the 'Head of State' since long, long before this country was even born.

Do you really have such little grasp of your own history?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
stanschurman
04:01 PM on 08/16/2011
What next? The Colony of Canada?
canuckjen
A life that is lived is a life of evolution.
08:24 PM on 08/16/2011
You may think that's a joke but wheelzroller just posted: "One other thing the name of this Country is Not Canada. The Name is The Dominion of Canada. Dominion ( Gods Favour ) Canada ( Setttlemen­t ) Gods' Favoured Land ."

The crazies are definitely out there.
03:15 PM on 08/16/2011
Having "royal" in front the names may sound nice but it sends the wrong message when our troops are overseas. It makes it sound like they are under the control of England when Canada should be creating a seperate identity for itself.

I recently ran across an American visiting Canada who was so ignorant they asked if Canada was a protectorate. The rest of the world can not be expected to understand the obscure relationship between the monarchy and Canada, when they see "royal" in front of our military they are going to assume that is who controls it.

Instead of trying to relive the past the Harper government should be thinking about what image Canada has in the world now.
canuckjen
A life that is lived is a life of evolution.
03:16 PM on 08/16/2011
Excellent points. Fanned and Faved.
04:08 PM on 08/16/2011
****Having "royal" in front the names may sound nice but it sends the wrong message when our troops are overseas. It makes it sound like they are under the control of England when Canada should be creating a seperate identity for itself****

A lot of countries use the title "royal"

It does not imply English/British rule.

***I recently ran across an American visiting Canada who was so ignorant they asked if Canada was a protectora­te. The rest of the world can not be expected to understand the obscure relationsh­ip between the monarchy and Canada, when they see "royal" in front of our military they are going to assume that is who controls it.****

So you want to shape Canadian identity to conform to the ignorance of people?
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Maxirules
06:50 PM on 08/16/2011
I agree with gurloc.... Only countries that have royalty use Royal in their title. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are the only countries that use the Royal title without the presence of royalty. And wen all know why we do it. Saying that it doesn't signify English rule is disingenuous.

Canada already has an identity in the world and we don't need to hang onto past to reinforce that identity. I feel it is high time that we cut all links with British Royals. We don't need them to reinforce our identities.

Harper is playing politics and the conservatives just want to drag this country into the past in stead of moving into the future.
photo
BCSLAVE
Got a key?
03:05 PM on 08/16/2011
I just want to know what this will cost.
canuckjen
A life that is lived is a life of evolution.
06:59 PM on 08/16/2011
We'll never get a straight answer about that - just a lot of platitudes about how it won't really cost very much.
photo
BCSLAVE
Got a key?
03:41 AM on 08/17/2011
Yeah I seen that by dinner time. Didn't take them long to be quick on the sound byte it won't be expensive but short on details.
02:47 PM on 08/16/2011
In another article I posted that Harper (to his credit) has done 2 things right:

1/ Kept the sovereignty debate from dominating the agenda
2/ Muzzeled the dinosaurs in his party.

Now that he has his majority he's going to have a hard time with #2.
SInce this announcement he's now going to resurrect #1.

Tory governments ultimately implode usually because they get too big for their britches.
02:39 PM on 08/16/2011
Well done Canada

Be proud of your monarchy

Don't make the mistake of becoming a republic like the tinpot nation to your south
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
stanschurman
04:02 PM on 08/16/2011
And what has Great Britain got to recommend it?
04:06 PM on 08/16/2011
A health service and political parties that don't demand birth certificates.


It's a good start.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nete peedham
08:15 PM on 08/16/2011
We don't need a monarchy to be a proud and good nation. We've been a better nation since we stopped groveling to Blighty. Now, if we could get conservatives to stop groveling to the USA and Israel, we can progress even better.
08:59 PM on 08/16/2011
Britain has nothing to do with this issue.