Thanks Digger. And my experience with Oz soldiers (8/9 RAR in 1984, and a few occasions since) tells me that your country produces fine soldiers also.
My guess is that, barring some catastrophic upheaval (or a radical change in our politics), in size and shape the CF will look pretty much like it does now. A bit bigger or a bit smaller, maybe. A few new capabilities (money permitting) and perhaps some old familiar ones either sidelined or dropped altogether. The current "we Support The Troops" will have been largely forgotten, and Canadians will go back to their normal ill-informed ambivalence toward things military.
Unless we get much smarter than we usually have been, many of the young, keen soldiers, NCOs and junior officers who currently fill our units with great combat experience will have left the Army in frustration at what they see as slashed budgets and lack of challenge, unable to put up with the daily round of garrison life. Raised for ten years in a "wartime army", they will have difficulty facing what is actually the normal state of our forces: peace and penny-pinching.
If historical trends (at least the ones I've lived through) continue, we will probably have better equipment for at least part of the force. Despite our fears and bitching, if you look back objectively, you'll see that over roughly ten-year cycles, our stuff gets better. Maybe not as fast as other countries, or maybe faster (ie: our kit-up for Afgh was truly impressive: for a short while my unscientific guess is that we were one of the very best equipped forces, individually and collectively, in Afgh including the US). We will still have some old stuff around, since items purchased now for Afgh will probably just be nearing the mid-point of their lifespan.
We'll get involved in some overseas adventures, some of which will be dangerous (again, pretty consistent with the last twenty years). I'd look for involvement in Africa, or possibly South America.
I think that, as usual in an Army, people will be the issue.
The biggest challenge we'll have is recruiting. If I understand our national demographics, Canada's population is almost static in terms of growth, and we're aging out. (IIRC we are now on average older than the US population). The white male of European descent who has always formed the majority of our numbers will be a gradually declining resource, so our recruiting and our personnel policies will need to be designed to attract and retain a wider range of people. (In fact, I think this is already well underway if I look at the faces I see here at the Staff College). Unless we have a sudden boom in the birthrate (which won't help us for 18 years after it happens), or a big spike in immigration, we will be competing against a stiff demand for a shrinking labour force. We won't just be able to win it on the basis of how much we pay: we will lose that arms race. Not only will this competition make recruiting difficult: it will also be an obstacle to retention.
If the trend gets bad enough, Canada might have to consider peacetime national service for the first time since the days of the Sedentary Militia, when every able-bodied male citizen was liable for service. (Obviously this would include females too, and the definition of "able" would probably be broader than it is now, with steadily improving medical technology.)
Hopefully the current emphases on fitness, training for combat and good leadership will survive: whatever else may be true, those of us still serving will still have to "keep the flame alive".
Cheers
