# A New Ceremonial Practice?



## Oldgateboatdriver (6 Sep 2012)

I just went past the harbour here in Montreal this morning and two MCDV's were alongside: SUMMERSIDE and I could not read the other one's name or hull number as she was the inboard ship.

On their starboard outer yardarm, they were both flying a Quebec provincial flag, the "Fleur-de-lys".

Now this type of practice (flying the "local" flag of a country you visit) is called a Courtesy flag, and is in use by  the US Navy, for one. In my days in the Canadian Navy however, we did not do this - for anyone. An old chief of signal once told me (when asked) that in "British tradition" navies such flying by a warship signals a surrender to the nation whose flag you fly (was he pulling my leg with an urban legend - I don't know).

My questions are:

1) Have we changed our practices to now allow the flying of Courtesy flags (or were the two captains just being cute)?

and,
2) Internally in Canada, do we then do this in every province, or just in Quebec to satisfy Prime Minister Harper's recognition of Quebec as a Nation?


----------



## dimsum (6 Sep 2012)

We used to do that for every foreign port (although it was usually the city flag, not the provincial flag) if it was a "show the flag" tour.  We didn't do it if, say we were going to Seattle for a weekend on a MARS 4 trip.

Maybe they didn't have the Montreal flag?  Surely someone must have a Habs jersey they could just hoist  >


----------



## George Wallace (6 Sep 2012)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ................ or just in Quebec to satisfy Prime Minister Harper's recognition of Quebec as a Nation?



Did I miss something?


----------



## yoman (6 Sep 2012)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> just in Quebec to satisfy Prime Minister Harper's recognition of *Québécois* as a *nation within a unified Canada. *



Fixed that.


----------



## navymich (6 Sep 2012)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> We used to do that for every foreign port (although it was usually the city flag, not the provincial flag) if it was a "show the flag" tour.  We didn't do it if, say we were going to Seattle for a weekend on a MARS 4 trip.



We flew city flags for Canadian port visits (if there was one available) and the U.S. Flag for any American ports.


----------



## Pusser (6 Sep 2012)

Hmmm.  I find this very interesting.  CF (and federal government as far as I know) policy is that we do not fly/display ANY provincial flag on a CF establishment or in any of HMC Ships unless we fly/display ALL of them.

I suspect that this was a case of local initiative that went awry because someone couldn't be bothered to look it up.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Sep 2012)

yoman said:
			
		

> Fixed that.


Good catch - here's the PM's speech from 22 Nov 06 for Hansard geeks:





> Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the Bloc Québécois will present the House with an unusual request that we here at the federal Parliament define the Québécois nation. As a consequence, with the support of the government and with the support of our party, I will be putting on the notice paper later today the following motion:
> 
> [Translation]
> 
> ...


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Sep 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Hmmm.  I find this very interesting.  CF (and federal government as far as I know) policy is that we do not fly/display ANY provincial flag on a CF establishment or in any of HMC Ships unless we fly/display ALL of them.
> 
> I suspect that this was a case of local initiative that went awry because someone couldn't be bothered to look it up.




It would seem that the Government of Canada's official site at Canadian Heritage  states only a PRECEDENCE of flags, provincial or otherwise, but not a exigency that all provincial flags MUST be flown:


The National Flag of Canada 
The flags of other sovereign nations in alphabetical order (if applicable) 
The flags of the provinces of Canada (in the order in which they joined Confederation) 
The flags of the territories of Canada (in the order in which they joined Confederation) 
The flags of municipalities/cities 
Banners of organizations 
Historical Flags

As a reminder to those who refer to the Canadian Heritage  website, the provincial precedence per date of joining Confederation  when ALL provincial flags are flown is provided thusly (serving to clarify precedence of provinces with the same date of joining confederation, i.e. ON, QC, NS and NB in 1867 and AB and SK in 1905):


Ontario (1867)
Quebec (1867) 
Nova Scotia (1867) 
New Brunswick (1867) 
Manitoba (1870) 
British Columbia (1871) 
Prince Edward Island (1873) 
Saskatchewan (1905) 
Alberta (1905) 
Newfoundland (1949) 
Northwest Territories (1870) 
Yukon (1898) 
Nunavut (1999) 

Perhaps we could benefit further with a reference that provides greater detail than the Canadian Heritage  site, regarding the use of flags other than the Nation's flag on HMC Ships?


Regards
G2G


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (7 Sep 2012)

Try the Manual of Ceremony for HMC Ships, Submarines, and Naval Reserve Decisions. This in conjunction with the Heritage Structure for the CF are the sole authority for the display of flags.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (7 Sep 2012)

First of all, I am happy to see that everyone clued in on my reference to our Prime Minister.

Second of all: I would be glad to look it up in the Ceremonial Manual, but it just so happens that I am retired and don't have access to one. 

I'd be glad for anyone with access to let me know if the rules have changed thus.


----------



## Pusser (7 Sep 2012)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> It would seem that the Government of Canada's official site at Canadian Heritage  states only a PRECEDENCE of flags, provincial or otherwise, but not a exigency that all provincial flags MUST be flown:
> 
> Perhaps we could benefit further with a reference that provides greater detail than the Canadian Heritage  site, regarding the use of flags other than the Nation's flag on HMC Ships?
> 
> ...



A-AD-200-000/AG-000 (The Honours, Flags and Heritage Structure of the Canadian Forces), Chapt 4, Sect 8 states:

15. Provincial flags shall only be flown on
Department of National Defence (DND) property as a
complete set of all provincial flags, and only for display
purposes such as around a parade square.

16. Municipal flags are not flown on DND property.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Sep 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> A-AD-200-000/AG-000 (The Honours, Flags and Heritage Structure of the Canadian Forces), Chapt 4, Sect 8 states:
> 
> 15. Provincial flags shall only be flown on
> Department of National Defence (DND) property as a
> ...



Does "property" now refer to Her Majesty's Ships, Canadian or otherwise?  Seems a little odd to me.


----------



## Sub_Guy (7 Sep 2012)

Taken from the Manual of Ceremony for HMC Ships/Submarines

Provincial and Municipal Flags
Reference:
1.     A-AD-200-000/AG-000 (Chap. 4 Sec. 8;  page 4-8-6,  paragraphs 9 - 10)
8.     Though provincial flags may be used as miniature distinguishing flags by premiers and ministers representing the provincial government, there are no provincial personal flags for use by premiers or ministers in HMC Ships.  Only the flag of the provincial lieutenant-governor is flown in HMC Ships, and then only in accordance with Chapter 2, section 3, paragraph 9 of this manual.
9.     *Provincial flags shall only be flown ashore as a complete set of all provincial flags, and only for display purposes such as around a parade square*.

10.    Municipal flags are not flown in HMC Ships nor at shore establishments.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (7 Sep 2012)

I think we must distinguish between an HMCS WHICHEVER stood up as a unit of the Canadian Forces and which comprises both the commissioned ship and the crew and all other attendants pieces of equipment and the ship itself, which is property, like any base, building, MBT, airplane, etc. of the armed forces.. So yes, he steel thing that is a ship is property of DND (which is why it can be disposed of as excess crown's assets after we are done with it), while HMCS WHICHEVER is a unit of the RCN


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (7 Sep 2012)

Thank you Dolphin_Hunter. You answered my question, and it is in line with the overall CF policy as stated by Pusser.


----------



## Snakedoc (7 Sep 2012)

It was definitely not unusual to fly courtesy flags on foreign port visits to the US (national flags though obviously).

In terms of provincial flags, I personally haven't seen this done before.  However, from the pictures I've seen taken by friends on the great lakes tour, it appears that this practice has not been limited to Quebec but was also done for Ontario as well.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (7 Sep 2012)

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> It was definitely not unusual to fly courtesy flags on foreign port visits to the US (national flags though obviously).



I agree that we've done it before in the US only, because if you don't, down there, you would be amazed at the number of people walking up to you highly frustrated that you are so "uncouth, insulting to the American people and all around ***hole" for not flying it and letting you know in no uncertain terms. We just do it to avoid any unpleasantness.

Even if you try to explain to them that it is not part of your naval traditions or even permitted by your regulations, it is irrelevant to them: As American, they have a god given right to insist everybody follow their traditions and regulations, which are the only acceptable ones that everyone in the world obviously should strive to emulate /ANTI-AMERICAN RANT OFF.


----------



## MARS (7 Sep 2012)

I have been flying national, provincial and municipal flags my entire career.  I am a deployed CO.  I know both of the COs commanding the Ships currently berthed in Montreal.  There was a push from the Fleet Chief before ships sailed this summer to ensure we had national, provincial, state and municipal flags for all of the port visits for all of the ships making stops this summer, both for GLD and Ops Nanook and Quimiq.  It is seen as a show of respect for the hospitality shown by the city and indeed the province or state of whatever locale we are visiting.

I don't know the reasoning behind the current guidance in Man Sea, but maybe it needs to be re-written.  It is certainly not current practice, nor has it been for some time.  I would do it myself, bu I am at sea.  Maybe I will ask some of my friends working at shore jobs at HQs to look into it.  They likely have more time than me to worry about these things...to even notice those paras exist, quite frankly...I have a multi ship SURFIREX to run in the meantime...


----------



## Gorgo (7 Sep 2012)

MARS said:
			
		

> I don't know the reasoning behind the current guidance in Man Sea, but maybe it needs to be re-written.  It is certainly not current practice, nor has it been for some time.  I would do it myself, bu I am at sea.  Maybe I will ask some of my friends working at shore jobs at HQs to look into it.  They likely have more time than me to worry about these things...to even notice those paras exist, quite frankly...I have a multi ship SURFIREX to run in the meantime...



Hope all goes well on the exercise, sir.


----------



## dimsum (7 Sep 2012)

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> Hope all goes well on the exercise, sir Dude.



There.  More correct (in his case.)  :rofl:


----------



## Nuggs (8 Sep 2012)

Flying national, provincial, and even municipal flags absolutely does happen.

National flags - Every foreign port

Provincial flags - Usually only during great lakes trips or namesake city visits

Municipal flags - Its rare but I have seen it twice

I've even been on 2 ships that had odd and sod corporate flags stowed in their flag locker, though yo be fair I've never seen them used

I know full well that the regs say otherwise but typically the word from on high is what ends up happening.


----------



## Journeyman (8 Sep 2012)

MARS said:
			
		

> Maybe I will ask some of my friends working at shore jobs at HQs to look into it.  They likely have more time than me to worry about these things...to even notice those paras exist, quite frankly...


  :rofl:

Sounds like "those who can, do; those who can't....well, there's always NDHQ"    >


----------



## Pusser (8 Sep 2012)

MARS said:
			
		

> I have been flying national, provincial and municipal flags my entire career.  I am a deployed CO.  I know both of the COs commanding the Ships currently berthed in Montreal.  There was a push from the Fleet Chief before ships sailed this summer to ensure we had national, provincial, state and municipal flags for all of the port visits for all of the ships making stops this summer, both for GLD and Ops Nanook and Quimiq.  It is seen as a show of respect for the hospitality shown by the city and indeed the province or state of whatever locale we are visiting.
> 
> I don't know the reasoning behind the current guidance in Man Sea, but maybe it needs to be re-written.  It is certainly not current practice, nor has it been for some time.  I would do it myself, bu I am at sea.  Maybe I will ask some of my friends working at shore jobs at HQs to look into it.  They likely have more time than me to worry about these things...to even notice those paras exist, quite frankly...I have a multi ship SURFIREX to run in the meantime...



So what other regulations and policies do you feel are unimportant and not worth following?  I was unaware we had the option to choose....


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Sep 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> So what other regulations and policies do you feel are unimportant and not worth following?  I was unaware we had the option to choose....




Actually, *commanders* and *commanding officers*_ *always* have the right, sometimes even the duty, to treat orders as "guidance;" MARS says he is a deployed CO so I will assume that he treats the 30+ linear feet of "guidance" that existed when I was a CO - so there's probably more, now - with all the respect it deserves.

Staff officers, on the other hand, have no such discretion because they have no command *responsibility*. When I was a staff officer, a fairly senior one, I had two responsibilities:

1. To assist my commander in the exercise of his/her command by relieving him/her of details; and

2. Helping subordinate formations and units to carry out their assigned tasks by, inter alia, helping to manage resources and coordinate orders and instructions.

In my professional opinion the CF has far, far, far too many orders and regulations - so many that commanders cannot possibly know, or care, sadly, which apply where. Further, too many staff officers think that they have some right to give orders. That is not true. It might have appeared to be true in e.g. the Wehrmacht in the 1940s but I think a fair reading of their system will show that staff officers coordinated the execution of their commanders' orders.

If, and it's a Big IF, the COs of the two MCDVs in question have broken any rules - any rules about which anyone in command cares, anyway - I'm sure they will answer for that in due course and in the right place: their commander's cabin.

Personally, I find MARS' explanation of the "courtesy" towards countries, provinces, states and cities being visited compelling - maybe it's time to amend the rules.

Meanwhile, I have a bowl of pepper out which I need someone, a staff officer, to pick the fly-shit ... over to you, Pusser._


----------



## Pusser (8 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Actually, *commanders* and *commanding officers*_ *always* have the right, sometimes even the duty, to treat orders as "guidance;" MARS says he is a deployed CO so I will assume that he treats the 30+ linear feet of "guidance" that existed when I was a CO - so there's probably more, now - with all the respect it deserves.
> 
> Staff officers, on the other hand, have no such discretion because they have no command *responsibility*. When I was a staff officer, a fairly senior one, I had two responsibilities:
> 
> ...


_

I'm not saying that the rules are good ones.  In fact, I agree that there are many rules that should be changed.  However, rules are not made in isolation, nor are they made with the express purpose of making life difficult.  They all exist for a reason and unless one knows precisely why those rules exist it the first place AND why the conditions that caused them to be there are no longer relevant, then one needs to tread with caution before breaking them.  If a rule needs to be changed, fine.  Then take the time to build the argument and make the recommendation.  Don't just ignore it.  There are a few former captains and XOs of HMC Ships whom I've kept out of trouble (if not jail) because I intervened and stopped them from ignoring some "stupid" rule.  The usual reaction was to paint me as uncooperative and unsupportive and they certainly didn't thank me for it at the time (although some did come around to thank me later).

Rest assured that the Financial Administration Act is full of many stupid rules (and I have argued the point many times), but you ignore them at your peril.  "That's just a stupid rule," doesn't go over well at a court martial.  Minor transgressions of "stupid rules" have ruined more than one career._


----------



## Scott (8 Sep 2012)

Oh hypocrisy.........

Pusser, you lose more and more credibility with each and every post. Others have noticed.

But you keep thinking you're the only one in step there, fella.


----------



## Pusser (8 Sep 2012)

Scott said:
			
		

> Oh hypocrisy.........
> 
> Pusser, you lose more and more credibility with each and every post. Others have noticed.
> 
> But you keep thinking you're the only one in step there, fella.



Please explain how I'm being hypocritical.


----------



## Strike (8 Sep 2012)

No one is talking about breaking the rules of the FAA, so why even use that as an example, especially considering the consequences, which would in no way compare to someone breaking a rule set up by Heritage.

I find your use of examples always tends to move towards the extreme, and really wish you would try to stick to things that are a little more relevant.

As a staff officer (on my second tour as one) your job is to advise, not to say yes or no.  That is the job of the Commander.  If the Commander (in this case, the COs of the MCDVs or MARS) decides to fly a certain flag, it would be up to one of his advisors, aka staff officers, to inform on the regs.  The ultimate decision remains with the CO.  To argue that decision after the fact is disrespectful of the CO and everything they bring to the table.


----------



## Scott (8 Sep 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Please explain how I'm being hypocritical.



Oh I don't know, your wilful ignorance of rules put in place for your protection, and for those around you coupled with your pounding of the pedantic book when it suits your purpose (which Edward finally nailed down for me)

Go ahead, try to (again) argue your way out of it, you are only going to look (again) like a backpedalling fool.

What makes you look even more stupid are your claims that you have so graciously and heroically saved highers from getting their dinks whacked with your timely and all seeing/knowing advice. Yet you are so fucking ignorant of the same sort of advice given to you (even when it's without the self serving back patting, mind you)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Sep 2012)

There's a reason the sarcastic line "Hi I'm from HDHQ and I'm here to help" has stuck with so many generations of soldiers, sailors and airmen.  

It's because the meddling Staff bureaucracy has never abated from throwing sand into the fine tuned watchworks of the daily operation of the military.


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Sep 2012)

I can think of a number of non-fiduciary policies which I not only intend on applying my Command prerogative to, but for which I have already informed my Commander of the reasoning for the diversion from, and manner in which I intend on adjusting the Unit's conduct of the activity in question.  If, hypothetically, I apply my command discretion to direct the painting of "nose art" on my Unit's aircraft to mirror that carried by related aircraft during wartime, then, so long as the FAA or QR&Os are not being contravened, I am more than willing to advise my Commander of my intentions and seek his endorsent as well as to propose my and my staff's support to address any lower-level directives that might otherwise require amendment to ensure legit act and approval of the actions.  Having worked numerous staff positions ranging from the tactical, through operational to the strategic and seconded National, I appreciate greatly the duties of a staff officer that Mr. Campbell has so clearly addressed, and the context within which attention to detail by a staff officer in support of his or her respective Commander is fundamental.  It is also the duty of a staff officer or branch advisor to inform and ensure that a Commander is provided the most accurate and unbiased assessment of a situation within which a Commander finds him or herself.

Pusser, you alluded to keeping many a CO out of trouble, and if the advice you provided to your CO advised them of a fiduciary or legislative regulation which they would have otherwise contravened, then that is good, it is one of the duties of a competent staff officer to undertake.  However, when the policy or regulation in question has neither a fiduciary nor legislative basis, then one must consider if "following the rules" is indeed the most appropriate course of action.  When the rule is in fact doctrine, tactics, techniques, procedures or codified traditions that may not meet the current exigencies of the situation, then there should be no question that a Commander's discretion, particularly when qualified with having received either direction or advice from superior Commanders or their staffs on their direction, is either failing to meet either the spirit or the written word of command.

MARS has provided his thoughts on how colleagues likely dealt with a situation where the intent of the apparent actions by HMC Ships' Captains met both the spirit of traditions-based policies as well as complied with higher Cmander's intent.  I see nothing negative coming from the situation, save for upsetting some who appear to believe that adherence to any rule is or should be sacrosanct.  Those who have been involved in the writing of regulations, policies or doctrine (I have done so in two different staff tours) will appreciate that any amendments to such guidance flows from continual assessment of existing directives, policies or regulations.  They also know that pursuit, either formally or informally of amendment to such vehicles takes time and staffing effort and that so long as endorsed by high Command, should not preclude Commanders at lower levels of command from exercising the judgement and common sense that the Chain of Command saw in those Commanders such that they were entrusted with the lives of servicemen and women and the crown's property.

To be clear, Pusser, some of your points had validity. However, I firmly believe that your application of elements of that logic to HMCS Summerside and the other MCDV regarding the flying of the Quebec provincial flag while in port, badly misses the mark regarding the respect of the spirit of the original ceremonial directives, as well as failing notably to appreciate the place where a Commander's discretion exists to ensure that the presence and conduct of his or her personnel and CF resources represent the CF in the best light to the Canadian people.  The phrase "separating the wheat from the chaff" or other equivalent most assuredly comes to my mind when I think of the kind of staff officer's advice that you espouse.

I think that the HMC Ships' Captains showed due regard for the situation, all things considered. One can only imagine what a national media event the Ships' presence in Montréal would have cause if the crew had carried out what some staff officer far disconnected from the situation would espouse, ringing the Ships' railings with the flags of all the Provinces and Territories, particularly approaching the eve of the Quebec provincial election...yes, that would have been the intelligent thing to do, wouldn't it? 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Sep 2012)

At the risk of derailing this thread and, thereby, discussing something that matters, I would like to share some anecdotal evidence ...

 :trainwreck:

Many years decades in the past, when I was a junior officer, the adjutant was sent away on a course and I was appointed Acting Adjutant for several weeks. I was (barely) qualified in that I had passed promotion exams which had required me to demonstrate some _familiarity_, or more, with unit administration and discipline.

In the lead up to my new job the adjutant and I worked together for a week. On the first day I arrived in his office to find a second desk, for me, and four rather daunting piles of books and papers: QA(Army) (QR&O, today), Canadian Army Orders, in their bright red covers, (CFAOs or whatever you call them today), Adjutant General's Instructions (AGIs) (I'm not sure what they're called today but they were all the rules governing military personnel and a few regarding civilian personnel, too) and Quartermaster General's Instructions (QMGIs) (I'm not sure what they're called now, either, but they, like AGIs, were *orders*, not _guidance_ that bound our CO on supply matters.) There were, of course, also Financial Orders but, thankfully, there was a paymaster in every unit who helped the CO (and Adjutant) with those.

"You must know these, ERC, said the Adjutant; *know* and understand, in detail, before I leave.

Can anyone imagine being told to "know," in detail, CFAOs (or whatever they are)? 

There, of course, was the first difference between the well managed Canadian Army, in the 1960s, and what is, in my opinion a mismanaged, indeed over-managed CF fifty years later:

1. QR(Army) were about the same size as your QR&O except that Vol II (discipline) was thinner because we cared much more for _military *justice*_ than we did for _military *law*_. I was, already, fairly familiar with QR(Army) as they were examined - all three volumes - on promotion exams;

2. CAOs came in bright red hard covered ring binders - only about 9" high - and they contained ALL the orders that the _Chief of the General Staff_ needed to give to commanders of commands, areas, formations (brigades) and units. They were thick binders - about 4" thick, as I recall - but there were only two of them and neither was full, so I had, maybe, four or five inches of reading;

3. AGIs and QMGIs each came in one (fairly thick) file folder each - maybe 2 to 3" of reading overall.

That was it - all that a CO really needed to "know." Of course there were instructions and regulations and such for the QM and the Dentist and the RCEME Officer and, and, and ... but while they were, indeed, regulations, we were all taught, during officer training, that with a few notable exceptions (care and custody of drugs by the MO or cyphers by the SigO, for example) they were not binding on a CO ~ rather the intention was, as it should have been, to tell the QM and Catering Warrant Officer and MO etc how to best do their special jobs in normal circumstances - in abnormal circumstances, emergencies, those specialists, and all officers and soldiers, would look to the CO to give real orders that would be suitable for the situation.

Several years later I took command of my own Regiment:

1. QR&Os were still there - a bit thicker and in new covers but, still, essentially the same;

2. CAOs (all two volumes) had been replaced by a whole bookcase that was 2/3 full of CFAOs - no one, certainly not my smart, well trained, experienced adjutant knew what was in them all.

3. When I visited the QM, I discovered that he, too, had a full bookcase of orders and the adjutant had a filing cabinet full of "personnel" orders.

I no longer had a paymaster - but I did have two sets of conflicting orders on finances: one from my own command HQ and another from the Base Comd )(I was a "lodger" on another command's base).

As it happened I had occasion to protest something from command HQ and I measured all the orders - it came, as I recall, to 17 linear feet of orders! It was, I suggested to the great and the good, arrant nonsense to expect a unit to conform to such a monster. The commander, a doughty old soldier named J.J. Paradis, agreed and, formally, reminded all commanders, COs and, especially, staff officers that we were to be "guided" by the umpteen feet of _bumph_ in our offices and that and we *commanders* commanded our formations and units in accordance with the (very few) well established principles that had been handed down to us and the (even fewer) direct orders he issued from time to time.

In my opinion the CF, led by the many able, intelligent, diligent staff officers in HQs at all levels, needs to have a book burning: those smart, industrious staff officers need to examine every damned rule and regulation and ask: "Why?" When, most often, there will be no good answer that staff officer needs to go up his chain of responsibility suggesting that this that and the other regulation is unnecessary and should be rescinded. I understand that is a HUGE effort but staff officers are there to help their own commanders and his or her subordinate commanders by relieving them of detail, not adding to it.


Edit: spelling


----------



## MARS (8 Sep 2012)

I would just like to add something to my last post for context, lest it come off as a childish rant, which it wasn't, I was just busy.

I am not against staff providing me with guidance from the multitude of regulations that exist, on "how to do things right".  That is what staff exists for - to assist Commanders in th field and at sea in making decisions.  And HQ staff are particularly valuable in this role, as they may pick up on things that my own, deployed staff might have missed.

But it is my decision, indeed my responsibility, to weigh the regulations among a myriad of other factors in arriving at a course of action.  That course of action may not be done "the right way" bu it will ALWAYS be "the right thing" that enables me to accompany my assigned mission.

A few weeks ago, my Fleet Commander visited the port I was in as part of the welcoming ceremony by the city.  At the ceremony he was provided with a large municipal flag.  Immediately after the ceremony, he asked me if I had one.  I replied that i did not, and he told me to go back to my ship and hoist it.

Now, I could have said "Sir, that would not be IAW sub para 'xyz' of the Sea/Ceri manual.  But I can assure all of you that my part of the rest of that conversation would have gone like this:

"Yes sir, you are correct, no one is going to die or otherwise be injured if we do this"

"yes sir, again, you are correct, no one is going to jail or will otherwise get into trouble of we do this"

"Of course sir, it WOULD be a nice sign of thanks and respect to fly this, as the representative of the RCN and indeed Canada in this port, seeing as how the city JUST presented it to you, and the city council will be coming aboard shortly for lunch."

Just some perspective from my position....

Edited to add: I didn't read all of the posts above mine prior to this one, where others pretty much said what I just did...only better


----------



## Old Sweat (8 Sep 2012)

Reducing the paper load was tried at least once that I recall with a striking lack of success. How many staff officers are going to recommend eliminating their position in NDHQ or a command headquarters? In fact, I suggest that we could see a new order imposed because of the contents of the CANFORGEN that kicked off this thread.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/107294/post-1171107;topicseen#new


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Sep 2012)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Reducing the paper load was tried at least once that I recall with a striking lack of success. How many staff officers are going to recommend eliminating their position in NDHQ or a command headquarters? In fact, I suggest that we could see a new order imposed because of the contents of the CANFORGEN that kicked off this thread.
> 
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/107294/post-1171107;topicseen#new




I *know* you are right,     but I *wish* you weren't.


----------



## Journeyman (9 Sep 2012)

Scott said:
			
		

> Oh I don't know, your wilful ignorance of rules put in place for your protection, and for those around you coupled with your pounding of the pedantic book when it suits your purpose (_which Edward finally nailed down for me_)
> 
> Go ahead, try to (again) argue your way out of it, you are only going to look (again) like a backpedalling fool.


Yes, E.R. Campbell pointed out how command/staff works; PPCLI Guy did the same a month or so back in no uncertain terms; current operational commanders like MARS and Good2Golf have as well.

Does anyone: 
a) expect the message to be taken onboard? 
b) wonder why some people are pegged as pedantic HQ types neither trusted with troops nor understanding 'command'?

       :not-again:

[Please -- no response required; you've already firmly established yourself as 'the only one in step.']


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Sep 2012)

Scott said:
			
		

> Oh hypocrisy.........
> 
> Pusser, you lose more and more credibility with each and every post. Others have noticed.
> 
> But you keep thinking you're the only one in step there, fella.


And I'll add once again, Pusser, that you seem to be hell bent on moving towards "that" adjective we spoke about in another thread at light speed this time.  Good Christ, does your spine have even a millimeter of bend in it somewhere?


----------



## Scott (9 Sep 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And I'll add once again, Pusser, that you seem to be hell bent on moving towards "that" adjective we spoke about in another thread at light speed this time.  Good Christ, does your spine have even a millimeter of bend in it somewhere?



Of course. When, and only when, it suits his purpose. 

That which we have yet to figure out.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Sep 2012)

I am often amazed at how fast some threads derail in these forums.

If you look at my initial post, which started it all, you may see that no impropiety on the part of the Captains was implied. I merely wanted to know if the tradition of Courtesy Flags had been adopted and then if the Provinical aspect of it related to Quebec only.

I first got my answer that the Manual of Sea Cermonial had not changed from my days on that aspect at least.

That did not make the Captains wrong, though.

Customs and traditions of the service, compiled as much as possible in the Manual, are neither rules, orders or regulations. That is why the expert on the subject matter is NOT a staff officer, its the Yeoman.

These traditions evolve in all branches of the military to meet new circumstances, but those changes are not done on a whim. [For example, since Canada's practice had always been to burry its soldier where they fought, we did not have a "ramp ceremony" before AFGH.].

Then MARS provided me with the complete answer: There has been evolution on that specific tradition and it has now been adopted in practice. (He mentioned the Fleet Chief - and that makes it an actual customs now). If it is done by all, in the same way, under agreed circumstances, then its just as good as being in the Manual. And personnaly, I have no problem witht that - quite the opposite as a matter of fact - as I always thought even early in my carreer that the old British tradition of not flying them was inconsistent with the new reality of protecting the seas throught cooperation with friendly nations within coalitions (NATO, SEATO, Etc.).

BTW, SUMMERSIDE and her consort were very much in the public eye where they were berthed, in a heavy pedestrian area and located so that their whole upper decks and the inside of the bridges could easily be watched. They both were perfectly well turned out and a credit to the Navy.

MODS: Perhaps this thread should be locked?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Sep 2012)

It's spiralling close to a lock but we'll try with a "keep it on topic folks and knock off the personal attacks" for now.
Bruce


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2012)

Keeping the thread firmly derailed, I'm going to jump to Pusser's defence. The problem is not that he, or any staff officer, wants the regulations enforced: that is, actually commendable, or would be if all the regulation he wants enforced are necessary or even useful and Pusser, himself, acknowledges that some (many? most?) are neither, the problem is that Pusser, like so many people, _in my experience_, mix or misunderstand the rights, duties and responsibilities of *commanders* and the staff.

I want staff officers to be diligent, even nit pickers, and earnest about their jobs - and if they discover that their job is part of the (bigger) problem I hope they will use their skill, knowledge and diligence to put themselves on the "unemployed" list - but I want them to remember that *commanders*, not staff officers, have the ultimate responsibility (duty, and sometimes a burdensome one) to give the orders that commit ships and sailors, regiments and soldiers, and squadrons and aircrew to battle, they (commanders) must be able to live with consequences - sometimes failure, often death, even disgrace - of the orders they give. They share neither the burden nor the responsibility nor the consequences of their decisions with the staff, at any level.

Pussr, like good staff officers, everywhere, keeps reminding us to "do things right." But, earlier, MARS told us that his goal is to "do the right thing." And that brings us back to management guru Warren Bennis who said "Managers are people who do things right; leaders are people who do the right thing." That's not a bad definition of the fundamental difference between _some_ staff officers and _some_ commanders.  

It is a privilege to be an officer - in any capacity. Command is not a greater (or lesser) privilege than staff work: but it is different. Officers are _selected_, hopefully with care,  for both line (command) and staff work. I can assure you, from experience, that the _selection_ for some senior staff appointments is taken very seriously by commanders and even more senior staff officers and when one considers the HUGE burdens which staff officers try to take off their commanders' shoulders then one understands why only the best will do.

So I don't disagree with the earnestness, even _passion_, with which Pusser defends the rules and regulations ~ if fact it is commendable. What bothers me, sometimes, is that too many staff officers think that they are somewhere in the "chain of command;" they aren't and they should not want to be. 

I return to the two duties of the staff:

1. To assist (or support) commanders in the function of command by relieving them of details; and

2. To assist (or support) subordinate formations and units (or ships) in accomplishing their assigned missions by managing resources, coordinating actions, and so on.

If we can all "stay in our lanes" we will do the right thing and do things right, too.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Sep 2012)

I fully agree with ERC's post above. 

However, we must keep in mind that not everything that is written in a book falls within the purview of staff officers for their implementation and advice.

Seamanship during evolutions, customs and traditions of the service, damage control practices, gunnery safety rules etc. Those are all fields amongst others, where books exist for guidance and reference (such as the seamanship manual, the manual of ceremonial, etc.) and even written regulations in some cases. However, no staff officer has any duty of advising and guiding for any of these subjects: it is the line officers that do this.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Sep 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> It's spiralling close to a lock but we'll try with a "keep it on topic folks and knock off the personal attacks" for now.
> Bruce



Well, that didn't work.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------

