5G AND NETWORK CENTRIC WARFARE

by Vincent J. Curtis

NETWORK CENTRIC WARFARE was one of those military ideologies that obsessed U.S. military thinkers in the 1990s and early 2000s. Then, every new or recycled insight had to be formulated as an ideology that would lead ineluctably to victory. The problem with these ideologies is that none of the authors were good enough as philosophers to pull it off. The self-contradictions and sheer nonsense were simply glossed over in the glow of the vision idealized.

Network centric warfare seeks to turn an “information advantage” into tactical advantage in combat, even if one’s forces are “geographically dispersed.” The expressions in quotes go undefined, and this rendering of the concept is simpler and more concrete than “the book” provides.

NCW’s four tenets are: (1) A robustly net- worked force improves information sharing (What does this even mean?); (2) Information sharing and collaboration enhance the quality of information and shared situational awareness. (No they don’t. The intelligence product arising from analysis of information from different sources – sometimes conflict- ing – improves situational awareness. But the analyst in Langley doesn’t have the same situation as the warfighter on the ground, and so their situational awarenesses aren’t shareable.); (3) Shared situational aware- ness enables self-synchronization (what is “self-synchronization” anyway? Why isn’t a person self-synchronized to start with?

Why would sharing something enable it?); and (4) These in turn dramatically enhance mission effectiveness (If objective A is captured, how is the effectiveness of that mission made dramatically more enhanced by the application of tenets 1 to 3? Doesn’t the effectiveness of the mission have to do with the consequences that follow upon the successful completion of it?)

Okay, I’ve had my fun at the expense of some very highly paid American admirals, generals, and defense consultants.

“Technologies applicable to NCW don’t always have to involve W, 5G and Network Centric Warfare.” Schema of NCW (CREDIT: IMAGEGATE)

Shamelessly, the dramatic advances in electronics made from the 1990s onwards are held to demonstrate the validity of NCW theory. Gosh, grease pencil marks on a map have been replaced with graphics on a computer screen, updated in real time! You would think enhancements like that would be sought out and absorbed quickly by serious militaries without the need to congratulate an ideology that is manifestly self-contradictory.

Never mind. Let’s just agree that more information can sometimes be useful, we can drop the ideological baggage and get on with of taking advantage of whatever new technologies can offer. Knowing the color of the tunic that Rommel is wearing this morning is unlikely to be useful to a warfighter; and knowing that a dozen German flak guns are on the other side of the rise isn’t helpful if the tank commander doesn’t understand the significance of ‘88 mm’.

Focusing on infotech, the point is that between Desert Storm and today, a modern military is inclined to have to process a lot more raw data, turn it into tactically useful intelligence, and disseminate the intelligence to subordinate commanders. The ability to absorb and disseminate has become the province of sophisticated defense contractors.

Saab is one of those contractors. Saab is fast becoming a defense systems supplier of choice for budget-minded militaries, which means everyone except the American and Chinese. Saab has recently announced DeployNet, a deployable wireless 5G/LTE communications system that is scalable both in terms of user numbers and range. It is said to offer high-capacity bandwidth that is capable of handling data from sensors, “user interactions,” and various other “information sources.” Real-time hi-res video streaming is possible. It is said to be underpinned by robust cyber security. It can operate in remote locations and can be used to supplement or replace local networks. Aside from base security, DeployNet is useful for search and rescue, recce, training, and crisis management. De- ployNet is a turnkey operation that comes with handsets, power supply, administration tools, and active telecom equipment.

Its most obvious Canadian uses are in Aid to the Civil Power and in rapid deployment of HQ and Sigs units. (Hurricane Fiona, anyone?) Technologies applicable to NCW don’t always have to involve W, as students of 3BW know.

TIME FOR A REALITY CHECK, Veterans Affairs Makes Changes to Rehab Services-Indexing

by Michael Blais

“PCVRS has nearly 350 locations across Canada” (CREDIT: RICHARD LAWRENCE PHOTOGRAPHY)

TO BE BLUNTLY honest, Canada’s health system is woefully underfunded and overburdened. We presently have numerical deficiencies in; doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, nurses and the vast network of supporting health professionals is frankly, obscene. As a consequence, disabled veterans must overcome the same barriers as thousands of other Canadians who are experiencing great frustration when attempting to secure a family doctor or adequate medical care.

Without a doubt, this adverse situation has been severely intensified by the prolonged impact which the COVID pandemic has inflicted upon the provincial & territorial medical services. Not to mention the ever increasing needs of the general population.

Veterans seeking assistance from Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) are often caught in a vicious vortex.

On one level, they must cope with the department’s arduous bureaucratic procedures in order to successfully process their application. (Problems with adjudication continue to plague the department and despite efforts to reduce backlogs, wait times for initial outreach judgments are still averaging over 40 weeks). Hundreds, if not thousands of veterans do not have a family doctor to facilitate the documentary process. Further delays are invariably incurred when the individual is unable to secure expedient assistance from pain or mental trauma specialists.

VAC does not provide direct care: There are no VAC doctors or mental health professionals to ensure expedient services are available.

The consequences of this have been profound, particularly for individuals participating with VAC’s Vocational Assistance Program or those seeking rehabilitation services. Acknowledging this situation, the department has made significant changes to the program in order to improve the service delivery standards. Partners in Canadian Veterans Rehabilitation Service (PCVRS), an alliance organization created by the Lifemark Health Group and WCG International, have been contracted to manage the program.

Both of these organizations specialize in vocational rehabilitation. Approximately 14,000 veterans who are currently participating in VAC’s vocational, medical and/ or psycho-social rehabilitation programs will be affected. Client migration to the new program will commence this December and everybody is expected to be transferred by June of 2023. VAC has allocated over half-a-billion dollars towards upgrading this rehabilitation pro- gram, so let us hope it proves effective in streamlining the process and establishing better standards.

How exactly does it work? PCVRS has nearly 350 locations across Canada. These locations are augmented by 263 service delivery partner locations encompassing all provinces and territories. Each of these site’s fields a cadre of rehabilitation service professionals which, in theory, should provide expedient care while concurrently reducing the levels of stress associated with attaining the trauma specific health care professionals to successfully fulfill VAC’s bureaucratic requirements.

The VAC Case Manager remains the veteran’s primary point of contact. Once the veteran has been assigned a PCVRS Rehabilitation Service Specialist (RSS), they will collectively design a comprehensive program that will guide the individual through the rehab process and ultimately, as envisioned, foster a successful transition to a civilian labour environment. The RSS will be responsible for the program’s administration and the veteran’s treatment plans. Eligibility requisites for VACs Rehabilitation Services and Vocational Assistance Program will not change.

Naturally, there are some questions that have yet to be addressed. What if the veteran is currently happy with their rehabilitation program and does not want to change venues or participate in the new program? Will they be forced to comply?

What if there are disagreements between the Rehabilitation Services Specialist, their Case Manager or the individual themself? Is there a resolution process that will best serve the veteran? If dissatisfied with the service, will the veteran be allowed to seek; another provider, another RSS, or another case manager? What level of military cultural-competency training will the RSS’s receive? Needless to say, we shall be monitoring these program changes, with our usual due diligence.

Indexing and the Lump Sum Award. I trust that veterans understand the amount of the Lump Sum Award is based on the current year’s rate. Be advised there will be substantial increase in the indexing rate applied in 2023. Veterans who have successfully processed their application but have yet to decide on the Pension for Life or the Lump Sum Award should wait until after January 1, 2023, if you considering the latter. At this time, a remarkable 6.5 % indexing factor will be applied to the 2023 rates. This will increase 2022 payment (100% disability) by 25 K. (It will increase from $395,874 to $420,814).

If you have any questions about indexing and how it affects your individual file, contact VAC through your My VAC account or at 1-866- 522-2122.

A DINOSAUR’S LAST GASP

by Michael Nickerson

Michel Maisonneuve

WHERE’S AN ASTEROID when you need one? From an evolutionary perspective, they can be quite refreshing. Take dinosaurs. Not the brightest of creatures by all accounts, but certainly strong stubborn brutes you wouldn’t want to mess with. Sadly, they were on their way out some 65 million years ago, not really adapting with the times. But they were taking their sweet time about it, with a lot of eager, intelligent mammals just waiting to take up the slack and get on with modern life. And then bam! Along comes an asteroid. Goodbye Rex. Hello brainy little fuzz balls.

Well funnily enough we seem to have a dinosaur problem of our own these days. Specifically, I refer to our current military and the many individuals within who still seem to be stuck in the past; a bunch of huffing, puffing beasts from a bygone era not knowing well enough to just lie down and let the power of fossilization do its magic.

Now before I’m accused of wanting to rain large rocks down on the heads of unsuspecting military personnel because I find them a tad thick and out-of-touch, rest assured I have no interest in diverting celestial bodies for any such purpose. Aside from it being a moral and legal no-no, I’m assured by my contacts in NASA that it really doesn’t pass the cost/benefit sniff test.

But if ever you heard of a bunch of soon-to-be-extinct military leaders who not only can’t accept change, but are unwilling to get the hell out of the way for those that can, it was on show at the recent Vimy Gala. An annual awards ceremony to honour a “Canadian who has made a significant and outstanding contribution to Canada’s defence and security and the preservation of (its) democratic values,” this year’s recipient was Lt.-Gen. (ret.) Michel Maisonneuve, who gave what can only be described as a speech right out of the early Jurassic.

Seems the old boy had an axe to grind, or perhaps a claw if we’re going to stick with the metaphor. In a wide-ranging acceptance speech, Maisonneuve took aim at dress-codes, cancel culture, woke journalism, collective apologies, Liberals, historical reassessment and reconciliation, climate change policies, and a society “lost in these days of entitlement, Me First, not my problem and endless subsidies and handouts.” Grumpy little brontosaur, isn’t he?

What was telling though was that with an audience of both retired and serving officers, people who have and will continue to shape the direction and culture of our armed forces, Maisonneuve received a standing ovation! It’s a bit like becoming ecstatic over the suggestion we should all go back to the era of laying eggs and shedding scales.

Now I don’t know if you’ve heard but Canada is in the middle of a major military recruitment crisis. As recently reported by David Pugliese in the Ottawa Citizen, senior leaders have been briefed on just how dire the problem is. Facing its highest attrition rate in 15 years, the Canadian armed forces are looking at over a decade just to return staffing to “proper levels,” with critical technical, health, and cyber positions at a premium.

Now the Maisonneuves of the world and their defenders would have it that if we just fund our military properly, stop criticizing it, and get back to basics where men were men, women worked the typing pool, and people stopped dying their hair we’d all be better for it.

To that I say we need all walks of life to fill the increasing technical requirements of modern warfare and security (or past warfare for that matter...Alan Turing anyone?). I would also say that having sexual misconduct problems exposed publicly is the right and moral thing to be done, and that it’s pathetic that an institution founded on the concept of bravery and personal sacrifice seems so scared of it being so.

But the kicker is this: if you want Canadians to commit their tax dollars to properly fund military infrastructure, salaries, and training to deal with an ever darker world, you’ll need to appeal to them, not dismiss them as too weak and woke to matter.

Canada is changing, boys. Adapt or die...metaphorically of course.

THE NUCLEAR GAMBLE

by Michael Nickerson

DO YOU LIKE to gamble? I bet you do; gets the blood racing, those synapses tingling. Nothing like that rush of adrenaline when it’s all on the line! So let’s play. You pick the game and I’ll set the stakes. A war game, huh? Right, then I bet that if you win you will feel righteous, fulfilled, and possibly rich if you’ve invested in defence companies. You lose, and everyone you know will die, plus millions you don’t know...that and your retirement savings will be worthless.

Oh, are those stakes too high for you? Pity, because you’d be surprised how many people are eager to actually take that bet and gamble away your very existence. Pundits, politicians, retired generals, at least one crazed autocrat, along with the usual tub thumpers that tend to think with anything other than their brains. Easy marks all when it comes to World War III.

Not since the Cuban Missile Crisis has the world faced such an existential threat as it does now. I speak of course of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the very real standoff that has resulted between Russia and NATO. It’s been almost six decades since anyone talked seriously about the prospect of nuclear war, yet here we are.

And to be clear, things have advanced a tad since 1962 when John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev engaged in a metaphorical staring contest with the world hanging in the balance. While the nuclear capacity of both the US and the USSR was capable at the time of ending millions of lives and essentially destroying modern civilization, today Russia and NATO have it in their grasp to kill hundreds of millions in short order, and billions by the time the radioactive dust settles. That’s not hyperbole. They call it “mutually assured destruction” for a reason.

“Not since the Cuban Missile Crisis has the world faced such an existential threat as it does now.” (WIKIPEDIA)

Yet it’s amazing to hear many influential people urge, cheer, or try to shame NATO into a nuclear fist fight with Russia. Our former Chief of the Defence Staff General (ret.) Rick “Big Cod” Hillier recently pushed for NATO to create a no-fly zone over Ukraine, bringing NATO in direct conflict with Russia. In an interview with CTV’s Evan Solomon the old general suggested that “to say that that might be escalatory, I think that shows the lack of backbone in NATO right now.” In other words, you’re all wimps, give me the dice.

Then there is Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland who recently opined:

“There are moments in history when the great struggle between freedom and tyranny comes down to one fight in one place, which is waged for all of humanity.” Now this is from a woman who had never even heard of the New Veterans Charter and the plight of Canadian veterans when she first ran for office (I know, because she told me). Now she’s flag waving and tub thumping with abandon, a cheer- leader on the road to potential nuclear Armageddon.

Caught in the middle of it all is of course Ukraine, its people desperately, though rather impressively, fighting for their lives and their sovereignty. It’s horrible to watch, to stand by and not do something to help. Yet the west so far has done everything short of direct confrontation.

Well almost. What we don’t seem prepared to do is to put some of our cherished ideals and rhetoric aside and engage with those we otherwise wouldn’t to find a solution. Specifically I refer to China, human rights warts and all, a player that has a common interest with Canada, the west, and the world: Stability. As many have observed, Russia is the junior partner in their recent alliance, and crazy as it sounds it is not in China’s interest for thermonuclear war to break out. Yet there has been a tendency in recent years to isolate and vilify China, particularly under US President Biden, and make this an ideological battle, of autocracies versus democracies.

The world has forgotten just how much worse it can truly get. I hope to hell we catch on before we gamble our existence away.

A SEXUALIZED CULTURE: BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE

by Vincent J. Curtis

MADAME MARIE DESCHAMPS observed that the Canadian Armed Forces suffered from a ‘sexualized’ culture. She maintained that this sexualized culture was the cause of the prevalence of sexual misconduct in the CAF. Hence, if the sexualized culture were elimin- ated, so would the prevalence of sexual misconduct.

The astonishing number of sexual misconduct allegations against flag of- ficers, starting days after his retirement in February 2021 of CDS General Jonathan Vance, his immediate successor, Adm Art MacDonald, then VAdm Haydn Ed- mondson, and MGen Dany Fortin, added political urgency to dealing with sexual misconduct, which in turn implied the ‘sexualized’ culture’ of the CAF. Another retired Supreme Court Justice, Louise Arbour, was appointed to come up with a solution. A five year plan is now in train to eliminate sexual misconduct in the CAF.

If asked, I would say that the Canadian Army had a ‘military’ culture. A military culture is a kind of culture, but the term ‘sexualized’ grammatically means the end-state of a process. The sexualization of the army’s military culture into its current sexualized state must have begun sometime, sensibly with the admission of women. The Canadian Army recognizes that men and women are different, and are not indifferent to each other; and the sexual differences in the membership are manifested in the army in numerous ways.

For example, the existence, in garrison, of male and female lines, each with their own ablution facilities. Morning PT does not emphasize upper body strength, with push-ups and chin-ups. The fitness requirements for men and women are completely different. The No. 1, 2, and 3 Orders of Dress each distinguish differences between the sexes. Rank names in French are now feminized. The achievements of women are celebrated in ways not done for men who achieved something similar, as if the achievement by a woman were something remarkable.

“I would say that the Canadian Army had a ‘military’ culture.”

These are but a few examples of the sexualized state of CAF culture.

Obviously, serious critical thinking needs to be done to separate the bad from the good in the sexualized culture of the CAF if the prevalence of sexual misconduct is to be tackled intelligently. Because not all the aspects of the sexualized culture of the CAF are considered bad, we can see that Madame Deschamps was incoherent to condemn the sexualized culture of the CAF – some of it is good and necessary.

Compared to what? We have no way of gauging how bad or how good the prevalence of sexual misconduct is in the CAF. One measure could be by comparison to Canadian society as a whole, but that is impossible because what constitutes sexual misconduct in the CAF is not considered such in Canadian society at large. For example, off-colour jokes, pin- up calendars in the workplace, and even consensual affairs between workplace superiors and subordinates are not civil offenses.

LGen Jennie Carignan predicts without evidence that changing the military culture to eliminate sexual misconduct will take five years. Five years will take her to CRA, meaning she pays no price for be- ing wrong. We know that the techniques available to the CAF to eliminate sexual misconduct boil down to education, train- ing, and administrative action.

An intellectual will tell you they have the solution, but a rational economist will tell you there are no solutions, only trade-offs. Questions that will never be asked of the five year program or its aim are “what are the trade-offs?” and “at what cost?”

If, to eliminate sexual misconduct, the trade-off means eliminating otherwise qualified candidates, what will be the cost to the combat capability of the CAF?

The cause of sexual misconduct isn’t culture, it’s “animal appetite,” as called in philosophy. Animal appetite is resistant to knowledge and sometimes to reason. Knowledge of the law does not prevent crime. ‘Hearts and minds,’ ‘shaping and exploiting’ didn’t work in Afghanistan. What will be the cost of being wrong again?

BACKLOG BATTLES AT VAC

“VAC Minister Lawrence MacAulay secured a $139 million budget supplement”

by Michael Blais CD

Problems with backlogged applications at Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) have been a long standing issue for our veterans. They certainly predate the Afghanistan War but they have recently been exacerbated through a surge in applications by veterans of that conflict.

Many veterans are now reaching out to VAC due to the mental and physical trauma they have experienced as a result of their deployments in the “Stan” and elsewhere around the globe.

The Liberal Party made significant promises to resolve these issues during the 2015 federal election. Trudeau vowed to reverse conservative decisions which mandated closures of several district offices across Canada and streamlined hundreds of front line VAC positions into redundancy.

The Liberals also made significant pledges to implement policy changes aimed at simplifying the complexities of the application process and they promised to hire additional staff in order to focus on the adjudication of thousands of backlogged applications.

To date the district offices have indeed been reopened and hundreds of front line staff have been rehired, trained and deployed.

There have also been reforms and improvements to existing policies and eli- gibility standards, thereby creating another wave of applications as veterans of all eras have applied or reapplied for benefits and programs to which they now qualify.

As a result, mental and physical disability applications have increased by 40 percent since 2016. Over 75% of these applications were submitted by veterans who were not previously registered clients of VAC.

Not surprisingly, these statistics have adversely impacted an adjudication system that was already under siege. Failure to attain the government’s stated performance standard of 16 weeks to process a claim became endemic. It has also become abundantly evident that critical reforms within the decision-making component were required and additional staff are needed to address the deteriorating situation.

By 2020, the backlog of applications had ballooned to over 23,000 claims. To rectify this, VAC was granted authority to hire up to 350 new employees with the specific goal of reducing this backlog.

Important policy revisions were concur- rently implemented with a focus on reduc- ing the complexities of the application process in order to expedite the formal decisions required before VAC can provide support.

Unfortunately, the COVID virus erupted across Canada during this same period. Subsequent federal and provincial public health mandates imposed severe re- strictions and pandemic-related delays were incurred as VAC adapted to the situation.

Scheduled in-person appointments with veterans across the nation were postponed, often re-booked weeks or even months later as successive waves of COVID variants dictated further delays.

Despite COVID, those additional staff which VAC hired to reduce delays in appli- cation adjudication have had a successful impact; the backlog has been reduced by 44%, and over ten thousand veterans’ claims have been adjudicated. Waiting times for non complex, ‘common’ military service related disabilities have also been greatly reduced.

There were some fears that the depart- ment’s efforts would falter at the end of March 2022 once the hundreds of temporary employment contracts expired. However such an eventuality was averted when VAC Minister Lawrence MacAulay secured a $139 million budget supplement from Treasury Board to extend the program for the next two years.

The department’s current objective is to halve the 13,000 backlogged files which do not conform to the 16 week processing standard by this spring.

In another important development, VAC has now formally acknowledged the necessity to provide expedient care to those veterans who have endured mental trauma related to their service.

Dig Deep

By Michael Nickerson

SO YOU WANT to be a soldier. No? Let me rephrase then…would you like to be a soldier? Alright that’s two no’s in quick succession, but hear me out. I’m offering not just a job but a culture; a family; a way of life! Admittedly the pay doesn’t quite keep up with the cost of living at the moment, the work environment is a tad toxic, and the retirement benefits are only reasonable as long as you have a lawyer to sue for them. Oh, and more often than not you’ll be reporting to white male superiors, so try to keep that sex and skin colour under wraps if you
can. 

I haven’t covered all the stereotypes there but you get the picture. When it comes to choosing a job, much less a profession, the idea of a career in the military has become rather unpalatable of late, much like a tuna casserole that’s been sitting at the buffet table too long...old, a bit whiffy, and nowhere near as enticing as that popcorn shrimp at the other end. 

To put it mildly, the Canadian military has a recruitment problem. Currently our military is some 7,500 shy of regular force requirements, to say nothing of the dearth of reservists needed to meet the most basic of projected needs. Add to that the fact that the armed forces are bleeding seasoned staff and instructors and it should come as no surprise our NATO allies are wondering whether we’ll be stuck sending people from a temp agency should war ever breaks out with
Russia.

According to our Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), Gen. Wayne Eyre, it will take a good seven years to get our recruitment numbers back to where they need to be, citing both the pandemic and sexual misconduct crisis as reasons for Canadians turning up their noses at the idea of a career in the military. 

However, as has recently been reported by David Pugliese in the Ottawa Citizen, National Defence is now on the case! Specifically, the military has “stood up a Recruitment Modernization Team that will look at a complete re-design of our recruitment process.” This is apparently part of the directive from CDS Eyre to “overcome deficiencies that are hampering the composition and readiness of the Canadian Armed Forces.”

What does that actually entail? One suspects a magic wand. But short of that it involves a wholesale change of military culture which ultimately both reflects and welcomes the diversity of Canada as it is now and not some Victorian afterglow. And to be sure, the good folks at National Defence have been giving it their antiquated best, most recently with an open policy on uniform choice and haircuts; all rather superficial in action and out-of-touch in understanding.

So in a rapidly changing world that needs fresh recruits with fresh and nimble minds to deal with a world that moves far faster than a Napoleonic artillery barrage, what is a savvy leader who believes in institution over self to do? 

Last year CDS Eyre opined that “We need our mid-level leaders to dig deep and do this for the institution, to put service before self, not to retreat into retirement but to advance forward and face the challenges head-on.” If ever a man had the right idea while going in the wrong direction, it’s Gen. Wayne Eyre. 

To be sure he is right in stating that Canada’s mid-level leaders need to stay and help a proud institution catch up with reality, to “dig deep and do this for the institution.” But apparently he hasn’t taken a good look in the mirror, nor has his senior staff. Canada has one of the most top-heavy militaries when it comes to generals there is, and those generals have been the ones who have lead our armed forces to a cultural and functional
abyss.

While it won’t fix everything, it will go a long way in achieving the change our forces need if an old and out-of-touch senior staff will just get out of the way and let a new generation take charge. Dig deep and retire gentlemen. Please.  

Attack Class Submarine

By Vincent J. Curtis

ON 16 SEPTEMBER, 2021, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced a trilateral security pact with the UK and the US, called AUKUS, (or NOTCANNZ in some circles) The UK and US would help Australia acquire nuclear powered submarines. An hour before the announcement, the Aussies informed the French government that it was cancelling the contract to acquire the French designed Shortfin-Barracuda class submarine, a conventional diesel-electric, which the Aussies were going to dub the Attack class. The French explosion and cries of maudit-anglais, were heard around the world. (Roughly translated, the French complained of an Anglo-Saxon condominium.)

On 11 June 2022, Australia’s new Labour government made financial settlement with the French to the tune of US$584 million, which is a lot to pay for blueprints you’re not going to use.

Australia’s strategic requirements ask of her submarines an unusually long operational range, a manifestation of the ‘tyranny of distance’ in the Pacific theatre.  Australia’s current Collins class submarines, conventional diesel-electrics, are on the big side.

A Collins class sub displaces 3100 tons (surface), is 77.4 m in length, 7.8 m beam, 11,500 nmi range, 50 days endurance, and a complement of 58.

The Attack class subs would have displaced 4500 tons (surface) be of 97 m length, 8.8 m beam, 18,000 nmi in range, 80 days endurance, and a complement of 80.  The rising threat of China, and a desire to operate closely with the United States in respect of China, accounts for the greater capability of the newer class. By granting Australia access to U.S. nuclear technology, the U.S. gives the RAN much greater operational capability in terms of range and endurance.

Australia replaced its Oberon class subs with the Collins class. Canada replaced hers with the Lemon class of subs. (HMCS Lemon, Cumquat, Pomegranate, and Pumpkin. What’s that? The Victoria, Chicoutimi, Windsor, and Corner Brook?  Hokay.)

The Upholder/Victoria/Lemon class displace 2455 tons (surface), are 70.3 m in length, 7.2 m beam, 8,000 nmi range, an endurance of 30 days, and a complement of 53.  Though acquired by Canada in 1998, the class did not become fully operational until 2016.  Under the Trudeau government’s defence white paper, Weak, Anxious, Distracted these subs are to undergo life-extending refits for another life-cycle of eight years.  This will take the service of the class into the early 2030s. These babies are already pushing forty years old, and by the middle 2030s will be at the half-century mark in age.  They’ll have definitely hit CRA.  Even if the steel can hold up to the pressures of 200 m depth, the electronics in them will be as obsolete as vacuum tubes.

Replacing the Lemons (er Victorias – can’t help myself!) with Attack class subs seems to present itself. Attacks may offer more capability than Canada needs – if you’re focussed on the North Atlantic. But after the Ukraine, the US and UK can likely handle the Russian Atlantic threat without Canadian help. In the Pacific, however, where China continues to sabre-rattle vigorously over Taiwan, and extends her reach farther south in the Pacific and into the Indian Ocean, the RCN might find usefulness in the North Pacific, home not only to the Chinese fleet, but to the port of Vladivostok.

Alternatively, Canada could opt for the nuclear-powered version of the French sub, giving her fleet under-ice capability. But the Trudeau government doesn’t want that. Perhaps fearing the adverse perception of ‘nuclear’ as beset the Mulroney government’s acquisition plans, or perhaps it doesn’t want to know, and therefore have to confront, Russian and American presumptions upon Canada’s claimed territorial waters in the High Arctic.  Ignorance being bliss.

The Attack class won’t come cheap.  The Aussies were budgeting A$90 billion to acquire a dozen. That translates into C$28 billion for four. Canada is already committing C$77 billion for 15 frigates.  Will the RCN get another C$30 billion for 4 new subs or will that capability lapse?  Decisions need to be made before 2025 to avoid lapse.  

Remember the Dead, Honour the Living

By Mike Blais CD

Many Canadians reflect upon the National Day of Remembrance from a  deeply personal perspective which often spans several generations of their respective family history. Canadians valiantly served their nation in two bloody World Wars, the Korean War, the Gulf War and a multitude of UN sponsored peacekeeping missions. 

For decades, Canada contributed to the NATO alliance through the permanent deployment of a mechanized combat brigade and three squadrons of Royal Canadian Air Force CF-104s and later, CF -18’s in both France and then Western Germany. This deterrent was in place until the Soviet Union imploded and the freedom seeking citizens of the Warsaw Pact dismantled the Iron Curtain in 1989.

Alliance missions have since continued beginning with Canada’s contribution to the US led Operation Desert Storm to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation in 1991. Canadians troops, under a UN mandate and the initial leadership of Major General Lewis Mackenzie, would lead the effort to restore peace to the civil war ravaged citizens of former Yugoslavia.

The War in Afghanistan, triggered by the horrific 9/11, 2001 terrorist attack on both the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, would culminate for Canada in 2014, after 158 valiant Canadians sacrificed their lives along with the thousands of physically and mentally traumatized veterans.
One can only guess at how many additional veterans have since succumbed to suicide.

The consequences on veterans have been profound. They are further cruelly enhanced through 24-7 news cycles and social media. In all previous wars, fatalities were interned on the global battlefields on which they were fought. However the Afghanistan Fallen were publicly repatriated to Canada and ultimately interned either at Beechwood National War Cemetery in Ottawa or in graveyards near their homes across the nation.

Who can forget the emotional televised images we have witnessed as the repatriated bodies arrived at CFB Trenton in flag draped coffins? Who could forget the heart wrenching, raw emotion on display when mothers, fathers, husbands, wives and children approached the casket of their loved one for the first time? Canadians rallied by the thousands, assembling on dozens of bridges spanning the Highway of Heroes, at the Coroner’s Office in Toronto and then within communities across the nation as the Fallen were returned to their respective communities.

Lest we forget.

First remember the dead, and after the 11th hour, reflect upon the living who have made such great sacrifice in our name.

Let us then honour the national sacrifice of our veterans. Let us acknowledge those tens of thousands of Canadians across Canada who selflessly signed the “blank Cheque”. Of those, think of those who have subsequently been scarred, oft times catastrophically, in mind, body and soul, through deployments in war, peacekeeping and during natural disasters and tragedies at home and
abroad.

Valour in the Presence of the Enemy.

I cannot think of a more meaningful gesture during Remembrance Week, than taking a moment to support General (ret’d) Rick Hillier and his team’s quest to have the Star of Military Valour citation for Private Jesse Larochelle reviewed.  New information has been brought forward that must be included before any decision affirming Laroche’s Star of Valour, (Canada’s second highest decoration for Valour). Or as General Hillier, myself and thousands of others would prefer, revoking the citation and formally awarding Private Larochelle the first Canadian Victoria Cross.

Unfortunately, to date, the current government has failed to address the situation despite Valour in the Presence of the Enemy’s dedicated efforts through parliamentary petitions and opposition sponsored private member’s bills.

Apparently, Canadian veterans need to make this a personal issue between us and the Prime Minister of Canada.

On Remembrance Day

I would encourage you fulfill your commemoration of the fallen until the conclusion of the November 11, Remembrance Day services. Afterwards, I ask you to take a moment to send a personal email directly to the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau requesting that his government formally support a review of Private Jesse Larochelle’s Star of Valour citation with the intent of instead awarding this valiant soldier the first Canadian Victoria Cross.

Numbers matter so be proactive and encourage your family members, friends and those with whom you are parading, and attending memorial services, to participate. We need force multipliers. Only if we can generate sufficient momentum will there be change.

Sending an Email is not a waste of time. Emails must be formally documented, and as our numbers grow, they will need to be collated. Eventually, the issue will be brought directly to the attention of the Prime Minister who will, hopefully, understand avoidance or an unfavourable response will directly result in the loss of thousands of veteran’s votes during the next
election.

Be the one person who’s email provides the tipping point and catalyst for success. Embrace the spirit of the nation, stand for valour, and for the country.

Pro Patria  

Blazer   

Upholding the Right Position and Opposing Provocations

L-R: British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, President Harry S. Truman, and Soviet leader Josef Stalin

By Ambassador H.E. CONG Peiwu

With regard to U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s recent visit to China’s Taiwan region, some Canadian media reports asserted the position that Taiwan does not belong to China. Some Canadian pundits claimed that China overreacted to this matter, and some opined that Western countries should support the democracy of Taiwan. Here I would like to make a few clarifications and reiterate China’s position.

First, Taiwan has belonged to China since ancient times. This statement has a sound basis in history and jurisprudence. The Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council and the State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) published a white paper titled The Taiwan Question and China’s Reunification in the New Era, shedding light on the historical Taiwan question and the fact that both the mainland and Taiwan belong to one China.

Around the end of the Second World War, both the Cairo Declaration of 1943 and the Potsdam Proclamation of 1945 were very clear about China’s rights over Taiwan. All the Allied powers agreed that “All the territories Japan has stolen from China, such as Northeast China, Taiwan and Penghu Islands, should be restored to China”.

The 1971 UNGA Resolution No. 2758  declared the restoration of all rights to the PRC and reaffirmed the one-China principle. There is but one China in the world, and Taiwan is part of that China. As such, the Government of the PRC is the sole legal government representing the whole of China. This is a basic norm of international relations confirmed by UNGA Resolution No. 2758. It is a commitment agreed to by the USA in the three China-US joint communiqués. There is no room for ambiguity or arbitrary interpretation.

Second, China’s countermeasures are legitimate, reasonable, necessary and measured. The causes f  tension n he Taiwan Strait are very clear, and so are the merits. It is the United States hat has instigated the trouble. It is the United States that created he urrent crisis, and it is the United States that keeps escalating tensions.

In the face of deliberate provocation, the Chinese side is forced to take countermeasures. Our position is justified, reasonable and legal. Our counter-measures are firm, strong and measured. Our military exercises are open, transparent and professional. They are compliant within domestic and international laws, as well as consistent with international practices. China’s countermeasures are aimed at maintaining peace across the Taiwan Strait and creating stability throughout the region. 

Non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs is the most important international norm enshrined in the UN Charter. China’s countermeasures are also an effort to safeguard basic norms governing international relations, fairness and justice.

Third, the Taiwan question is, in essence not about democracy. It is a major issue of principle pertaining to China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. What Speaker Pelosi did is definitely not about upholding or defending democracy, but rather a deliberate provocation and infringement on China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. 

More than 170 countries, and many international organizations have reaffirmed their commitment to the one-China principle. We hope that more Canadian media pundits and visionaries begin to clearly recognize the causes and essence of the current crisis, continue to support China’s legitimate position and measures, and jointly safeguard peace in the region and across the Taiwan Strait. 

Response to Shimooka

By Alan Williams

In a recent opinion piece  regarding Canada’s intention to purchase  the F-35A, Richard Shimooka regurgitates the same arguments put forward by the Government in 2010  to support its decision to purchase the F-35A  without a competition.  Both the Government and Mr. Shimooka were convinced that it was the best jet at the best price as well as being  the best option economically. Fortunately, upon examination, Canadians discovered that, at that time,  none of those assertions were valid.

With respect to costs, in 2010 the average procurement cost for an F-35A was about $126 million  including the cost of the engine. However,  at this time Lockheed Martin was just in its fourth low rate initial production contract. Costs were significantly higher than expected and delays were occurring. More ominously, were the high life cycle costs. Its hourly costs were  estimated at over $30,000 per hour, double that of the F-18 Super Hornet.

With respect to the F-35A, in 2010 it was impossible to state that it was the best aircraft for Canada. It was still in its embryonic stage of development. At the time of the announcement, the block 1 software had not yet been completed. Timing of the future software upgrades was still in flux. No one could be assured of its capabilities.

With respect to economic opportunities, they would certainly be plentiful. In fact, that is why I  signed the memorandum of understanding with the U.S. in Feb. 2002 committing Canada to the program. Without joining the program, our industry would have been excluded from bidding on contracts valued at $200 billion-dollars. Nevertheless, it was recognized at that time, that these industrial benefits were not guaranteed and  would pale in comparison to the level of benefits bidders would have to guarantee in a competition.

Lastly, when spending billions of taxpayers’ money, it is vital that there is transparency in the process. Furthermore, the only way to objectively ensure that the military is getting the best product to meet its needs is through a competition. The decision to sole-source in 2010  was unnecessary and the linchpin for the chaos that followed.

 Mr. Shimooka is right when he says, ”this decision set up a decade of strife”. However, he believes we should have gone through with the sole-source decision at that time. I believe we should have conducted an open, fair and transparent competition to replace our jets in a timely fashion.

Everyone's an Expert

By Michael Nickerson

You won’t believe this, but hear me out. There was this paratrooper on an actual mission who decided not to jump. Just sat there and refused to budge. Seems he’d been reading up on the safety of parachutes after a friend shared a link sent to him by a cousin of his wife’s former gardener. And boy did he find some shocking stories about failed parachutes and their effect on the human body. Erectile dysfunction, blood clots, heart damage, even death! And he also found out that it happens a lot more often than people are letting on. So he told his fellow soldiers to go be sheep if they wanted to, but he was staying put.

But wait for the kicker: after having demonstrated some serious, outside-the-box critical thinking, he didn’t receive the plaudits and promotion he so richly deserved, but was instead kicked out of the military! Can you believe that?

Well here’s hoping you employed a bit of critical thinking of your own and said bollocks before ever getting past the first sentence. Of course it didn’t happen; made the whole ludicrous thing up…sort of. See, all you need to do is to insert “covid vaccine” for “parachute” and you’re away to the races. Where once it was nonsensical it suddenly becomes common sense for far too many.

I speak of course of the vaccine hesitancy that has many Canadians with too much internet access digging in their heels and refusing “the shot.” Why? It’s a plot by Bill Gates to inject microchips into the unsuspecting public, or just another overreach by governments wanting to control the masses, or because it causes infertility, autism, or will alter your DNA. There’s even talk about swollen testicles and people turning into monkeys…I kid you not.

Now in the case of Lt.-Col. Illo Antonio Neri, an RCAF pilot with 28 years of service, it’s because he apparently managed to squeeze in medical training during his off hours. You see, in an affidavit filed while trying to get the courts to intervene and stop disciplinary action for not getting vaccinated as ordered he stated  “I do not have confidence in the government’s declaration that they are safe and effective.”  

At this point there have been almost 10 billion vaccine doses administered around the world with nary an exploding testicle. As vaccines go, these are about as safe as you can get. Will we find that at some point in the decades to come there might be long-term problems? Well anything is technically possible, but I can only wonder how Lt.-Col. Neri gets through a preflight checklist without running from the cockpit with visions of engine fires or failing hydraulics dancing in his head.

I’m going to suggest he has gotten off the ground for the last 28 years because he trusts the engineers who design his planes, and the mechanics who maintain them, to say nothing of the basic physics behind that voodoo thing called flight. Yet he, along with over nine hundred fellow members of the armed service, is risking dismissal over accepting a simple jab. 

To be fair, armed service members are way ahead of the general public when it comes to getting vaccinated, with close to 99% versus some 84% having braved the needle. However, that there is hesitancy at all speaks to a larger problem, namely how small groups of people are putting the rest of us in danger for selfish and ignorant reasons. Unvaccinated military personnel are placing themselves ahead of their fellows and their mission, defying an eminently reasonable direct order. And citizens who do the same don’t seem to care a wit about overflowing hospitals and burnt-out nurses or those who have gotten sick and died from a virus they are more likely to spread than not, to say nothing of an economy that won’t recover until this pandemic is under control. 

Yet it’s a case of “my body, my choice and to hell with the rest of you”. Armies don’t run very well with that sort of attitude, and neither do societies. But that seems to be what you get when everyone’s an expert.  

Veterans Mental Health Benefits – Improvements At Last

By Michael Blais CD

Good news, readers. I am pleased to note there will be positive amendments to the Veterans Health Care Regulations implemented this year in respect to Mental Health Benefits. On April 1st, 2022 , policies will be revised to ensure that Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) has the capability to provide expedient mental health support to those who are coping with service-related trauma and are seeking assistance from VAC.

The current regulations stipulate that the department cannot provide direct support to the individual until after the veteran’s application has been properly processed, adjudicated, and a favourable decision has been rendered with the requested treatment options formally approved.

Until now, veterans have been confronted by an administrative nightmare, exacerbated by a stressful, time consuming, delay-incurring period wherein the veteran fulfills VAC’s requisites in order to substantiate their claim with the appropriate referrals from doctors, psychiatrists and/or psychologists.

It is very often the case that several months will pass before appointments with mental health professionals can be undertaken and the doctor, psychologist or psychiatrist complies with VAC’s documentary requirements thereby allowing the individual’s file to be formally processed.

Some delays are further exacerbated through persistent departmental staffing deficiencies and processing backlogs resulting in consequential delays of approvals, service delivery and the provision of appropriate benefits.

During the 2019-2020 assessment period, in 76% of the cases reported,VAC failed to meet the department’s delivery service standards (of 16 weeks) for veterans submitting their first application.

Privately VAC officials have admitted that they are aware of some veterans among us who have waited over two years for mental health benefits.

Objectively, our collective understanding about military-related mental trauma has evolved in quantum leaps in the aftermath of the war in Afghanistan. The impact of hundreds of Afghanistan veterans seeking assistance as they deal with very complex forms of mental trauma has forced those changes.

Veterans advocates have successfully lobbied for a variety of reforms, including a successful campaign on many levels to which the current government has been responsive through creating programs which have inarguably improved the quality of life for both the traumatized veteran, and their dependants.

However, tragic experience has defined just how vital it is to ensure formal intervention is applied in a timely manner and that the administrative delays resulting in deferment of support until a decision has been rendered, can have profound, or even catastrophic consequences.

The current restrictions as defined within the Mental Health Benefits regulations deny expedient support to the veteran until the veteran’s claim has been positively adjudicated and the treatment request is approved by the department.

This will change for the better as of April 1, 2022.

As of this date, veterans will have access to specific treatment benefits “that have been attributed to military service and pertain to disorders for anxiety, depression, trauma and stress” commencing upon the date which the application is received by VAC.

Veterans who have submitted claims that are currently in the backlog queue will be eligible for VAC’s Mental health benefits as of April 1st. Should the source of the individual’s trauma be deemed non-service-related by the mental health professionals, the veteran will be provided a two year period in which to secure resources beyond the VAC’s sphere of influence.

VAC will continue to provide mental health benefits until this period ends and these funds will not have to be reimbursed by the individual due to an adverse ruling. Veterans who have been “dishonourably” discharged yet have still endured mental trauma applicable to their military service will not be excluded.

These changes are outstanding.

Veterans residing beyond Canada’s borders, however, will be excluded. This is fundamentally unfair and willfully detrimental to these ex-pat veterans’ health, well being and quality of life. It is my long held belief that there must be total equality in recognition of national sacrifice.

Restrictions on access to medical cannabis until a claim has been formally approved will also pose a significant obstruction to a veteran’s well being and thereby create a second standard of support which is bereft of consideration for the veteran. This policy is simply focused on moderating the department’s expenses rather than on the provision of effective medication.

Hopefully, we shall not have another generation of pharmacuetical-addicted veterans when a far less dangerous, yet seemingly equally effective resource in the form of medical cannabis (particularly non-psychoactive CBD), has been provided to our veterans suffering from mental trauma for years?

Mark the date: April 1st, 2022. If your application is somewhere in the cue, reach out to VAC should they fail to notify you of the changes.  

Valour in the Presence of the Enemy

By Michael Blais CD

Canadians acknowledge military valour with three potential decorations. Candidates for the Medal of Military Valour are chosen due to “an act of valor or devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy.”  The Star of Military Valor, second on the tier, would be awarded “for distinguished and valiant service in the presence of the enemy”. The Victoria Cross, the supreme level of recognition, is awarded for “the most conspicuous bravery, a daring or preeminent act of valor or self sacrifice or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy.”

In the presence of the enemy is the central theme. To date, ninety nine Canadians have been awarded the traditional Victoria Cross. None have been deemed worthy since the Conservative government created the Canadian Victoria Cross in 2008. That was at a time of our nation’s history when Canada was sustaining casualties in Afghanistan at a rate unseen since the Korean War. The political theatrics surrounding the public announcement led to high expectations from Canadians that the 100th recipient of the V.C and thereby also the first Canadian Victoria Cross would be determined during the course of the war in Afghanistan. However, the Conservatives deemed that the requisite levels of “conspicuous acts of valour” were not met and thus rendered the Canadian VC a headline without substance. While the war in Afghanistan may have not concluded as many Canadian pundits envisioned, this should not detract from the fact that several Canadian soldiers selflessly performed incredible acts of bravery, courage and self sacrifice, wherein the heroic acts of one individual saved the lives of many.

The Afghanistan War is over, the government of that era has been replaced and past excuses pertaining to VC deferment under the guise that another, greater act of glory could yet be committed, are as lame as the treatment our war wounded received from VAC when returning from Afghanistan. Fortunately, many of the adverse issues affecting the health and well being of Canada’s war traumatized have been redressed by the current Liberal government. While there continues to be contentious issues in respect to expedient adjudication, service delivery and competent staffing levels, there have been important policy changes which have improved the quality of life of our Afghan veterans who were adversely affected by the deepty reviled New Veterans Charter.

The time now has come for the Liberal government to redress the political failure thus far to award the Canadian Victoria Cross. It is time for the veterans’ community to rally behind the efforts of General (ret’d) Rick Hillier and the non profit organization Valour in the Presence of the Enemy. This initiative is supported by every former Task Force Commander who led troops in the Afghanistan war. These former officers have taken the lead, conducting due diligence research on each of the recipients of the Star of Valour citations to determine who, if anyone, fulfilled the criteria to warrant the Victoria Cross. As a result, they have selected Private Jess LaRochelle, First Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment and they are now advocating that the government review Private Larochelle’s Star of Military Valour citation. Their intent is to include new information that would fulfill the necessary prerequisites for the Victoria Cross. Subsequently this would result in the awarding of the medal to Private Larochelle through royal decree.

Private Jess LaRochelle, First Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment

On October 14, 2006, Private Larochelle of the 1st Royal Canadian Regiment Battle Group was manning an observation post when it was destroyed by an enemy rocket in Pashmul, Afghanistan. Although he was alone, severely injured, and under sustained enemy fire in his exposed position at the ruined observation post, he aggressively provided covering fire over the otherwise undefended flank of his company’s position. While two members of the personnel were killed and three others were wounded in the initial attack, Private Larochelle’s heroic actions permitted the remainder of the company to defend their battle positions and to successfully fend off the sustained attack of more than 20 insurgents. His valiant conduct saved the lives of many members of his company.

What is not mentioned in the citation is some vital information which elevates the case for awarding LaRochelle the Victoria Cross. Larochelle’s injuries from the rocket attack were substantial; his back was broken, one of his eyes was blinded through a detached retina, he was deafened in his right ear, and he was briefly concussed. When he regained consciousness, he was confronted with a scene from hell. Two of his regimental brothers were lying dead beside him. three were seriously wounded. The Observation Post (OP) was under sustained attack by over twenty insurgents. He discovered the GPMG he had been manning had been destroyed. Further compounding the situation, the platoon LAVs delegated to provide Fire support for the unit’s flank and the OP were both non serviceable due to weapon stoppages. Larochelle was alone, seriously wounded, half blind, half deaf, yet he chose to fight. He gathered the OP’s 15 M72’s, exposed himself repeatedly to enemy fire while engaging the advancing insurgents with rocket fire so effective the enemy attackers were forced to withdraw. Also noteworthy that Larochelle’s section was short-handed at the time of the attack. He had volunteered to man the OP and after the attack, he remained on the field of battle for twelve hours despite his injuries. He only reported to the medics after he was returned to Kandahar Airfield. After brief medical treatment, he volunteered to carry one of his fallen comrades during the ramp ceremony. Two years later, shrapnel was still egressing from his skin. Ultimately, Private Larochelle’s injuries were deemed career ending. The physical and mental consequences of his acts of heroism resulted in a medical release.

Is this the definition of Victoria Cross recipient? I believe so.

If you concur, you can help. You can be part of the solution by engaging your MP and the Prime Minister of Canada on two levels. We must understand this will be a political decision and if we are to prevail in this noble effort,  we must collectively win the hearts and minds of the Prime Minister and the parliament of Canada. We must all do our part in outreach and awareness. Once you’ve sent your emails, reach out to friends and family to encourage them to be force multipliers by adding their correspondence. Finally, add your name to the parliamentary petition -E3636- Valour in the Face of the Enemy, where over 11000 Canadians have already signed.

Every name counts, so let us rally to the patriot call and unite under General Hillier’s leadership to collectively fight to ensure Private Jess Larochelle, 1RCR is recognized as the first recipient of the Canadian Victoria Cross.

https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-3636

Pro Patria – For Country! 

March in the Accused… Military Sexual Assault.

Mike Blais

Recent revelations in respect to the Canadian Armed Forces Military Sexual Misconduct file have done little to improve the overall situation. Instead they have exacerbated the existing schism between those who have been sexually victimized while serving, the flaws in the military justice system and the institutional obstacles which the current government has had to confront in attempting to enact meaningful reforms.

First up on the proverbial docket, the Canadian Forces National Investigative Service (CFNIS) investigation into General (ret’d) Jonathan Vance, the first Canadian Chief of the Defence Staff to be accused of inappropriate behaviour and sexual misconduct. During the CFNIS investigators' formal inquiries, evidence was uncovered which allegedly revealed Vance's attempt to subvert the testimony of his accuser. As a result, a single charge of Obstruction has been laid against Vance by the Crown prosecutors. The government, acknowledging limitations within the military justice system, will continue to pursue the charges through the civilian courts.

Remarkably, the primary CFNIS investigation into General Vance’s alleged sexual misconduct continues. Which begs the logical question; why have charges in respect to Vance’s conduct been delayed? Surely if the CFNIS has sufficient evidence to warrant a charges of Obstruction, they must have sufficient evidence to warrant criminal charges in respect to the allegations of the sexual misconduct which Vance was allegeedly attempting to conceal? This becomes more perplexing when one considers that Vance’s accuser has told her story on national news programs and in testimony before nationally televised appearances before a parliamentary committee?  

Can the CFNIS not pick up their pace? Do these seemingly inexplicable delays in due process not deepen the levels of distrust which the troops have for the military justice system when allegations of misconduct have been levied against senior officers? Do these unreasonable delays not foster the stigma of police incompetence, exacerbate fears that justice is being corrupted by the “Old Boys” network or multi-level Chain of Command intrusions? Do these unrealistic delays not foster the perception that the CFNIS is as inept as the military prosecutors? Do the delays not make the military prosecutors seem lenient and eager to cut a deal with judges when the public record defines how consistently they have collectively failed to grasp the seriousness of the situation.

One major case in point is that of Admiral Art McDonald. Just six weeks after Admiral McDonald replaced Vance as Chief of Defence Staff, he stepped aside from the CDS post to allow a CFNIS investigation into his own alleged sexual misconduct to proceed without the interference of the Chain of Command. Admiral McDonald has repeatedly professed innocence and despite months of terrible publicity, allegations of witness intimidation, parliamentarian theatrics and political opportunism, the CFNIS concluded their high profile investigation last month.

Their finding was that due to the historical nature of the incident in question and the faulty memories of the witnesses, no charges would be laid against Admiral McDonald under the Criminal Code of Canada or, most astonishingly, the military Code of Service Discipline. "Say again, over!" Not even a charge of conduct unbecoming good order and discipline was deemed warranted in this case?

Equally perplexing was when Admiral McDonald unilaterally announced through his lawyers, that it was his intent to return to his position as Canada’s CDS immediately!

“The complaint was unfounded. The absence of any charges — even Under the Code of Service Discipline — is indicative of the absence of blameworthy conduct. As the investigation revealed, the complaint was groundless.”was McDonald’s rationale.

It makes me question whether or not the CFNIS investigators happened to watch McDonald’s accuser, Lieutenant (N) Heather MacDonald. In an interview with Mercedes Stephenson for Global News, Heather McDonald bared her soul to millions of Canadians. I watched her testimony and I believed her to be telling the truth. I was therefore quite saddened to read a quote attributed to her after the CFNIS announced the decision not to lay charges against the Admiral. 

"I am not surprised as this was exactly why I was reluctant to come forward and why most survivors don’t come forward.” said Heather McDonald. "It’s not worth it. I feel a little like I’ve gone through hell for nothing…”

Does this not sound all too familiar?

I somehow suspect that the Trudeau Liberals expected a different outcome. Admiral McDonald currently is on administrative leave and he will likely remain on administrative leave until a new government is formed following this September’s election. General Eyre, recently promoted to full general, has evidently earned the trust of the Prime Minister and Privy Councillors Office, and as such he will continue to serve as the CAF’s acting CDS..

Finally, on Wednesday August 8, Quebec Prosecution Services levied a single charge of sexual misconduct against Maj-Gen Dany Fortin, the former overseer of Canada’s Vaccine rollout campaign. The alleged incident occurred in 1988,  at which time Fortin was an 18 year old officer cadet (student) at Royal Military College, Saint-Jean, Quebec.  Responding to a warrant for his arrest, Fortin attended a police station in Hull, Quebec. He was attired in full dress uniform, accompanied by his wife and lawyers. Maj-Gen Fortin is currently on administrative leave from the CAF. His case will be arraigned on September 20th

Fortin has denied the allegation and has pledged a vigorous defense against not only the sexual misconduct charge, but he also seeks legal recourse against the Canadian government in respect to him not being afforded proper due process and his potentially wrongful dismissal from the COVID-19 task force. To protect the identity of Fortin’s accuser, a publication ban has been imposed.  

More to follow Im sure... 

Rank has its Privileges

By Mike Blais

The title is particularly apt when one is sporting four Maple Leaf’s on their epaulettes and they have been formally appointed by the government to act as the Canadian Armed Forces Chief of Defence Staff.

Apparently one such privilege is immunity from prosecution under the military justice system. As alleged by his paramour, Major Kellie Brennan, General Jonathan Vance would have apparently been correct in telling her that he was “untouchable" and above the law in respect to the military justice system. The Canadian Forces National Investigative Service has finally concluded its investigation into the alleged, two decade, inappropriate sexual relationship between CDS Vance and Maj Brennan. Despite the volumes of public allegations, theCFNIS have come to a remarkable conclusion: Formal military service charges cannot be levied against General Vance. 

According to Global News, DND sources claim this is not due to Vance's actual conduct but rather no military service charges are being laid due to the seniority of Vance’s rank. 

Seriously, his rank? Yes. Seriously.

The Military Police insiders clarified their position by referring Global News to a recently submitted report penned by former Supreme Court Justice Morris Fish. Fish was invited by the federal government to conduct an extensive review of the Canadian Forces military justice system. Justice Fish pointedly noted in his report that potential military service charges against a CDS could not be adjudicated through the military courts  due to the fact that an accused soldier must be judged by a Military court martial composed of officers bearing equivalent or higher rank than the accused. 

There is only one  Chief of Defence Staff, only one  4-Leaf general in the Canadian Armed Forces. Consequently, there are no rank equivalent or superior officers to pass  judgement. 

This is definitely a Catch 22 situation.

“To minimize the risk of rank-based influence, all officers of the CAF should as a general rule be judged by officers of or above their rank. How can this be done when the accused is among the highest general officers in Canada? In my view, the solution is to allow the empanelment of retired officers.",

Regrettably,  the government has yet to implement the reforms Judge Fish recommended in his report. There is no "panel of retired officers" available to process potential charges against the CDS. Military fraternization regulations are not applicable to a civilian court and the consensual relationship between General Vance and Major Brennan, while clearly suspect by military standards, does not  contravene civilian law.

Prime Minister Trudeau has responded to this extraordinary situation by declaring it is "absolutely unacceptable for people to be above the law because of rank." The government is purportedly waiting until reports are submitted by retired Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour and Lieutenant General Jennie Carignan before making decisions with respect to reforming the military justice system.

General Vance, however, is not out of the legal minefield yet. During the investigation into the alleged inappropriate relationship, Major Brennan provided audio recordings to the military police allegedly revealing the CDS had  attempted to influence her testimony by encouraging her to lie about their relationship. The CFNIS provided these incendiary audio recordings to a civilian prosecutor who, upon deeming the conduct potentially illegal, filed a single Obstruction of Justice charge. 

This is a potentially serious criminal offence. There will be no military procedural Catch 22 this time and he will be called into account for his personal conduct. The court has remanded Vance's case until mid-October when the  participants likely first convene in an Ontario courthouse. 

One question begs, how can there be obstruction of justice when there have been no criminal charges laid? If no laws were broken, how can justice be obstructed? We shall see.

The inappropriate relationship cannot be disputed. Major Brennan testified before a parliamentary committee that General Vance fathered two of her eight children. Recent paternity tests cast doubts on her claims as it has been determined he is definitely not the father of one of the children. However, the child who has been identified as Vance's son or daughter was conceived during a period wherein Vance told Global News that the consensual sexual relationship between himself and Brennan had ended. Did he lie to the media and by extension the Canadian public? Is this not a case for a Conduct unbecoming to the good order and discipline of the CAF? 

If Vance’s actions constituter a military infraction, we now understand, the CDS cannot be held accountable for any transgressions warranting military service charges through the current courts martial structure. 

Clearly, such a situation is untenable. Urgent reforms to the military justice system are definitely required. Procedural deficiencies which provide blanket immunity from prosecution to the Chief of Defence Staff due to their rank seniority must be eliminated. Fish’s finding is no longer a hypothetical scenario. It just got real.

No Canadian should be above the law. 

No  soldier should be above the Military Code of Service Discipline.

Never pass a fault. 

Fish & Chips 2: Punting the Ball

By Vincent J. Curtis

We resume the analysis of the Fish Report, Chapter 2, Sexual Misconduct.

Last time, we observed how convoluted the reasoning gets when Justice Fish recommended eliminating the duty to report service offences to the chain of command in respect of sexual misconduct.  The rationale of solicitousness towards ‘the victim’ kept the chain of command in the dark and unable to respond to the underlying disciplinary problem in the ranks.

He continued.  After saying without proof that victims simply didn’t trust the chain of command, Fish goes on to suggest the SMRC is also untrusted because it’s not fully independent of the chain of command, the VCDS being responsible for its budget.  Strengthening the independence of the SMRC, Fish asserts on the basis of SMRC submissions, “would increase victim confidence in the organization.”  Sounds like empire-building is afoot at SMRC!

How a private soldier in Shilo develops confidence through Ottawa-level bureaucratic machinations Fish doesn’t explain, but the underlying assumption here is that the victim is some fragile entity fearful of command.  Her professional job might involve sticking a bayonet into the guts of some enemy bastard.  How  can a female combat infanteer reasonably be expected to have what it takes to blow somebody’s brains out when she’s also expected to fall to pieces reporting a sexual assault goes unexplored.  But never mind; Fish’s reporting option is supported by Justice Deschamps (passim), the Deputy Minister, the JAG, the SMRC, and “experts in the field” – none of whom are warriors.

Fish finally comes to realize the rationale of special pleading leads to complications after he turns to the duty to report of witnesses.  Removing the duty from witnesses, “might foster a climate in which members remain passive in the face of misconduct.”  Well, yeah!  The principle of special pleading is hanging out there, and if applicable to sexual misconduct, why not to other offenses?  It’s hard to contain a principle like passivity.

While maintaining the duty to report on witnesses “would help find and punish the perpetrators…on the other hand, preserving the duty to report on witnesses might deprive victims of their autonomy, as they would be drawn into the investigative process against their will.”  Fish reached a vicious circle.  Prepare to punt 

The SMRC has recommended that the removal of the duty to report should not apply (the removal being removed!) where there exists “a risk of imminent harm, harm to children, national security.”

At this point, Fish, having realized his position is untenable, punts the ball thusly:

Recommendation #70:  An exception to the duty to report incidents of sexual misconduct should be established for victims, their confidantes, and the health and support professionals consulted by them.  Their duty to report should be retained, however, where a failure to report would pose a clear and serious risk to an overriding interest, which may include ongoing or imminent harm, harm to children, and national security concerns.  A working group should be established to include an independent authority and representatives of the [SMRC], military victims’ organizations and the military justice system.  The working group should also consider (a) the removal of the duty of witnesses to report incidents of sexual misconduct; and (b) requiring witnesses to report incidents of sexual misconduct to the [SMRC] only.

Try explaining that to Herbie on a basic military training course! 

But what happens if a witness reports anyway?  Would he or she be committing an offence by reporting an instance of sexual misconduct without the permission of ‘the victim’?  The whole edifice created to protect ‘the victim who may not be ‘ready’ collapses if a witness reports the offense to the chain of command.

Other problems for Fish: the breadth of “sexual misconduct.”  DAOD 9005-1 misconduct ranges from off-colour jokes to penetrative rape, and Fish treats the entire range with the moral gravity of penetrative rape.  Second, ‘victim’ presumes guilt.  A ‘victim’ is a complainant until the accused is proven guilty.

This leads to Part 3.

Existential Threat - Military Sexual Misconduct

By Michael Blais CD

One can only guess at how severe the impact has been on those serving within the Canadian Armed Forces following months of sordid allegations involving military sexual misconduct, exacerbated by the inept manner in which the Liberal government has dealt with this demoralizing situation. 

Lt-Gen Wayne Eyre,Canada's Acting Chief of Defense Staff (A-CDS), publicly admitted to seeing “cracks” in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) institution. Eyre noted that his troops face a manpower shortfall of nearly 2300 personnel, yet they must somehow adapt, overcome and prevail against the challenges posed by both domestic pandemic operations and Canada’s UN / NATO commitments abroad. Lt-Gen Steve Whelan, recently appointed Chief of Military Personnel, subsequently defined the current crisis as an existential threat.

During the past month, the public relations blows to the CAF’s reputation have continued unabated. On June 9, Canadians were told the Commandant of the Navy Fleet School Atlantic, Commander Croucher, was “temporarily” relieved of his post after allegations of sexually inappropriate comments. BGen Simon Bernard, who was seconded to the Public Health Agency of Canada to assist with the COVID vaccine delivery, has been reassigned after allegations that he used racist language while in on duty. 

This was followed by the stunning news report about Lt.-Gen. Mike Rouleau, Vice Chief of the Defence Staff (VCDS) and Vice Admiral Craig Baines, Commander Royal Canadian Navy (CRCN), who, inexplicably chose to enjoy a private round of golf with former Chief of Defence Staff, General (ret’d) Jonathan Vance. The political repercussions were immediate and despite Rouleau’s claims that nothing improper occurred, within days he stood down as the CAF's second in command and was posted to the CAF Transition Group in anticipation of release. VAdm Baines has since apologized and taken temporary personal leave. In his absence Rear Admiral Chris Sutherland will become the Acting CRCN.

Pretense to justice? Abuse of power? Political appeasement to the masses in exchange for votes?

One can only wonder if the government's interpretation of procedural fairness is predicated by the court of public opinion, which is often fueled by salvos of sensationalized media allegations against the CAF’s highest echelons. The spectrum of these allegation is vast, ranging from inappropriate commentary, and historical acts of indecency right up to sexual assault and even rape. How many of these senior officers' careers have been destroyed before they were even provided an opportunity to defend themselves, or before they were found guilty in a court of law? Is this fair? Hardly. This past month,we have witnessed the addition of a new twist: Guilt by association as in the case of Lt.- Gen. Rouleau and R- Adm Baines.

Professor of Military Law Michel Drapeau summed up the current situation perfectly. “There is a general common law principle, a duty of procedural fairness lying on every public authority making an administrative decision which is not of a legislative nature and which affects the rights, privileges or interests of an individual. Since January 2021, the MND and his most senior advisors do not appear to concern themselves with such a principle. The absence of procedural fairness is a form of abuse of power and a failure of their duty to act fairly.”

Major General Dany Fortin certainly feels he was denied "procedural fairness" and that he was victimized through the political interference of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Minister of National Defence Harjit Sajjin and Minister of Health Patty Hajdu. Fortin has filed a claim with the Federal Court seeking a judicial review of his alleged wrongful dismissal. Fortin claims his removal from the COVID task force was unreasonable and  bereft of procedural fairness. Fortune’s claim purports that the decision to remove him from his post was influenced by politicians serving the highest levels of government. 

Fortin also claims that his personal privacy rights were violated, and that the resulting public conjecture has damaged his reputation. For the record, Fortin has denied any wrong doing with respect to the original  allegation against him pertaining to an historic sexual misconduct incident. The CFNIS has completed their investigation into this case and turned over their evidence to Quebec’s public prosecutor. At time of writing, no decision has been announced as to whether formal charges will be laid against Fortin. 

Should the Quebec prosecutor decide not to press charges or if Fortin should ultimately prove his innocence in a court of law, what then, Minister Sajjin? 

Elsewhere on the Military Sexual Misconduct file, on June 1 retired Supreme Court Justice Morris Fish released 107 recommendations to amend the National Defence Act, after concluding a DND mandated review of the military justice system. Of particular note was Fish’s recommendation that henceforth, cases of sexual assault should be investigated by civilian authorities. Fish also recommends the elimination of the harmful Duty to Report policies which compel the victim, witnesses, confidantes and/or health care professionals to report any incidents to the military chain of command. 

Justice Fish also recommends the independent authority of the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre be strengthened. The new powers proposed include authorizing the SMR Centre to be able to compel potential witnesses into providing testimony. Something which heretofore was simply not the case.

Defence Minister Sajjin has accepted the recommendations "in principle" but he has only promised to implement 36 of the 107 in an expedient manner.

After months of ministerial ineptitude, it is doubtful whether the victims of Military Sexual Misconduct, the Canadian Armed Forces rank and file or veterans have any confidence whatsoever in Sajjin’s 'principles’ or the government’s shallow promises

I know I don’t.

DAOD 9005-1

By Vincent J. Curtis

Defense Administration Orders and Directives (DAOD) 9005-1 is entitled “Sexual Misconduct Response.”  Issued on 18 November 2020, it supersedes DAOD 5019-5, Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Disorders.  DAOD 9005-1 is an order that applies to officers and non-commissioned members of the CAF, and is the order on which the accusations of sexual misconduct against General Vance and others stand or fall.

In respect of Big Jon, they fall.

The DAOD opens with a definition of sexual misconduct: “Conduct of a sexual nature that causes or could cause harm to others, and that the person knew or ought reasonably to have known could cause harm.”

Harms includes: “actions or words that devalue others on the basis of their sex, sexuality, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression; jokes of a sexual nature, sexual remarks, advances of a sexual nature or verbal abuse of sexual nature in the workplace; harassment of a sexual nature, including initiation rites of a sexual nature; viewing, accessing, distributing or displaying sexually explicit material in the workplace; and any criminal code offense of a sexual nature…”

The order explains that a workplace is any location where work-related functions and other activities take place and work relationships exist, such as: travel, conferences, DND or CAF sanctioned instruction or training activities, and other DND or CAF sanctioned events, including social events.  There are also the usual workplaces: ships, planes, vehicles, offices, classrooms, garrisons, hangars, messes, dining halls, quarters, gyms, on-base clubs, on-line forums, and locations for sanctioned events such as holiday gatherings and course parties.

Key elements are ‘unwanted’ and workplace, with workplace drawing a line between private and professional life.  A consensual Friday night fling at the Angus Inn Motel isn’t 9005 material, but jokes in a classroom, a pin-up calendar, and unwanted attention at the Waterloo Officer’s Mess could be show-stoppers 

Vance is accused of having had several affairs.  Most notoriously, he was accused by Major Kellie Brannan of fathering two of her eight children over the course of a twenty year affair.  A long-term affair is not what is contemplated by the definition of sexual misconduct.  There is no issue about ‘unwanted’, and nothing apparent that involves criminal code violations.

Brennan further alleged that they had had consensual sex in Vance’s office and in his car, which, if true, still mightn’t meet the definition of misconduct unless they were caught in flagrante delicto by a third party who wanted to make an issue of it.  In that case, both would be guilty of misconduct, not by harming each other, but for harming the third party.  Section 129, conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, could supply the service offence charge for violating the DAOD.

If the alleged affair were adulterous, Vance’s wife would have cause for complaint, but that’s a civil matter, not a disciplinary one.  The U.S. military has a legal prohibition of adultery, but the Canadian military does not.  (If we did, we could have lost the services of Lieutenant General Guy Simonds just before the Normandy invasion.)

A long-term affair, a succession of affairs, adulterous affairs, are not sexual misconduct as defined in the DAOD, which is all that is of military significance.  Vance knows his regs; he wasn’t making passes at everything in a skirt, which is what the DAOD foresees as misconduct.  Untethered from the DAOD, accusations of sexual misconduct are just subjective opinions of no disciplinary significance.  Besides, Vance is now released, making the administrative action mentioned in the DAOD moot.  (There is always politically motivated lawfare.)

To deflect unwanted political attention, Prime Minster Trudeau appointed Louise Arbour, another retired Supreme Court Justice, to look into and report upon the ‘culture of sexual misconduct’ in the CAF.  Arbour follows upon Marie Deschamps (passim) whose vagaries of 2015 led to Op Honour; and Michel Bastarache (passim) who wrote a stinker on the RCMP last year.

I watched Arbour get torn to pieces by Mark Steyn at a Munk Debate in 2016.  I look forward to her report.

Whats going on in the NDDN? The National Defence Committee All Political Parties Need to do better

By Military Women

Question: What do you think about everything that is going on right now in the National Defence Committee?

Answer: Every political party says it cares about ensuring the wellbeing of those serving in the military (and veterans)–but that sentiment isn’t always evident in these committee meetings. So, while the highly politicalized media storylines may keep shifting, from the perspective of serving and former military members the one point that hasn’t shifted is that ALL political parties can and need to do better. 

In case there are any readers not already aware, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on National Defence (NDDN) started a study into sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces mid-February.  The study was initially slated for three committee meetings, but strategically timed, laser-guided incoming media bombs have resulted in a continuation of those meetings. Spillover from NDDN is expected to soon reach into other committees such as Status of Women (FEWO) and Veterans Affairs (ACVA).

When one is discussing the need for improved federal government oversight mechanisms for Canada’s all volunteer military workforce, within a minority government situation, Canadians might have assumed that all political parties would work together towards achieving that commonly held goal. Surely, the wellbeing of women and men in uniform would be the one time and place that doing the right thing would trump individual and party political agendas. Unfortunately, that assumption has not yet proven to be correct.

Elizabeth May always elevates any political discussion she’s involved in, so kudos to her for her involvement of late in the NDDN; however, let’s face it, supporting women in the military has never been a priority for the Green Party.

The signature strength of the NDP party is its support of “the people” and yet there is no NDP call for unionization of the military. If unions are good for the RCMP and several European militaries, why not the Canadian military too? 

Québec is home to over 20% of Canadian veterans and the Bloc is usually keen to highlight and amplify that fact and support francophone voices. But we continue to watch as courageous Francophone women such as Stéphanie Raymond and Marie-Claude Gagnon take on the military system alone.

The Liberal Party says all the right things about women and intersectionality, and it did introduce gender-based analysis and named the first ever Ambassador for Women, Peace and Security (Jacqueline O’Neill).  But, the Liberal’s significant efforts to increase the number of women in the military to 25% continues to fall short. One has to be willing to boldly address the core issues behind CAF’s “diversity and inclusion” recruitment and retention woes. This includes identifying and neutralizing the dinosaurs still roaming amongst us that come from all political stripes, Liberals included. 

That leaves us with the Conservatives. While in uniform, military members are apolitical. We vow to serve Canada and Canadians faithfully and fully regardless of which political party governs. However, as per all law and order-related professions, there tends to be a natural alignment between soldiers and conservative values. For example, when a veteran recently ran for party leadership, the Conservative party successfully played to those values to help grow its constituency. The Conservative party has successfully solicited financial support and campaign volunteers through military and veteran social circles, charities and organizations—officially and unofficially. As a result, many veterans, including from the highest military ranks, have now, often for the first time, become politically active.

So where does this leave us? Instead of everyone working together to ensure the wellbeing of military members (and veterans), individual military-related vendettas and agendas are being intermixed with opportunistic party politics at the NDDN. It’s hard not to feel exploited.

The Australian Chief of Defence Staff, Gen Campbell, recently commented that sexual misconduct within the military really comes down to two problems—abuse of power and lack of respect for the individual human being. The failure of Canada’s MPs and political parties to prioritize military members’ needs for federal workplace safety conditions feels like another layer of abuse (of parliamentary powers) and disrespect for those in uniform.

Being in service means putting the mission first and self second.  Ensuring all Canadian military members a welcoming and inclusive workspace is part of the parliamentarian’s mission to achieve. We do our job, we need parliamentarians to do their job.  Members of the NDDN, we deserve your help. Together we can fix these problems. Let’s get on with it.