by Ray Dick

Legion Defence Committee members (from left) Lou Cuppens, Brad White and Buster Brown.

The country’s top military, political and defence analysts gathered in Ottawa in late February for a Conference of Defence Associations meeting which took stock of Canada’s military capability at present and gazed into their crystal balls for a peek at what the future may hold in a world that has radically changed.

And while visions of the future ran the gamut from costly Star Wars scenarios to more of the status quo, there was general agreement that the Canadian military now is underfunded and undermanned and that a thorough review is needed to make sure defence policy can meet the country’s national objectives now and down the road.

Defence Minister Art Eggleton got the ball rolling, telling the defence-minded thinkers that such a review is needed because of the new security environment, “an environment that brings with it additional demands—demands for new capabilities, which cost money, for increased coordination with our partners and for focused co-operation with our allies.”

He said, “A review, or even a focused defence debate, may be ways to achieve this and are among the options we are actively considering.”

Eggleton said it was a harsh wake-up call as the continent came under attack for the first time. The government had reacted on several fronts, allocating $7.7 billion to its budget to fight terrorism, enacting new legislation and contributing some 2,500 Canadian Forces personnel, ships and aircraft to the war on terrorism. Only a small percentage of the additional funding, however, will end up with the Canadian Forces.

There was a pressing need, he said, to prepare for an environment characterized by the unknown, the unseen and the unexpected such as facing down an enemy whose weapons can range from a commercial airliner to chemical weapons to a computer. One of those ways was to share information and cooperate with allies, particularly the United States.

“In many ways, it is difficult to make a distinction between our security and that of our closest neighbour and ally,” he said. “Our geography, our population centres, our lines of commerce and infrastructure make the security of our two countries interdependent‚—and the need to coordinate on defence issues vitally important.” There was a lot to build on, since the two countries have been cooperating on continental defence since about 1940 through the North American Aerospace Defence Command and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

But “defence partnership and coordination do not mean subordination,” said Eggleton, alluding to plans by the Americans to change their continental defence structure by setting up an American commander-in-chief for continental defence and the fears that have been expressed on Norad and the possible loss of Canadian sovereignty. Canada would retain sovereign command over its forces, said Eggleton. It would also have the right to be consulted, the right to act independently and the ability to implement policies in accordance with national interests.

Chief of Defence Staff General Ray Hénault told the conference the Canadian Forces have demonstrated their combat capability in recent years at missions around the world. One of the main challenges, however, to maintaining that combat capability under rapidly changing conditions was simply one of resources.

“The last budget provided new funding for national security and counter-terrorism, but it did not fully address the program funding needed to sustain our current capabilities and levels of activity over the long term,” he said, adding, “we are stretched pretty tight at the moment.”

Hénault said the focus must be on leading-edge equipment and technology that can operate along side other forces, mentioning as an example the international program Canada has already committed to aimed at creating an affordable, stealthy, multi-role fighter aircraft. Development was also under way
to improve the military’s ability to deploy rapidly—including airlift, sealift and air-to-air refuelling.

“Our significant role in the campaign against terrorism is evidence of the high level
of interoperability we have achieved thus far,” he said. “In fact, all of our forces deployed to Operation Apollo are able to work in lock-step with the U.S.-led coalition force. In the process, it is important to note that I retain command of deployed forces, while the U.S. commander—or any other coalition commander, for that matter—only has operational control.”

There was no question, however, on where keynote speaker Jack Granatstein stood on the capability of the Canadian Forces today, and in the debate about closer integration of the Canadian and American militaries in North American defence. The author and former director of the Canadian War Museum says that after 40 years of continuous cutbacks the Canadian military is in its weakest condition in half a century. And the reserves —more critical than ever because of undermanning in the regular forces—were in terrible condition, under strength, ill-equipped and suffering severe morale problems.

“In military terms,” he said, “Canada carries no heft at all.”

Granatstein says he is heartened by suggestions that the Defence Department is seeking to join the U.S. in an integrated continental defence command. “Exactly as with Norad, if we are in the room we will have the chance to help make the decisions. If we are not present, we will be faced with a U.S. fait accompli. But we must have some tangible military assets with genuine combat capability to put on the table—why else would the Americans listen to us at all?” Any danger of loss of sovereignty would come from having a weak military, reliant on the U.S. to set strategic parameters for homeland defence and defence from external threats. ” To have a credible military, very simply, can give us a voice and offers options that weakness cannot.”

Granatstein said that one thing certain is that whatever the future holds it will require well-equipped professional soldiers, sailors and airmen, including a broad-based reserve force trained and equipped for a variety of roles. There would be another crisis—there always was—and if Canadians react to the current situation, “we may be in a better position to react in the next crisis.”

The question of current combat capability was the topic of the first of two panel discussions at the CDA conference, and there was general agreement among the speakers that the Canadian Forces are not in the best of shape, to put it mildly.

Military analyst Martin Shadwick of York University in Toronto said the 1994 White Paper on defence got it right when it said what was needed was a multi-purpose combat-capable force ready to go anywhere on short notice. “The fundamentals of the paper are still reasonably intact,” he said, “but the problem is underfunding and understaffing.” Most military and political analysts and observers agree that the forces need at least $1 billion a year over the next five years in additional funding just to maintain the status quo. There is also general agreement that manpower, now about 52,000 effective troops, should be boosted to the 60,000 authorized in the white paper.

In regard to recent developments in homeland defence and overseas commitments, said Shadwick, it was obvious that a policy review was needed.

Retired lieutenant-commander Richard Gimblett, now a consultant, was thinking along the same lines. Strategic direction and basic guidelines were needed in the military, but it would be all for naught if manpower was not increased to man the ships and planes and to fill the ranks. Funding for the military had to be restored, especially for the army which had borne the brunt of cutbacks over the last several years. He also emphasized the needed ability to deploy by airlift and sealift, “neither of which exists now.” An example was the recent deployment of Canadian Forces to Kandahar. The Canadians hitched a ride to Afghanistan on American transport aircraft.

The second panel discussion looked to the future.

Defence analyst Jim Fergusson of the University of Manitoba said there is a near-zero possibility of a war between the great powers. The types of combat that could be expected were wars of intervention led by the U.S., or wars of failed states. But with the U.S. jump ahead in technology, other militaries, including Canada, could have some difficult choices to make. “Outer space could become the fourth dimension of warfare,” he said. “There would be political benefits, but the costs could be enormous.” In any case, the U.S. would define the future that all militaries would follow.

MP David Pratt, chairman of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, had a more grounded view of the future.

“I believe it is safe to say that the next 20 years will be a lot like the last 10 with perhaps a few surprises along the way,” he said. “What is clear to me is that over the next 20 years in pursuing international peace and security, the world will need Canada. What is also clear to me is that Canada will need modern, well trained, interoperable, multi-purpose combat capable forces.”

_{Statue Pays Tribute To The Canadian Women’s Army Corps}

When the last of the buildings they trained in during WW II was slated to be demolished to make way for a new armoury, some former members of the Canadian Women’s Army Corps set out to leave a reminder of their legacy.

Kitchener, Ont., was one of three centres, along with ones in Quebec and Alberta, where young women answered the call of duty and got basic training before serving in Canada, Britain and Northwestern Europe. Established in August 1941, the CWAC eventually had 22,000 members who served as drivers, clerks, stock controllers, medical assistants and signallers in order to free up men for combat roles. Once formally accepted into the army structure, the members had ranks and uniforms like other soldiers. The corps was disbanded in 1946.

Kay Hall of nearby New Hamburg, Ont., and Jean Sivyer of Baden decided they should at least have a plaque on the new armoury “just to say we were there,” says Hall.

Known at the time as No. 10 Basic Training Centre and later as the Knollwood Park Armoury, the flimsy buildings where the women would stay for a month or more of training were infamous for their drafty structures which allowed snow to blow in under the doors.

Hall, 77, was 18 when she became a CWAC. “Later when I moved from Scarborough to here, I kept saying that I did my basic training here but I couldn’t find out where. I thought it must be out in the country—but there it was right in the centre of town,” she says.

The idea of a plaque expanded as they created the Canadian Women’s Army Corps Memorial Fund. More committee members were added once the project got going. A big boost came when the Millennium Bureau of Canada provided a $9,992 grant.

Kitchener Mayor Carl Zehr wrote to Defence Minister Art Eggleton asking for help with the project. Eventually Lieutenant Susan Weston of the Land Forces Central Area headquarters in Toronto was assigned to help the project.

Sculptor and retired colonel André Gauthier of Orléans, Ont., was commissioned to come up with a design for the statue. Gauthier is well known for his military subjects, having created statues for the Royal 22nd Regiment and Princess Louise’s Canadian Light Infantry. A statue dedicated to paratroopers in the 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion and First Special Service Force stands in front of Canadian Forces Base Petawawa, Ont.

Undaunted by an estimate of $58,000 for the project, the committee secretary Ida Lackey sent out 1,700 letters to former CWACs and approached other military organizations, Legion branches and municipal governments.

The bronze statue named Stepping Out was completed in April last year. The 1.9-metre statue featuring a CWAC member in uniform now stands outside the new Kitchener Armoury. It stands on granite plinth and a plaque pays tribute to the 25 members who died on active duty.

The statue was unveiled by then-Lieutenant-Governor Hilary Weston in front of a crowd of about 1,200 people.