Celebrate Canada's First Military Heroes

Just how important should Canada be to the Canadian army?

The answer should be obvious, except perhaps when one considers the War of 1812. Over a dozen current Canadian army reserve regiments found their origin as permanent colonial regiments or militia units organized to protect Canada during the U.S invasions of 1812-14.

Sadly, while battle honours (the right to list a battle or campaign on a military unit’s flags and official signage) were produced by the British Crown to recognize service during the War of 1812, the post-Confederation Canadian government refused to allow any of its own military regiments to carry such honours. Many Canadian units have battle honours stemming from the Riel Rebellion, the Boer War, the two World Wars and Korea, but no Canadian unit recognizes the sacrifices of our ancestors from before Confederation. Only British units are allowed to celebrate the feats of heroism that kept Canada from being annexed by the United States.


While it may seem like a minor issue, battle honours are a point of pride for Canadian army regiments. They are the most important symbol of a unit’s history, and the sacrifices that it has made in the service of its country. It honours not only the unit itself, but all the soldiers who died while fighting as part of it. Regimental battle honours inscribed on the regiment’s colours (flag) are treated with near religious reverence by members of a unit, and are proudly flown when on parade.

Granted, we cannot deny the historical fact that it was the British army that did most of the fighting during the U.S invasions of 1812-14. Their Canadian battle honours are well deserved, and something that British army units remain rightly proud of to this day.

But that does not mean that Canadians stood aside. In the years leading up to the war, the British government authorized the formation of several permanent army regiments in Canada. Regiments such as the Glengarry Light Infantry Fencibles, the Voltigeurs canadiens and the 104th (New Brunswick) Regiment of Foot, among others, served on the front lines and saw action during most of the war’s bloody battles. There were also thousands of militia soldiers, members of local units who would arm themselves and join with the larger, regular units when there was fighting in their area. Hundreds of these militia soldiers and permanent volunteers were killed or badly wounded during the war.

These men served their king and country with honour, and created military units that later became part of the proud Canadian military that we have today. It is only appropriate that those Canadian units that can trace their origin back to the War of 1812 should be able to list the battles of that war as part of their regiment’s proud tradition. It’s true that these battles predate Confederation itself, but so do many other parts of our history, including many that are openly embraced and celebrated by Canadians as a part of our rich heritage. There is no reason that Canada’s military history should be any different.

I-Phones in school? Is there a zap for that?

Published in the Toronto Sun on May 25, 2011

My battle against the tsunami of cellphones, iPhones and BlackBerrys in the classroom just became a little more lonely as the Toronto District School Board voted last week to lift its ban on the use of personal electronic devices.

I do not teach with the Toronto board but obviously I am concerned about what can happen when the country’s largest school board appeases students in this way.

I am no technophobe. I have taught computer courses in the past, have contributed to various IT magazines, wrote online courses and continue to make extensive use of the Internet as an instructional tool.

And it is precisely this experience, coupled with a realistic understanding of student psychology and behaviour, that convinces me no ban against student use of personal electronic devices can ever be strict enough.

Allowing the use of personal electronic devices in the classroom is not a question of “keeping up with the times” as some of its proponents have said.

And it is truly naive for any responsible educator to think teens will inherently use devices like iPhones and BlackBerrys to enhance their ability to learn in class.

The simple truth is adolescent students overwhelmingly use personal electronic devices as entertainment and a distraction away from their duty to concentrate and learn in school.

I have never confiscated an iPhone or BlackBerry in the classroom and found the student was taking in a few lines of Chaucer or trying to get the latest news on what is happening in the world.

But I have certainly stumbled on material completely and utterly unrelated to what was going on in class. I have caught students cheating on tests by trying to access classroom notes from their iPhone.

I am also not convinced (though some of my students have tried) that listening to their favourite classic rock or heavy metal band on their mp3 players will actually help an individual concentrate on their school work.

It also seems teachers like me are not the only ones refusing to “keep up with the times.”

Whether it be at the local fast-food restaurant or clothing store, I have never seen any of my students text message, access their iPhone apps, or listen to music on their mp3 player while on duty at their part-time jobs. Could it be the “real world of business” also believes these devices are counterproductive and a distraction.

The Toronto District School Board has stated it will “allow individual teachers to determine the use of personal electronic devices during classroom teaching and learning” acknowledging these devices should only be used for school-related purposes.

But the fact remains that instead of being categorically supported by their executive leadership, the Toronto public school teacher who may, for whatever reason, say no to these devices could potentially be seen as challenging the intentions of their executive leadership.

And just how realistic is it to expect the teacher to teach, deal with classroom management issues, while at the same time continually monitoring the use of say 20-30 personal electronic devices in the classroom ensuring each and every one is being used strictly for educational reasons?

Inevitably the students will win.


Image source: www.makingparents.info

Our False Presumptions of Military Spending

When I joined the Canadian Forces in 1980, the common perception was that the prime minister of the day, Pierre Trudeau, was no friend of the military.

Trudeau, so we serving men and women were told back then, had starved the Forces of funds and the necessary new equipment we needed to fulfill our responsibilities.
Back then, you either simply believed this to be the case or you tried to rationalize it.

Not surprisingly, those on the political right insisted that they and they alone were the true friends of the Canadian military. A tradition that continued with Stephen Harper coming to power in 2006.

But with an election upon us and military spending — new fighter jets, ships, international engagements — looming over our future, maybe it is time for a hard look at these perceptions.

Just how supportive has Harper's Conservative government been towards the Canadian Forces compared to, say, Trudeau's Liberals?

The historical reality may surprise you. Trudeau was the greater spender, by a long shot, on both soldiers and big equipment, including fighter jets, which the current debate over the uncertain cost of the proposed new F-35s would appear to obscure.
But Trudeau lost the political perception battle, which in the long run may prove not to be a good thing for our armed forces.

The big slide

When Trudeau became prime minister in 1968, defence spending stood at 2.5 per cent of GDP. Today it is only about 1.1 per cent of GDP, the equivalent of $597 per Canadian.

In the 1950s, we Canadians spent just over six per cent of GDP on defence. Not surprisingly, it was going to fall off in the push for post-War prosperity and it reached its lowest point under the Jean Chretien Liberals in about 2001.
But now, five years into a Conservative government, military spending as a percentage of GDP is still considerably lower than even at the lowest point of the Trudeau era.

From 2006 to 2009 defence spending was between 1.2 and 1.3 per cent of GDP, according to several sources, including the respected Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

The forecast for 2010-11 was that it would drop to approximately 1.1 per cent — a low for the Harper government.

Does size matter?

In my time in the forces we were also reminded, over and over again, how embarrassingly small our numbers had become.

From 1968 to 1976, the number of regular force personnel decreased from just over 100,000 to what was considered a pathetically low 77,000.

Under Harper, the regular forces saw an increase but only to 67,742 in 2010, according to Treasury Board figures.

In Trudeau's era, there were also more Canadian Forces serving abroad than today, a total of 6,645 in 1975 for example in Europe, Cyprus and the Middle East.

Fast forward to 2010-11, pretty much all we have overseas is the 2,922 military personnel on the ground in Afghanistan.

As far as peacekeeping goes, we were down to 62 — yes, 62 — military personnel serving on peacekeeping duty with the UN, as of February 2011. The majority of Canada's peacekeepers today are civilian police officers.

Yes, I realize that we are currently in the midst of a hot war in Afghanistan and Europeans are more than capable of looking after their own backyard in this post-Cold War period.

But when our allies talk about Canada not always shouldering its weight on the world stage, or being prepared for future conflicts, these are the numbers they are referring to.

Big guns

When it comes to a down payment on future security, Harper has certainly staked out a distinct position in this campaign with his planned purchase of utility support aircraft, 65 fighter jets, as well as six to eight Arctic patrol vessels and two or three large support ships.

Actually, that is not bad for four years in office. But the Conservatives still have a way to go to catch up to Trudeau's procurement of large military assets.

Under Trudeau, Canada acquired four new Tribal class destroyers in 1972, three of them still in operation. His government also approved and began work on our fleet of 12 patrol frigates.

We also acquired 138 top-of-the-line CF-18 fighter jets, which were added to the 135 CF-116 light attack strike and reconnaissance fighters that came into operation under Trudeau in the late 1960s.

Just considering Trudeau's CF-18 fighter purchase alone, that is more than double the number of F-35 stealth jets on order by the current government.

It makes you wonder, has our airspace shrunk or only our willingness to protect it?
The Trudeau Liberals can also be credited with the design and building of 18 CP-140 Aurora maritime patrol aircraft, which became operational in 1980 and are now being deployed, together with the Trudeau-era CF-18s to support the no-fly zone in Libya.

If you are keeping a tally, the score for the number of front-line combat/patrol aircraft by era is: Trudeau 291, Harper 65.

The perception

Why am I concerned about the often erroneous perceptions we have of our political leaders when it comes to defence matters?

It is because perception is everything in politics and the common view today on both sides of the political spectrum is that the Canadian Forces under Harper are a bigger and far more generously equipped military that is, especially numerically, playing a far larger role overseas.

None of that is true.

Still, the myth that we are now "big military spenders" with an overbuilt army could well make the Canadian Forces an easy target for future cost-cutting if voters become convinced that there is fat to be trimmed and some sort of peace dividend to be paid out post-Afghanistan.

When it comes to our national security, do we really believe the world is a safer place now than it was in the 1970s?

Veterans Affairs not Extending Benefits to Recent Low Income Vets

While the government heaps praise on our military and our vets the hard reality is that those Canadian Forces members who become disabled today will receive far fewer benefits than their fathers and grandfathers received at the end of the Second World War. It is the dirty secret no politician wants to admit to.....

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/cover_index.php?display=story&full_path=/2007/september/3/smol/&c=1