# Ottawa pumps up military role in citizenship ceremonies



## kilekaldar (1 Jul 2011)

Ottawa pumps up military role in citizenship ceremonies
JOE FRIESEN — DEMOGRAPHICS REPORTER
From Friday's Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Jun. 30, 2011 9:51PM EDT
Last updated Thursday, Jun. 30, 2011 10:27PM EDT

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-pumps-up-military-role-in-citizenship-ceremonies/article2083103/



The Conservative government is strengthening the symbolic power of the military in public life by having a member of the Canadian Forces play a prominent role in citizenship ceremonies.

In an operational bulletin issued earlier this year, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration said highlighting the service of members of the armed forces is a way to underline to every new Canadian the rights and responsibilities that come with citizenship. 

The bulletin, which describes military service as one of the highest expressions of citizenship, states that members of the military should be seated on the main platform with the citizenship judge, that they can stand in the receiving line congratulating new citizens and that they may give a two- to three-minute speech. Where possible, the bulletin says the preference is for veterans of the war in Afghanistan.

The increased prominence of the military at these ceremonies is in keeping with other gestures made by Stephen Harper’s government. The new citizenship handbook, Discover Canada, for example, which was introduced by Minister Jason Kenney in 2009, placed much more emphasis on Canadian military history than the preceding guide.

Michael Fellman, a professor emeritus of history at Simon Fraser University, said it’s part of a gradual militarization of Canadian culture under the Conservatives.

“The Tories are in a long-range campaign to change Canadian values and make them more conservative,” Prof. Fellman said. “This is a way to show that the military is at the core of the meaning of citizenship.

“It’s an attempt to imbue new citizens with awareness of the military, and the military means a whole host of other things, sacrifice for freedom and all that stuff and it rallies people around these very chauvinistic values. It’s not the Canada I prefer to think about.”

Mr. Kenney’s office did not respond to an interview request.

RCMP officers in red serge have for a long time held prominent roles at citizenship ceremonies, so the inclusion of the military is not without parallel.

Major Pete Saunders, a member of the air force who served overseas in support of the war in Afghanistan, has participated in four citizenship ceremonies over the last year. He said he sat on stage with the citizenship judge, a representative of the citizenship and immigration ministry, the local MPP, an RCMP officer and a representative of the local native band.

“What we want to impress upon [the new citizens], much in the same way as the RCMP officer, is that we’re here to serve them. We’re not here to beat them down. We’re not here to cause them fear,” Major Saunders said. “That’s central to our message, so they understand that when we go on operations it’s at the behest of a democratically elected government and they have a hand in who that government is.”

Citizenship ceremonies often involve new Canadians from countries with a history of military dictatorship. Sending a message that in Canada the uniform is a symbol that can be trusted is important, Major Saunders said.

In its operational bulletin, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration issued instructions that the military member should be officially recognized during the ceremony and thanked for his or her service and dedication to Canada.

The citizenship judge or presiding official is asked in their opening remarks to say something along the lines of this sample text from the bulletin: “As a Canadian citizen, you live in a democratic country where individual rights and freedoms are respected. Thousands of brave Canadians have fought and died for these rights and freedoms. The commitment to Canada of our men and women in uniform should never be forgotten or go unrecognized. We thank them.”


----------



## Journeyman (1 Jul 2011)

kilekaldar said:
			
		

> [Prof. Fellman said].... the military means a whole host of other things, sacrifice for freedom and all that stuff  and it rallies people around these very chauvinistic values. It’s not the Canada I prefer to think about.”


  :


----------



## Neill McKay (1 Jul 2011)

It's his mention of "very chauvinistic values" that gives me pause, whichever shade of meaning he gives to "chauvinistic".

Jack Granatstein would have made for an interesting counterpoint.


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Jul 2011)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> It's his mention of "very chauvinistic values" that gives me pause, whichever shade of meaning he gives to "chauvinistic".
> 
> Jack Granatstein would have made for an interesting counterpoint.



Bravo for speaking the truth, Professor Emeritus Fellman! Canada is indeed well known globally as a chauvinistic society.  We don't let women do anything that might risk their fragile bodies or spirits...especially not anything as manly as operating in combat zones...







...oh, wait....  :

[sarcasm ends]

Professor "not-quite-so-emeritus" Fellman needs to give his head a very hard shake for bleating out such an incredibly misguided statement and ridiculing the contribution that women have made to the Canadian Forces and Canada's efforts world-wide.  Shame on him!


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Jul 2011)

In fairness, G2G, the professor may have been using the word properly: to mean, roughly, _jingoism_.

Even if he was, it's still a damned silly thing to say.


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Jul 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In fairness, G2G, the professor may have been using the word properly: to mean, roughly, _jingoism_.
> 
> Even if he was, it's still a damned silly thing to say.





> “It’s an attempt to imbue new citizens with awareness of the military, and the military means a whole host of other things, sacrifice for freedom and all that stuff and it rallies people around these very chauvinistic values. It’s not the Canada I prefer to think about.”



If he wants to play the part of the haughty, very well-educated, dare I say erudite, professor by using it in the old fashioned sense of "Militant devotion to and glorification of one's country; fanatical patriotism.*" then perhaps he should find a more professional phrase than "all that stuff." 'Stuff' doesn't represent particularly well the contribution made by a country's men and women who have died in the service of their country and it's national values and interests.

Still not impressed with Professor Fellman's rather inarticulate messaging.  Disappointing.

Regards
G2G

* - Def'n 1. Chauvinistic


----------



## toyotatundra (1 Jul 2011)

I just want to say thank you to all the veterans here who risked their lives for "that stuff".

 :yellow:


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Jul 2011)

Granatstein's take on Fellman:


> .... "All that stuff." Values like sacrifice, freedom, resisting aggression.
> 
> To Fellman, those values equal chauvinism, and chauvinism is just another name for Toryism.
> 
> ...


Source:  _Ottawa Citizen_, 5 Jul 11


----------



## Nemo888 (5 Jul 2011)

Seems like a good idea to meet your new boss on their first day on the job.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jul 2011)

While Fellman's rationale for opposing _"all that stuff"_ is nonsensical and makes me wonder how he ever got to be a professor of anything, he is, I think, correct in suggesting that some (not *the*) Tories are, indeed, trying to change our national 'values,' and making us all more conscious and respectful of our military (past, present and future) is part of that project.

Many Conservatives are followers of Brian Lee Crowley and, especially, of part of the argument he made in his book, _Fearful Symmetry_ ~ to wit the thesis that part of Canada (French speaking Canada) has led us from being a nation of _makers_ and has turned us, instead, into a "nation of takers." Those Conservatives see the "decade*s* of darkness" as having begun in 1965 when Lester Pearson invited his French Canadian "three wise men" (Jean Marchand, Gérard Pelletier and Pierre Trudeau) into the Liberal party and into his government.

I have no doubt that the Conservative brain trust does want to change our (Canadians') attitudes and values; that's part of their project to make the Conservatives the "natural governing party," one which is turned out of office, temporarily, every 10 to 20 years or so, for a brief period of rebuilding. We, the CF and the broader military _community_ and those who already value a strong, professional military, will enjoy some (not unlimited) support and respect from that party. But we are being used as tools, only a few Conservative politicians - although, arguably, more than in the NDP or Liberal Party - have a real sense of deep respect and understanding of the CF. Prime Minister Harper is not one of that few, I suspect; but he might be a good workman who uses his tools with some care and skill. If so we will be well enough served by his political leadership.


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Jul 2011)

Why do you suspect?


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jul 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Why do you suspect?




I see nothing in Harper's words or deeds that says that he _values_ the CF as other than a policy _tool_. In contrast, there are a few Tories, including some MPs, who value the CF as a Canadian _institution_ that contributed, contributes and will contribute much to our national character and to those things we hold most dear. Perhaps I'm wrong; perhaps Harper sees the Cf as more than just a useful implement - but I said that I suspect, not that I know.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (5 Jul 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> . . .  But we are being used as tools, only a few Conservative politicians - although, arguably, more than in the NDP or Liberal Party - have a real sense of deep respect and understanding of the CF. *Prime Minister Harper is not one of that few, I suspect*; but he might be a good workman who uses his tools with some care and skill. If so we will be well enough served by his political leadership.



As is often the case, I am in agreement with your analysis.

In the 1990s when I left the Regular Force, there had been a significant delay in receiving benefits of my retirement (i.e. I wasn't getting any of the money owed me).  After I had exhausted all the normal channels without success, I then contacted the office of my MP in the hope that a query from an MP would jumpstart whomever was responsible for correcting the situation. Having been (though far, far down the totem pole at NDHQ) on the receiving end of MP requests and minqueries, I was aware of the attention paid to such questioning.  I was a little surprised, actually flabbergasted, when the staffer I spoke with about my previously sent letter, informed me that the MP did not deal with such problems from soldiers because "he doesn't see the need and they don't vote in his riding".  The MP in question (at the time a Reform member) was Stephen Harper.  Granted, this staffer may not have been accurately quoting his boss, but one would expect that an MP's staff are a reflection of his views.  The staffer did, however, suggest that I direct my request to the MP in the neighbouring riding, (who was the leader of the party, Preston Manning) whose staff did intervene on my behalf and (magically) all the difficulties with my pension were resolved within a day.  I had always supposed that the suggestion to seek help from Mr. Manning was due to Mr. Harper resigning as an MP a couple of weeks later.

While I have never had any meaningful conversation with Mr. Harper, save ordering pancakes from him at a Stampede pancake breakfast (mandatory events for politicians in Calgary - where, incidentally, his pancake making skills were poor) suffice to say, that incident has coloured my opinion about Mr. Harper when it is protrayed that he is a "friend of the military".


----------



## Gronk (5 Jul 2011)

The Conservatives talk a good game but, while I'm sure there are many that honestly respect and appreciate the military, take a look at their inaction in cleaning up VAC and bringing back disability pensions. Where the rubber meets the road, it's all about the dinars not duty. However, it is my opinion that the other parties in this country have nothing but contempt for the military.


----------



## CougarKing (5 Jul 2011)

I don't think this has been posted before (at least I couldn't find it in a search here)- an initiative to reconnect Canadians to the military:

The Seven Year Project

Note the sections about resurrecting the COTC. 

COTC article

COTC and comparison of with ROTC (US) and OTC (UK and Australia) programs


----------



## dapaterson (6 Jul 2011)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> I don't think this has been posted before (at least I couldn't find it in a search here)- an initiative to reconnect Canadians to the military:
> 
> The Seven Year Project
> 
> ...



Please, for the lopve of god, no.

The CF is already over-officered; creating a new program to create still more officers without any defined requirement promises future disaster and current costs that are avoidable and unnecessary.


----------



## toyotatundra (6 Jul 2011)

Thanks S.M.A. for the great links on COTC.


----------



## john10 (6 Jul 2011)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> I don't think this has been posted before (at least I couldn't find it in a search here)- an initiative to reconnect Canadians to the military:
> 
> The Seven Year Project
> 
> ...



"students would enrol as cadets who might be headed for the officer corps of the reserves, but with no risk of being called up to fight in Afghanistan or anywhere else and no obligation to make a service commitment beyond graduation. "

Sounds like a waste of money to me.


----------



## Journeyman (6 Jul 2011)

john10 said:
			
		

> Sounds like a waste of money to me.


Why? 
I would think that providing a younger generation with a knowledge of the military, some planning and leadership skills, factual counter-arguments on some military matters to leftist professors, and a personal linkage to "our" people would be a good thing, whether they choose to continue serving or not.


----------



## toyotatundra (6 Jul 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> factual counter-arguments on some military matters to leftist professors



One of the COTC articles, perhaps unintentionally, demonstrates that such counter-arguments are needed. Judging by a number of media articles posted here recently, there are more than a few university professors with a seriously ignorant view of what values the CF defends.



> Dr. Giroux, professor in the department of English and cultural studies at McMaster University, says that even such a small program would serve to speed the elimination of free, public space. “Universities are one of the few places left where people can actually debate and learn how to hold power accountable. Most of the public spheres have now been commercialized, and if they’re not commercialized, they’re militarized.”


----------



## armyvern (6 Jul 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> We don't let women do anything that might risk their fragile bodies or spirits...especially not anything as manly as operating in combat zones...



The guy's a twit. Send him on over; I can employ him all right.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jul 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Why?
> I would think that providing a younger generation with a knowledge of the military, some planning and leadership skills, factual counter-arguments on some military matters to leftist professors, and a personal linkage to "our" people would be a good thing, whether they choose to continue serving or not.




I agree. As I recall - and my recollections may be faulty - COTC cost relatively little: a small (two or three people) staff at each university with a COTC contingent was, I think, the main thing we don't have today. (Now, in fairness, that equaled enough people to staff a tank squadron, so ...) Sometimes a small saving was made when the COTC contingent OC (called the ULO (University Liaison Officer) if memory serves) was an officer doing graduate studies at the university.

On the plus side: COTC made for better _integration_ of regular and reserve forces, at least at the officer level. ROTP candidates at civilian universities (now ROTP plus a whole host of programmes like UTPNCM (if we still call it that)) and COTC candidates paraded and trained together at university and COTC and ROTP candidates were, usually, mixed for summer phase training. This reduced, somewhat, the "we/they" mentality that colours too much of the military debates over regular/reserve issues.

The slight visible presence of CF members at universities was also, I think, a good thing - even though cowardly admirals and generals, bureaucrats and politicians, caved in, in the late 1960s and during the 1970s, and attempted to both civilianize the CF and make it invisible to the general public.


----------



## Neill McKay (6 Jul 2011)

john10 said:
			
		

> "students would enrol as cadets who might be headed for the officer corps of the reserves, but with no risk of being called up to fight in Afghanistan or anywhere else and no obligation to make a service commitment beyond graduation. "
> 
> Sounds like a waste of money to me.



Those are the terms of service for any reservist; there's nothing new or unusual in that.

I like the idea.  I think it would be a great opportunity to connect with the civilian population and put a military presence in some of the smaller university towns that have little, if any, now.

The issue of regular/reserve integration hadn't occurred to me but I think there would be a lot of value in that as well.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Jul 2011)

A brief thought exercise:

If we assume 100 institutions of higher learning in Canada that participate in such a program, each with 10 OCdts in the first year.  And we assume no failures, and a four-year program.

That means we've added 100x10x4 new officer cadets to the mix, or 4000.  If we assume each works our standard reserve model of 41 days per training year (Sept-May; that's 37.5 +9% PILL), plus 100 days per summer, that is 141 days x 4000 = 564 000 days; using OCdt(2) pay scale of $101.82 per day that's $57 432 120 per year in pay.  DND assumes benefits cost is 20% of pay; that's another $11 486 424. Plus 300 full-time staff (3 per location) at a cost of $300K per year per location, of $30M.

So far, without a single round downrange, no issue of uniforms, no travel to training, we've spent nearly $100M on this program.  Every year.  Which will churn out, on schedule, 1000 more officers every year.  When we already have a military that is over-officered (roughly 1 to 3 in the Reg F, and 1:5 in the P Res), producing an additional 1K officers per year (slightly less in reality, to account for failures, withdrawls, and the offsets from current ROTP).

So, who has an employment plan for 1000 more officers every year, in the Reserves or in the Reg F?

More importantly, who has a current program costing $100M that they are willing to sacrifice to put this together?  And who has a unit we can take those 300 full-time support positions from?


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jul 2011)

If you want to see the anti-Harper ≈ anti-military ≈ _”I want Trudeau again”_ argument taken beyond its logical extreme consider this, by Prof. Paul Robinson of Ottawa U who manages to prove that you can attend really good universities; you can earn multiple good degrees and you can have some military experience and still end up as a blithering idiot:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Afghan+altered+Canada+values/5051510/story.html 



> Opinion: Afghan war has altered Canada’s values
> 
> By Paul Robinson, The Ottawa Citizen
> 
> ...




First: despite his (limited) service in both the British and Canadian Forces his crack about _”F-35s are exactly the sort of toy generals always love; given a choice, they will always opt for the fanciest, newest, most expensive bit of equipment,_” demonstrates that he knows nothing, not a goddamn thing, about generals – in any army.

Second: the _intrusion_ of the defence ministry into the foreign ministry's domain has been ongoing for at least a couple of centuries. One would have thought that someone with multiple degrees and a speciality in international affairs would have, at least, a very rudimentary knowledge of political history.

Peter MacKay was wrong to say that soldiers are the “best' citizens; of course that's hyperbole. It is a lame attempt at extending Churchill's comment about the reservist being twice the citizen.

But Robinson's attempt to drag us back into pacific _Trudeautopia_ is equally misguided and lacks the justification of resting on any sort of foundation at all. The whole thing is the worst sort of idle prattle that gibes academics a bad name.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Jul 2011)

I would like to take you on a trip down memory lane, so to speak. Most of us can recall the times in the late 70s, to the late 90s. Soldiers, sailors and airmen were discouraged from wearing their uniforms off base.
Regulations stated that combats could not be worn to and from work, at all, ever. CSMs would station themselves at the main gate at Kapyong Barracks to catch those in combats in their civilian vehicles. Work dress - we did anything but "work" in it  - made us look like Texaco employees. We were allowed "short stops" on the way home ie gas or milk at the store, but no extended shopping.
We were told in Calgary that combats were "too aggressive" looking to be worn to the bank at lunch hour or stopping at the Shell station for gas. 

I often thought "What the hell is wrong with our generals? Are they not proud of who we are?" 

At least we can wear our CADPAT to Tim's now....not that it got me anything but weird looks....


----------



## George Wallace (6 Jul 2011)

> Contrary to much popular opinion, in the 20 years since the end of the Cold War, the world has become a dramatically safer place. The magnitude of wars worldwide has declined by 60 per cent, and there are few significant threats to Canadian security.



As ERC states, for a professor supposedly well versed on International Affairs, this is a truly unrealistic version of the world today.  The world is far from a much safer place today than during the Cold War.  When we watch Pakistani and Indian nuclear sabre rattling continuing in the background and the wishes of Saudi Arabia to become a member of the nuclear arms race to counter Iran, we are definitely not facing the warm fuzzy peace that Professor Robinson seems to hold in his foggy mind.


----------



## old fart (6 Jul 2011)

Read Robinson's bio...and as E.R. Campbell notes...his service is somewhat limited, but that never stopped Scott Taylor!!  

It looks like he ended his Brit Army 'short service commission' days after 5 years in the Int Corps...likely he was not afforded the chance to soldier-on....I wonder why  :facepalm:  although he did give it a shot this side of the pond..racking up another two years I see in our Reserves.

So basically, he is an edumacated Scott Taylor, both gobby sprogs....not worth listening to....


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (6 Jul 2011)

The Professor is certainly entitled to his opinions. But that is all they are as the "facts" in his op piece don't fit the reality.

However, I have grave difficulties with his views on Libya. First of all, Canada has not had two votes on fighting a war in Libya because we are NOT fighting that war. It is a civil war within Libya and Canada's participation is within a world sanctioned action effected under the newfangled "responsibility to Protect" UN policy, which happens to be one his Liberal and NDP friends fully endorse and even promote. Problem is, if I recollect correctly, the  actual military (that is uniformed) advisers in most western democracies (and as far as I know Canada) have "advised" their political masters that they did not consider R2P to constitute a valid cause for use of military power.

Notwithstanding this "advice" we uniformed personnel of the Western democracies, being ever obedient to our political masters, do carry out R2P ops when ordered, as in Libya. Which leads me to a second point on the professor's article: He is completely ignorant of the concept of civilian control of the military in our democracies: It is not and has never been the role of the DND civil servants to have "power" over the military and to exercise control over it. It is the democratically elected government that has this power and it is carried out by the Prime Minister, usually on the basis of recommendations from his Minister of Defense and the technical advice of the CDS, and when applicable with the support of the assent of Parliament. That is where civilian control of the military lies.


----------



## mariomike (6 Jul 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I would like to take you on a trip down memory lane, so to speak. Most of us can recall the times in the late 70s, to the late 90s. Soldiers, sailors and airmen were discouraged from wearing their uniforms off base.
> Regulations stated that combats could not be worn to and from work, at all, ever. CSMs would station themselves at the main gate at Kapyong Barracks to catch those in combats in their civilian vehicles. Work dress - we did anything but "work" in it  - made us look like Texaco employees. We were allowed "short stops" on the way home ie gas or milk at the store, but no extended shopping.
> We were told in Calgary that combats were "too aggressive" looking to be worn to the bank at lunch hour or stopping at the Shell station for gas.
> 
> ...



Some interesting reading and discussions on this topic:
http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=site%3Aarmy.ca+&btnG=Search#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=site:army.ca+uniform+off+duty&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=1&biw=1360&bih=594&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&cad=b


----------



## john10 (6 Jul 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Why?
> I would think that providing a younger generation with a knowledge of the military, some planning and leadership skills, factual counter-arguments on some military matters to leftist professors, and a personal linkage to "our" people would be a good thing, whether they choose to continue serving or not.


This program doesn't do anything that the reserves and ROTP don't already do (provide knowledge of the military, give some planning and leadership skills, act as a linkage).

Also, the idea that we need to have another military component on campus to counter-act "leftist professors" is just silly IMO. I've spent the better part of the past decade studying full-time at four different post-secondary institutions, in the province most hostile to the military, and the hostility that many decry simply isn't there. Perhaps it was in the '90s, I don't know, but I certainly haven't noticed it. There are plenty of young men and women who are in the reserves and ROTP programs while studying at civilian universities.

The COTC sounds redundant, purposeless and wasteful.


----------



## Old Sweat (6 Jul 2011)

The COTC was a pre-Second World War program designed to produce a cadre of trained reserve officers back in the days when we had a tiny permanent force with a primary role of training the reserves. It was less useful when we shifted to a force in being to fight wars without resorting to general mobilization. Now, we do rely on the reserves to augment regular units, and it works, so to re-institute a relic of another era designed for another purpose seems not too bright to me.


----------

