Does the 'royal' rebranding of the Canadian Forces have a wider meaning?

No, the rebranding is basically a minor, perhaps slightly backward step. It will please primarily those anglophone males who are over 65, baby-boomers about to turn 65, and veterans, generally in the same age group. All these will revel in the nostalgia, sentimentality, and historical play-back that the name restoration brings to bear. As long as the name issue remains subdued, there will be no serious consequences.

On the other hand, the name change, particularly if part of a wider initiative, could be damaging in at least two ways. It will widen the disassociation already felt in Quebec (crime, militarization of foreign policy, lack of profound environmental policies, focus on the family, etc.) that their values are not shared in the rest-of-Canada—an almost complete “distinct society” although not constitutionally; secondly, and less emphatically given the recent Royal Wedding, it will widen the generational gap—everything that governments and those in authority do are basically irrelevant to what interests and concerns the young with all the consequences that this widening gap entails.

Email

Share

Whatever the motive behind the decision, the return of the ‘royal’ designation involves more than a reflection of the Conservative Party’s desire to appeal to their political base and veterans. We should also appreciate how these names inform Canadians and members of the armed forces about how the military is governed and controlled in Canada.

As per section 15 of the Constitution Act 1867 , the command of the armed forces is vested in the Crown, the formal executive. This means that Cabinet’s constitutional authority to control the military ultimately flows from the Canadian Crown, not Parliament. As well, it means that the armed forces serve and are loyal to the Crown, rather than the House of Commons, a fact that Parliament acknowledged in section 14 of the National Defence Act. While the military are answerable to parliamentarians, they obey, and account to, ministers of the Crown (the political executive), those who are accountable for Canada’s national defence under our system of responsible government.

This constitutional reality has been blurred of late, with prominent commentators and high ranking officers implying that the military serves and are loyal to Parliament. While this notion draw on Canada’s tradition of parliamentary democracy, it is constitutionally flawed and detrimental to civil-military relations in Canada. Military officers should never be asked to choose between the dictates of a parliamentary motion and a Cabinet directive, for instance. Yet the idea that the military serves Parliament instead of the Crown could potentially lead to such a situation, particularly under minority governments and when the House is asked to pass motions on military deployments.

Of equal importance, highlighting the military’s service to the Crown reminds the government of the day that the armed forces do not belong to them or their party. They serve the institution that symbolizes the Canadian state and that is duty bound to attend to the welfare of the Canadian people. This link to the Crown thereby protects the apolitical, nonpartisan nature of the military, and provides the constitutional link between the armed forces and the Canadian people.

The ‘royal’ monikers, then, remind us of an underappreciated system of constitutional monarchical civil-military relations that operates according to the democratic principles of responsible government.

Email

Share

Sadly, I fear it does. Returning the “Royal” prefix to the navy and the air force now makes it appear that the Prime Minister was bewitched by Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge, and has come down with a case of Monarchist fever.

Beginning with the Battle of Vimy Ridge in 1917, the Canadian Military has been struggling to have a stand alone identity, a project which appeared complete with the unification of the forces and the Canadian Flag in 1966.

Now making the navy and the air force “Royal” to the British Monarch is a step backward. Internationally it will blur Canada’s identity as an independent player, making it more difficult for our country to play its proper role.

And what might be next? The return of the Union Jack and the repeal of the Nichol resolution?

Email

Share

The restoration of the historic names of the three services of Canada’s armed forces is symbolic, but historical symbols are important.  We live in a constitutional monarchy—a form of government found in over thirty other countries around the world—and monarchical symbols, some of them quite atavistic, are deeply embedded not only in our structures of governance but also in the day-to-day existence of citizens.  It is possible that a future generation of Canadians may eventually decide to break the evolutionary link with our European and feudal past, and replace the monarchy with a republican form of government.  But unless (or until) that happens, connecting our armed forces and our head of state, as the royal designation does, is an important political symbol.

Email

Share

Harper has put the Royal jelly back into the Canadian Armed Forces in response to pressures from veterans and other groups. Her Majesty’s portrait also adorns the front lobby of the Lester B. Pearson building on what is now dubbed “the sovereign wall.” History and Canada’s traditions clearly matter a lot to this government. Will the Canadian Red Ensign, our flag before 1965, be resurrected next to replace the Maple Leaf, a Pearson-Liberal creation that was much derided at the time, but which Canadians have grown to accept if not love?

Email

Share

The “royal” retrofit to the Navy and Air Force titles plays to tradition and history important to military narratives. But the Conservative Government somehow computes that cherished devotion to being a “realm” of the British Royal Family suits Canadian identity in a much wider sense, including the goofy notion it distinguishes us from Americans. What a depressingly diminishing and out-of-date national self-concept.

The entrance lobby of the Lester Pearson HQ of Foreign Affairs now boasts a “Sovereign’s Wall”, featuring a VAST wall-sized photo-portrait of the Queen, a form of official decor reminiscent of Ceacescu’s Romania. Such contrived official over-devotion baffles the rest of the world, including, incidentally, the British. Yet, the mental contortion persists that a hereditary Royal Family from another country can credibly play the role of Heads of State to modern Canadians. I once cheerfully reminded a Very Senior Royal Person an Act of Parliament had conferred Canadian citizenship at birth. “A Canadian citizen? Am I really?” the Person responded. “How very odd.” Very odd indeed.

Email

Share

The Conservative Government’s fifties mindset and colonialist druthers, not to forget its partisan instincts, were on unmistakable display during the latest royal visit. The Prime Minister and cabinet fawning over a young couple who have accomplished little beyond celebrity – she at least works at it; he was just born into it – the giant, ugly picture of the Queen hung at the entrance of Foreign Affairs, so that visitors can be in no doubt that Canada or at least some attractable voter demographic of Canada (the Maritimes?) still clings to an apron string, the return to memory lane to please Air Force and Navy geezers — as if the service of the subsequent two generations of the military had not been all it could be deprived, as it was, of royal insignia. It was all so retro. What next—“Father Knows Best”?

The too much protested insistence that “the royals are our royals, the Queen is our Queen” reminded me of my encounter with the Queen of Canada when I was Canada’s ambassador in Bonn.  She was visiting Germany, her office said, to promote British industry. Convoked into the royal presence with other Commonwealth representatives for a photo op, I asked one of the Queen’s senior courtiers if I could give her a list of Canadian businesses in Germany she might promote at the same time, given that she was Queen of Canada and all. I interpreted his blank look as a “no”. I note that the last leg of the recent royal couple’s great Americas adventure ended in Hollywood, where they promoted “British contributions in the field of film, television and video games”. I guess it was too much to expect “our” royals to promote Canadian contributions, too.   The British recognize, even if our current leaders don’t, that the Queen of Canada shtick is for the Canadian colony’s consumption only.

Email

Share