I will join this interesting thread with a few personal comments, which I hope will be taken in the spirit in which they are offered.
I think there is a great confusion in many of the posts between "jointness" and "unified", and then there is further confusion between the execution of a "joint" operation at the unit/sub-unit level as opposed to the actual "joint" planning or command of it.
Jungle's last post includes some of this confusion.
First of all, his (hers?) last statement that "everybody else exists to support the infantry" certainly confirms Pusser's view that for the Army, joint means the Army way
The example in Jungle's last post however show two units participating in a joint operation, but at a level that requires jointness from neither: Just because a ship embarks troops for the purpose of landing them somewhere, it does not make it joint in its operation in any way - its just one more normal - I would even say "standard" - naval task. As captain, I have a job to do and do it the Navy way up to the point where my responsibility for those lives ends (which BTW Jungle, is a the water's edge, not when you leave the ship). At that point, the Army unit does whatever it has to do the Army way - in the normal way the Army usually does it. Similarly, if a wing of ground support planes was assigned to support the Army in this example, it would do so the Air Force way. There is nothing "joint" in any of the ways those units act.
The real "jointness" is done at the planning stage - where the Navy, the Army and the Air Forces' staffs are put together to come up with a single overall plan - and potentially at the Command level, where the Officer in overall command of the operation can be from any element (The British overall command of the recapture of the Falklands was a Commodore, Sandy White), regardless of its most important aspect, and the HQ staff supporting it must by necessity include personnel from all three elements. That is jointness .
The idea that "purple trade" should be joint by having experience in all three elements is, pardon my expression, bullshit left over from the old unification days. Whilst armed forces everywhere in the world have proven that each environment requires its own culture - and this culture is quite similar for each environment from one country to the next - none have ever held that some "trades" require an individual culture that crosses from one environment to the other. That is not to say that we cannot have systems that are unified and operated by trades personnel in the same way but within their respective environments. Communicators in all three environment can and do use a "unified" message form. Logistics trades personnel can and do use a "unified" system of Material Distribution Account, etc. This however does not require a sea logistics officer to know how a service battalion works or for a Squadron logistics officer to know how to lead a damage control party, as a sea log would.
So I say, let the trades people learn the unified processes and systems at schools that do not have any Navy/Army/Air Force bias but then let them chose their environment, absorb its culture and live within it. I am sure it would make Pusser and Halifax Tar happy.
As for the original question, while I can live with Canadian Navy, I would be proud to serve the Royal Canadian Navy again.