Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 9 - Evidence - Meeting of June 2, 2008
OTTAWA, Monday, June 2, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, to which was referred Bill C-287, An Act respecting a National Peacekeepers' Day, met this day at 2:28 p.m. to give consideration to the bill and to examine and report on the national security policy of Canada.
Senator Colin Kenny (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: It is my pleasure to welcome you to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. My name is Colin Kenny. I am the committee chair. Before we begin, I would like to briefly introduce the members of the committee.
On my immediate left is Senator David Tkachuk from Saskatchewan. He was appointed to the Senate in June of 1993. Over the years, he has been a businessman, public servant, teacher, and he is deputy chair of the committee.
On his left is Senator Michael Meighen from Ontario. He was appointed to the Senate in September of 1990. He is a lawyer and a member of the bars of Quebec and Ontario. He is currently chair of our Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs and also a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
To his left is Senator Nancy Ruth, a feminist activist. She is from Ontario and has been a senator since March of 2005. Senator Nancy Ruth is a member of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. She is also a member of our Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs.
At the end of the table is Senator Peter Stollery, a long-time member of Parliament from the riding of Spadina. He has been chair of a number of committees in the Senate, most recently the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
On my immediate right is Senator Wilfred Moore. He was called to the Senate in September of 1996. He represents the senatorial division of Stanhope St.-South Shore in Nova Scotia. He has been active at the city level in Halifax- Dartmouth and has served as a member of the board of governors of Saint Mary's University.
To his left is Senator James Munson, a well-respected Canadian journalist who recently served as director of communications to Prime Minister Chrétien. He has had an extensive career in journalism, both in Canada and abroad. He was CTV's bureau chief in Beijing from 1987 to 1992. He has also served as bureau chief and senior correspondent in Halifax; London, England; and he covered the Iran-Iraq War.
On the far end of the table is Senator Rod Zimmer from Winnipeg, Manitoba. He has had a long and distinguished career in business and philanthropy. He has been a member of the Senate since August 2005. He also sits on the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.
Honourable senators and members of the viewing public, we have before us today Lieutenant-General Walter Natynczyk. He is Vice Chief of the Defence Staff. Lieutenant-General Natynczyk first joined the Canadian Forces in August of 1975. His formative years were spent on NATO duty in Germany with the Royal Canadian Dragoons. Over the course of his career, he has served as a squadron commander at Royal Military College in Kingston, as a UN peacekeeper, and as part of the UN forces deployed in Bosnia and Croatia. He assumed responsibilities of the vice chief in June of 2006, where he acts as resource manager for the Canadian Forces and the number-two man in the chain of command. Lieutenant-General Natynczyk is considered a front-runner to replace General Rick Hillier as Chief of the Defence Staff.
We welcome you here, Lieutenant-General Natynczyk. We understand you have a statement you would like to make. We look forward to hearing it.
Lieutenant-General W. J. Natynczyk, Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, National Defence: As the vice chief, among my responsibilities is resource management within the department. I gather you have an interest in the strategic assessments. I will put that into perspective in terms of how we allocate resources in the Department of National Defence, DND. If you have questions or if you wish to jump in, senators, please do; otherwise, I will go through the statement.
Thank you for this opportunity to outline how the department allocates resources.
[Translation]
The objective is to help you better understand the way in which strategic assessments are integrated into the system and how we deal with them. Our system is based on the principles of challenges, priorities and risk management, all with the goal of guaranteeing prudent financial administration of the most important aspects of the implementation of the defence mission.
[English]
I would like to give you some context to the resources of the Department of National Defence. DND has received significant commitments to defence funding since 2005. Budget 2005 provided $7 billion in new budgetary funding over five years, while Budget 2006 confirmed the Budget 2005 commitment and added $5.3 billion over five years. Together, Budgets 2005 and 2006 represent approximately a 30 per cent increase to the defence services program over a period of six years.
However, long-term planning and resource management are best accomplished within a stable and predictable funding environment. Budget 2008 addressed this requirement with a commitment to raise the automatic annual increase in defence funding from 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent, beginning in 2011-12. Over the next 20 years, this will provide National Defence with an additional approximately $12 billion in funding. This infusion of stable, predictable funding allows the department to plan beyond the next budget cycle to conduct a comprehensive examination of the defence portfolio and future requirements.
This significant increase in defence funding has presented its own set of unique challenges and opportunities. We have been able to acquire in very short order the C-17 aircraft and order new tactical air lift, the Hercules C-130J, and invest in land combat equipment. On the other hand, the investments in personnel growth and the acquisition of other new capacities and equipment will take several years in many cases to implement. As a result, we have seen that defence funding in the next four to five years will increase at a greater rate than our capacity, particularly in regard to personnel, industry and the capital procurement approval process to fully invest the available funds across the four components of military capability: personnel, capital, infrastructure and operational readiness.
A number of programs have been put in place to address this project capacity issue, and we have taken steps to balance demand with supply over both the short and long term. We are discussing with central agencies, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and the Department of Finance Canada the re-profiling of funds from those years in which we have a surplus in the future to those in which we expect a deficit through the flow of all those capital acquisitions. In addition, we have created a program opportunities fund that is being used to provide a five-year boost to investment on infrastructure maintenance and recapitalization, sustainment and a number of other initiatives, such as an apprenticeship program for our civilian workforce.
[Translation]
The positive aspect of the funding issue is that the government's long-term financial commitment has allowed us to define the resulting challenges, to formulate recommendations and to make decisions on resource planning. All this is in order to determine in which areas and at what time substantial allocations and adjustments must be made in the defence portfolio so that the best results are obtained at the lowest cost. These results include the prior identification both of amounts that are beyond the department's capacity and of the time when the funds will be required to meet essential investment needs when, with time, that capacity increases.
To achieve those results, the department engages in financial and resource planning for a 10- to 20-year period. This planning considers anticipated funding as well as all the activities and fixed-asset acquisitions that are affordable, known and announced. This process allows us to determine our financial ability to meet both short- and long-term proposals. The long-term effects of the decisions we make about resources are always examined. Long-term planning, together with stable and predictable funding, allows us to make funding commitments to our senior managers at the earliest possible stage, allowing them in turn to allocate resources in the most appropriate manner.
[English]
Let me now address the strategic assessments. All senior managers prepare strategic assessments every fall as part of the department's defence planning cycle. The strategic assessment submissions are essentially the beginning of the department's business planning cycles. The strategic assessments are intended to present to the deputy minister and the Chief of the Defence Staff the overall state of the resource manager's business environment and are to explain how he or she will conduct their business and assign tasks given their assigned resources. They also identify for departmental consideration their major risk areas where resources, such as personnel, funding or even time, are not sufficient to permit the full exclusion of their assigned tasks. These risk areas are assessed, and the managers provide details on how they propose to mitigate the risks and manage their impact on related strategic outcomes and program activities should the department not provide the personnel or the funding that would address the risk.
The overall intent of the strategic assessment is to focus on key strategic level issues that would contribute to sound decision making. The senior managers also produce more detailed business plans that must be affordable within their assigned budgets and realistically achievable in terms of accomplishing the manager's priorities and tasks. The business plans support the strategic assessments and generally include, first, the identification and prioritization of all major tasks that the manager plans to undertake within the next four years; second, the performance expectations for tasks, with identified expected outcomes; third, the identification of the risks in performing tasks, given the resources provided; fourth, proposed mitigation strategies for all identified risks; and fifth, to provide subordinate organizations their specific funding allocations. These business plans are based upon existing, planned baseline funding levels and thus remain in a draft format until these initial allocations have been adjusted and finalized through the business plan process and the release of the approval letters that mark the end of the business plan cycle.
Once the strategic assessments and draft business plans are submitted, my staff then examine, analyze and challenge the funding pressures, evaluate the risks to the organization and assess the proposed mitigation strategies of all the senior managers. This analysis is conducted on a departmental-wide basis with the aim of identifying those pressures and risks most critical to the department. In preparation for this analysis, my staff evaluate the expected fiscal situation for the forthcoming fiscal year and for the next 10 years, and identify what additional resources can be made available for allocation by the deputy minister and the Chief of the Defence Staff to address the financial pressures both in year and baseline. This evaluation also takes into account broader departmental requirements to, for example, increase the baseline funding for sustainment, for infrastructure maintenance, repair, and research and development, and to control the growth of expenditure on personnel. This is all part of ensuring a balanced approach to funding the four components of military capability of which I just spoke earlier.
In performing the challenge function, I take the following evaluation criteria into consideration: operational needs, government direction, defence priorities, force expansion plans, financial feasibility and environmental changes such as fuel costs. Each personnel or funding demand is also assessed for reasonableness, whether it make sense; and for achievability, whether the senior manager can actually hire the personnel or spend that funding in the time requested.
[Translation]
Once all these questions have been evaluated, my staff prepares recommendations on adjusting the allocated resources, on risk acceptance and on strategies to reduce those risks. Since there will never be enough money to accommodate all requests, funding recommendations are made for areas of critical tension, always bearing in mind that available financial resources are limited.
Following my assessment and consultation with senior managers, a process that generally takes place between November and February, a one-day meeting is held, attended by the senior managers, the deputy minister and the chief of the defence staff. During that February session, the principal challenges, tensions and risks are presented by the managers and discussed in the context of departmental strategy.
At that point, the deputy minister and the chief of the defence staff are able either to accept the risks that have been identified by level 1 managers and provide direction on the ways to reduce the risks that have been identified, or to suggest changes to the tasks and priorities, or to provide the resources necessary to reduce those risks that are considered too high.
In February or March, the recommendations on tensions and risks are re-evaluated based on the decisions that were made and the priorities that were established at the meeting. The result is a series of recommendations either to increase allocations or to put risk reduction measures into place.
For example, the Chief of the Air Staff identified a funding constraint linked to the cost of fuel because the ability to fly and to conduct air operations depends directly on the availability of fuel. The funding necessary to address this constraint was assigned a high priority. This funding will make it possible for the Chief of the Air Staff to avoid reassigning funds from within the organization's budget, something he had to do in previous years because he had less funding. This allows financial pressures on a program to be reduced.
[English]
In response to the sustainment funding deficits reported by the chiefs of the land, air and maritime staff, we will be able to significantly increase funding to improve the level of support for spare parts, equipment, maintenance and operational clothing, which have a direct impact on the levels of training and readiness of the forces. That is a baseline increase and will be followed by further increases as subsequent allocations allow. These increased funds are allocated to the navy, army and air force on departmental priority basis, and we have been able to increase the allocations to the three environments to the point that the percentage of funding of executable demand has greatly increased. Executable demand is the assessment by the Assistant Deputy Minister of Materiel of how much can be spent in a given year, taking into account project staff, contracting and industrial capacity. We have also addressed the common problem of infrastructure maintenance by increasing baseline funding. When combined with the shorter-term funding from the program opportunities fund, we will have reached the industry standards for maintenance funding of 2 per cent of the realty replacement costs of our total infrastructure portfolio and 2 per cent for recapitalization, that is, the replacement of infrastructure.
Once the deputy minister and the Chief of the Defence Staff decide on allocations, I will issue business plan approval letters to each senior resource manager. These letters provide official direction on tasks, risk assumption, mitigation, implementation and resource allocations. Once the approval letters are in hand, the manager has the authority to execute his or her business plan. That marks the end of the business planning cycle for the fiscal year.
Once the financial allocations are finalized, the department has a number of control mechanisms that monitor and adjust departmental spending throughout the year. In some cases, business plan funding demands that are determined to be valid are not supported by the detailed implementation plan. In those cases, funding will be set aside in what we call ``protected reserves,'' pending receipt and approval of a fully costed and substantiated plan to ensure the departmental managers are able to efficiently spend their allocated funds.
The department incorporates a level of what we call ``over programming'' in each fiscal year's plan. Over programming is a management tool used to maximize the effect of the department's budget. Departments are required to over program to allow for changes in scheduling, approval delays, project scope changes, unforecasted operational priorities and a host of additional program realities. Over programming allows senior management the flexibility of being prepared for those unforeseen realities with the aim of balancing their annual funds by the year's end. The level of over programming is set each year based upon historical levels and assessment of the likelihood of slippage in projects and spending plans.
Accordingly, and in keeping with the prudent risk management practices, a strategy and plan to reduce the overall over programming to zero by the end of the fiscal year is developed and implemented primarily through formal spending reviews at the end of each quarter of the fiscal year. The over programming risk is monitored carefully on my behalf by the Chief of Program and Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance and Corporate Services. The corporate over programming strategies that we develop each year identify mitigation measures, such as program activities that can increase and cease spending to ensure we allocate funds efficiently within each fiscal year while remaining within our expenditure authorities by year's end. There are always mitigation strategies to off-ramp spending as required.
To deal with unexpected funding demands, which can range from a small contingency operation, as we have in some floods from a domestic standpoint, or a task for which the department will not be seeking government funding to increasing costs of current programs to identification of new activities.
Funds are released from these reserves following a thorough review and challenge of the state of requirement, and, in the event that funds in excess of the reserves are required, the department will identify a source of funds through a formal, quarterly spending review, and, in most cases, slippage elsewhere in the program can be used. However, reducing or stopping expenditures on lower priority activities is always an option. There is always a possibility that slippage in funded programs will exceed the over programming level and/or that the department's ability to introduce new or increased program spending over the fiscal year.
While we attempt to keep valid program opportunities in our hip pocket, there is a limit to those opportunities, and the department may have to rely on a carry-forward provision into the subsequent fiscal years to avoid lapsing funds, or, as is the case for the next few years, we seek central authority to change the department's funding profile over many years.
[Translation]
With the goal of stabilizing its financial planning and its long-term activity planning, the department has begun to develop an investment plan; the investments will be detailed in the four pillars of the Canada First defence strategy in the coming years.
This plan will specify how the department will match its strategic mandate to the resources with which it is provided. The plan will be based on our capacities and will guarantee that those capacities will be provided with the necessary equipment, personnel, infrastructure and funding.
[English]
The fiscal strategy for 2008-09 is a year of investment in enhanced readiness, sustainment and shortfalls and of responses to new environmental conditions such as fuel costs. Furthermore, the five-year program opportunities initiative has allowed the department to deal with some long-outstanding financial pressures and to invest in readiness, sustainment and senior manager initiatives that will reduce future year requirements quarterly.
In conclusion, we are positioning ourselves for the future both tactically and strategically.
Senator Meighen: Welcome, Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk; it is good to have you here. Thank you for that complete exposé of the business planning and budget allocation process. I whispered to my colleague Senator Tkachuk, ``Better you than me having to go through that.'' It is extremely detailed, obviously, and gets you as close as you can reasonably get to perfection in allocating scarce resources to ever-increasing demands.
You may have already talked about this, but where are you now in the process of coming to a final decision? You have gone through the initial phase, certainly.
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: We are close to the end. Last year, it was July when I was delegated the authority to issue the allocation letters, and I am hoping we can do that in June. The approval is with the Chief of the Defence Staff and the deputy minister. We try to accelerate. We learned many lessons from last year, namely, that the sooner we can give people a confirmed understanding of their allocated resources, the earlier they can get on to committing it and, therefore, use the money more efficiently and effectively. We are trying to advance it by a month, and I am hoping that in the next week or two, I will get the delegation and issue the approval letters.
Senator Meighen: Can you give the committee some idea, at least in macro terms, of the level one shortages that you were able to address and the ones you could not?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: We will await the confirmation, but we are anticipating significant pressures by all three services with respect to what we call their national procurement, which is the resources allocated toward spare parts, maintenance and clothing and so on. We anticipate being able to bump up a couple of the services by about 7 per cent, and one of the services up by 11 per cent, to be able to address those pressures. The chief of the air force had a significant pressure in terms of fuel costs. We anticipate being able to give them in excess of $25 million for fuel to address that.
Those are the types of things we are able to do because of the longer-term vision of available resources, so we know what will come in subsequent years. It can actually encourage us to take a bit more risk in terms of making those allocations to baselines. This is my first time as vice chief; I am normally just a combat soldier. In this vice chief business, I have learned that the earlier we can tell the Assistant Deputy Minister of Materiel how much money he has for spare parts, the earlier he can go to companies and order engines, tracks, wheels and other spare parts that we need to keep the fleets going.
If we try to do it only in-year, there is insufficient time dealing with industry to get those materials built and delivered. The earlier we do it, the better it is.
I learned a year ago that we need to be able to tell all of these managers not only what they have in the current year but also their notional allocations through what their baseline is expected to be for the subsequent year. I have to try to do that by the end of the summer, in September, so that they know the level of funding for 2009-10 that they can expect to receive in those allocations.
Senator Meighen: In theory, let us imagine we were not in Afghanistan, and during this cycle, we ended up going to Afghanistan. Obviously, the need for spare parts and replacements would increase dramatically. How do you plan for that?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: It goes to this quarterly review; there is significant flexibility from the quarterly review. Again, as I mentioned in my presentation, people make pretty comprehensive plans. However, once the plan is launched, anything can happen, whether industry has difficulty delivering or approvals are not received and the money is there. A constant collaborative process goes on amongst our controllers, our comptrollers, in terms of how much money can be spent in a given quarter. That allows a significant amount of flexibility to reallocate to higher priorities.
Senator Meighen: What happens if you go through the process, you then realize there are only X dollars and need therefore to cut capability in some area? Do you advise the government of that, or what steps do you take given that scenario?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: There is constant communication and collaboration with our officials, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and the Department of Finance Canada. That is a constant throughout the year indicating what financial pressures we might face as a result of unforeseen requirements.
The ability to change or adjust in-year is limited. It goes back to having to commit to long-term contracts for spare parts and so on. Our source of funds toward the end of the fiscal year really comes down to fuel, et cetera purchased on short notice.
Senator Meighen: You can always get an emergency allocation, or ask for one.
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: We also manage over programming. We over program to a degree but recognize that a number of projects, while very valid in their own right, have the characteristics to be off-ramped if indeed the money is not freed up. We can say that we will carry that in the following year without penalty.
Senator Meighen: Are you able to tell us whether, at this point, certain capabilities will have to be abandoned given the shortage of funds?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: My understanding is that we are not about to abandon capability.
Senator Meighen: Will you reduce capability?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: I do not have in my mind a capability we would reduce.
Senator Meighen: That is encouraging.
Reports indicated that DND lapsed funds this past year in the order of $500 million. If that is so, is it more difficult to argue for increased funding when you did not spend what you had in hand in the previous fiscal year?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: We had a challenge over a year ago. DND brought in its budget, and I believe we were $100,000 into the black. That was not bad on a $16.5-billion budget. This past year, we had money set up in reserves in the event that we did not receive full funding for some of the Afghanistan pressures. Again, a lot of the changes occurred, and the senator indicated that they may or may not be able to fund some of those pressures. Funds were set aside for procurement reform, so we had money allocated in reserve for procurement reform. We had a major capital project, the Maritime Helicopter Project, MHP, and we had money set aside for the in-year payments if timelines were met. It turned out that late in the fiscal year, October-November time frame, we found out we would receive the money for Afghanistan. We actually were forgiven on the procurement reform and were about to lapse money on MHP. Payment was not required because services were not delivered.
In the third quarter, we had a significant amount of money, yet our over programming was in the order of about $200 million, and there we were facing $600 to $700 million in our hands. Our ability to spend money effectively and efficiently in-year is very difficult.
Late in the fiscal year, we found ourselves in a unique situation where we had a significant amount of money and our over programming was in the order of $200 million. Because of the procurement reform where we did not have to make that payment, nor take on all the Afghanistan costs, we had a significant injection of money. It came down to us spending the money efficiently and effectively through the end of the year. Where we could not spend that money effectively, efficiently and properly — we used every method of procuring the fuels, ensuring all the fuel tanks were full, the ships' fuel and things along those lines — we then finished the fiscal year with that money. We went back to the Department of Finance and asked how much we could carry forward. Given the unique situation of the Maritime Helicopter Project, that is vote 5 money, so we asked whether we can carry that in a subsequent year. Our people are still working with the Department of Finance on those monies.
At the end of the day, we must show due diligence in spending the taxpayers' dollars.
Senator Meighen: The Canadian Armed Forces have always taken pride in the excellence of their training. While it is fair to say that we are still faced with the difficulty of perhaps a shortage of trainers — many having been already deployed to Afghanistan, and there may not be as many as we may like, particularly for the army here at home — sailors have to sail in order to learn their skills and people in the air force have to fly in order to learn theirs.
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: Absolutely.
Senator Meighen: Can Canadians go to bed tonight assured that the rising cost of fuel and the constraints that everyone faces in procuring adequate funds will not reduce the level of training particularly for our air force and navy?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: Senator, I can tell you that in-year, we have given a significant boost for fuel and for the national procurement that allows for that higher level of training that our airmen, airwomen, sailors and soldiers require to maintain their proficiency in their profession. We have learned that. We do not take a back seat to anyone in terms of how we train and the proficiency we have with our officers and non-commissioned members. We are amongst the best in the world with our training. That is why, as part of this approach to funding, we have put training high on the priority, right after operations, to ensure our men and women have what they need.
Within our current year pressures, and recognizing the increase of cost, that is why we are plussing up, especially the air force because their budget on fuel determines their yearly flying rate, YFR, so to speak. That has been recognized, and we have plussed that up.
Right now, about half the navy is at sea off the East Coast; Combined Task Force 150 is going into the Arabian Gulf with Commodore Bob Davidson taking command with three ships. We have vessels in the Pacific participating in major exercises. The tempo of training is very high for all services right now, and we have to ensure efficiency across the board.
Senator Munson: You were saying that no matter what the fuel costs — because Canadians are all getting whacked on fuel costs, no matter what — there will be no cuts?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: I am saying that in-year, I can see that we have been able to address the pressures by the services in terms of what they are facing now for fuel.
We are able to deal with the funds that we have at the end of the fiscal year by filling up the fuel tanks on many of our bases. When we have money at hand, we fill up the fuel tanks. That is what we can do in a short period of time. As well, the Chief of the Air Staff has indicated that his huge pressure was fuel.
In terms of forever, I cannot make ``forever'' statements. I know my in-year and four years for sure, and those are the fuel costs. We have put that into our overall budgeting plan.
The Chair: I would like to clarify a couple of answers that you gave to Senator Meighen. You talked about the planning process starting at the beginning of the fiscal year and going into June. In the previous year, it went into July. Why do you spend the first quarter of the fiscal year doing that? Why not start before the beginning of the fiscal year so that your commanders know from the start how much they have to spend?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: We are backing this so that it gets back into the April time frame. That is recognized. Part of this time of the year has been focused on sorting out the new defence priorities. We are trying to move that to the left on the calendar so that we can finish and begin this in April.
As it stands now, the reality is that it is about a month after the old fiscal year when we know where we land, and then see how things settle in order to confirm what those allocations are.
Ideally, we would be able to finish this at the beginning of May. Therefore, after the old fiscal year, we allow a month to let things settle, and then launch the allocation letters and start the new fiscal year. My aim right now is to push left on this, so to speak, on the calendar.
The Chair: You talked about over programming. The department came out with its annual report in November. On page 13 of that report, it talked about growth in the Canadian Forces, and then it got down to reprofiling. The planned increase of regulars was cut from 13,000 to 7,500 and reserves from 10,000 to 1,000.
Given the excessive funds that lapsed, why could that not have been one of the programs to mitigate the situation?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: One of the challenges again is doing things in-year. That was fairly late in the fiscal year. We have learned the lesson that we have to over program, not only in terms of dollar sense, but in terms of recruiting sense.
You may have heard General Hillier say recently in a public forum that this past year, I think we had a strategic intake planned target of about 6,500 or 6,600, and we attained that. Again, our personnel planner said that this year we should plan for 7,000 people. We said, ``Let us over program. Let us go to 8,000. Let us try to lean forward.'' We know we have to grow across the board. Therefore, we decided us not stop at 7,000 but to go to 8,000; if we can attain that number, then great.
That is one area we want to over program because we find the personnel issues are the determining factor in so much of our business. We want to lean forward in terms of hiring people.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I wanted to get some clarification about the function of over planning. Of the $500 million that was not used, is that partly because of over planning, of actions that did not get implemented? In what ways do you use the function of over planning?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: It is over programming. Actually lapsing $500 million would suggest we were not ambitious, aggressive or assertive enough in over programming this past year. We were not over programmed to a sufficient point such that we could spend that $500 million that the department had been allocated for good and reasonable requirements.
The year before, we had come in at a thin line of $100,000 into the black on a $16.5 billion budget. We brought it in, with all credit going to our financial planners and our comptroller staff. At the same time, we thought maybe we were too assertive and ambitious the previous year, so we said that we would keep our over programming between $200 million and $400 million. At the beginning of the fiscal year, we will have it at $400 million, and we will try to bring it down closer to $200 million over the course of the year, and then bring it down to zero. That was the plan for this past year.
By mid-year, we were at that $200-million target of over programming when the Department of Finance and the central agency said that we would get all our money for Afghanistan and that we will not have to pay the $170 million for procurement reform. Then we found out that the Maritime Helicopter Project would not deliver on time. All of a sudden, we ended up with $700 million in our hands, and we had new requirements in the order of only $200 million. That was the challenge mid-year through.
As I mentioned in my text, so many factors occur during the year that in these quarterly reviews, we are actually dealing with every one of the assistant deputy ministers in the services. We inquire about their pressures, what they could spend money on wisely, where they can invest and where they are having difficulty spending the money. They then advise us so that we can reallocate that toward someone else's pressures. It is a constant collaborative process that occurs throughout the year.
Senator Zimmer: Welcome from another native Winnipegger. Thank you for your very comprehensive report, as Senator Meighen has indicated.
When you joined the Canadian Forces in 1975, another native Winnipegger was the Minister of National Defence at the time, Jim Richardson, from Manitoba.
My questions deal more with your position and the role that you play. Has your role as the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff changed in the new, transformed Canadian Forces, and if so, how? Has that changed the priorities of funding, infrastructure and personnel with which you are dealing?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: My role as the vice chief in the transformed organization has changed significantly. Just over a decade ago, I worked in the vice chief's office for Admiral Murray when he was in the chair and again as J-3 Operations working for Admiral Garnett when he was the vice chief. I have seen the job evolve significantly through the transformation. In the old structure, the vice chief was solely focused on back-up to the Chief of the Defence Staff and doing the corporate resource management.
My role has expanded significantly. I am more involved in operations in supporting the Chief of the Defence Staff, CDS, because the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff is no longer there — that position was reduced to a rear-admiral or major-general position. When the CDS is not in Ottawa, or if he is indeed not in Canada, I operate on his behalf overseeing operations much more than the previous vice chiefs have in this regard.
My corporate responsibilities really have not changed, except with the creation through transformation of the Chief of Force Development — a major-general position, currently Major-General Mike Ward. This is an organization that in the 1990s, when we had our 35 per cent reduction in the Department of National Defence Headquarters, NDHQ, we did away with the Chief of Force Development. That office and that organization really charts out the future map of capabilities for the Armed Forces in the near- and the long-term horizons. Even in the 1990s, we had difficulty affording those types of plans. It was difficult to retain that type of office. That office has been recreated, so I am much more involved not only in corporate management but in force development in the longer term.
In my next job, I have oversight of a number of organizations within the DND organization. Through the transformation, I have picked up oversight of all outside-of-Canada organizations, such as the military attachés, our liaison staff in London, Washington, Colorado Springs and so on. This is more administrative support to all those organizations. That was a significant change.
Finally, my organization administers for the Chief of Defence Intelligence. He provides his product to both the Chief of the Defence Staff and the deputy minister, but indeed he comes under my umbrella for administration. Those are some of the significant changes that have occurred through the transformation.
Senator Zimmer: I understand that new people come into the new positions and that there is a master plan. How much can you, with your own background and your personal priorities, influence the master plan, or is it pretty much set?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: I would say that one characteristic and principle of military operations is flexibility. Indeed, dealing with the Armed Forces Council, the senior leadership of the Armed Forces, that is how we adapt to constantly changing pressures. I do not believe there is a plan so cast in concrete that it cannot be adjusted in terms of succession and personnel planning, et cetera. Indeed, we are quite adaptable. Here I am a soldier, and I am doing a lot of financial management, with the great help of the comptrollers and the financial staff we have. We all have that characteristic of adaptability.
Senator Zimmer: What is the relationship you have with the Strategic Joint Staff? Has that organization taken over some of the previous responsibilities of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff? Have they taken over some of your responsibilities?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: I administer the Strategic Joint Staff when they have a pressure that is not forecast, but the director of staff for the Strategic Joint Staff — currently Rear-Admiral Bruce Donaldson — reports directly to the Chief of the Defence Staff. He is basically the Chief Operations Officer of the Canadian Forces. As in other structures that we have in the Armed Forces, the Chief Operations Officer reports directly to his commander, in this case, the Chief of the Defence Staff.
When, obviously, the chief is abroad, away from Ottawa, he would report to me as the acting chief, in terms of getting guidance or direction where he requires it.
Senator Zimmer: Winnipeg is very strong with the reserves. You may remember that our former Lieutenant- Governor, Pearl McGonigal, headed up the reserves in Winnipeg, and we took a trip into Cheyenne Mountain, into Colorado Springs. We have heard the recruiting for reserves is underfunded. If that is true, how will the reserve force be expanded to 30,000 personnel, and at what rate?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: The rate for reserve growth is programmed at 750 personnel per year. The rate of growth for the regular force was 1,000 personnel, so reserves at 750 are moving up toward their targets. I know those funds are allocated into Chief of Military Personnel. In the case of the reserves, those funds actually go to the service chiefs — Chief of the Naval Staff, Chief of the Air Staff and Chief of the Land Staff — who set the priorities for where they invest those monies for recruitment.
With respect to the army reserves in Manitoba, General Leslie would be able to answer that question in more detail, senator.
Senator Zimmer: Senator Meighen touched on this, and I know Senator Munson is itching to ask this, so I will scoop him. People talk about your strengths and weaknesses, but there is an easy way to ask that question. What keeps you awake at night?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: I worry about the unforeseen. Having dealt in operations, both here in Ottawa from a planning standpoint and having been in several operations, I wonder what lurks around the corner that I have not prepared for. In this business, we can never anticipate fully what will happen next; at a tactical level, in terms of what technique a foe might use against our people that we had not foreseen; and at a strategic level, where we might go next and for which we have not planned.
In addition, I worry about having the right person at the right time with the right skill set and the right training to do his or her job. We are learning about the demographics. Our recruiting dropped in the 1990s. We have a few generations of military members reaching their 20-, 25- and 30-year windows. However, those who we should have hired in the 1990s are not right there providing them that bench strength.
I worry about how I will keep those people in uniform, willing and capable of doing their jobs, and ensure that we can make it through this time of growth?
Senator Zimmer: Thank you. Winnipeg misses you, but you are on to greater things. Good luck and God bless.
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: Thank you very much.
The Chair: On the subject of the Canada First Defence Strategy, the increases in your budget are 1.5 per cent until 2011, and then for the next 10 years, 2 per cent. If you do the calculations, we drop from 1.2 to 3 per cent of GDP down to .87 of GDP. When you take a look at increases in inflation, and particularly military inflation, which appears to be higher than the consumer price index, how will you afford to fund things down the road?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: Senator, all I can say is that we have looked at the estimates that we have in terms of those budgets allocated. We have looked at the major combat fleet replacements over that period of time and the essential combat capabilities. We had to lay out, over that period of time, how we will afford those combat replacements in the numbers that were announced. Based upon the best budget information we have from our coster dealing with the acquisition people, we laid out a plan where it was achievable to meet those requirements over that period of time.
The other aspect is that some of those costs go well beyond this 20-year funding window. For instance, if we replace a ship in 2015, 2020, and that ship goes on beyond the 2028 time frame, then the funding, because of accrual accounting, goes beyond that as well. With the funding that was allocated, we were able to replace those essential combat fleet replacements.
The Chair: When we look at the big-five purchases — fixed-wing search-and-rescue aircraft, land combat systems, destroyers, frigates, maritime patrol aircraft and freighters — we see no dates for when they will be in place. You have risk periods where you would not have that capability for a period of time. We do not see, for example, any mention of satellites or unmanned vehicles, drones.
We see a very expensive shopping list. We do not see a date for when it will come for certain, and we know that the equipment is wearing out.
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: Senator, we made mention during the press conference that a document will be promulgated by government at some time in the future. I do not know how much fidelity will be in that. The announcement and the roll-out focused on the major combat fleet replacements. A significant number of programs of a much smaller scale and some of the projects that you suggested a few moments ago are actually in that list. Included within our funding framework are items such as personal weapons and jeeps, clothing items and all the way up to satellite systems.
The challenge we had with the central agencies and the challenge that defence has always had is that we are such a complex organization and unlike any other department in government. There are so many major projects and supporting projects that unless we can lay that out to the central agency, they sort of believe that we are ``incrementalizing'' them constantly.
This is one occasion where we laid out the whole thing: Here are the major combat fleets, but here are all the other supporting projects for those major fleets. By fitting it into a known long-term funding envelope, we could prove to them that it actually fits. It fits after a triage of some projects — whether technology would overtake them as there would be technology leaps and so on — that we said that did not meet the requirement. We went for projects that each of the services and each of the assistant deputy ministers believed were the priority projects to fit within the overall funding scheme over the next 20 years.
The Chair: I follow your reasoning, but as a percentage of Canadian's wealth, we will see an armed service that is decreasing. We will see fewer of our resources allocated to it, even though we are living in a risky time. It is of considerable concern to some of us when we see that share of the pie decreasing over time, and we see the price of equipment to salaries to satellites increasing. We do not see you moving toward the NATO target, which is 2 per cent. Instead, we see you moving down below 1 per cent, and that seems to be in the wrong direction.
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: Again, senator, with the allocated resources that we have, our focus is to try to leverage technology where we can to ensure that our men and women have the equipment they need to meet the challenges that Canada and the government puts before them.
Senator Meighen: I think I understood you, and I tend to agree. Did you say that the Department of National Defence is different in many respects from other departments that have to go through a process, such as budgeting processing and so on?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: I would say our business is different in terms of the products and programs. Our program is to produce men and women in uniform who go into dangerous places and do risky missions, and we have to ensure that they have all the equipment, training and support they require for mission success and to mitigate their risks. In that regard, it is a unique business for government.
Senator Meighen: However, the process that you are required to follow under Treasury Board rules is exactly the same as other departments that do not have those unique characteristics; is that correct?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: That is correct. There is one process across government for what we do. At the same time, over my two years of tenure as the vice chief, we have been able to adapt to some of the pressures from operations. I still remember September of 2006 with Operation Medusa and how we reacted to that. We were given a degree of flexibility from central agencies when the circumstances changed dramatically.
Senator Meighen: Do you think you could make a compelling case for being treated differently from other departments in terms of budget?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: I am not sure that we have to be treated differently. It is more an understanding of the complexity of the military operations. I used to say, when I was in operations, ``The further you are from the sound of the guns, the less you understand.'' The people at the front, the men and women, see the enemy changing techniques and tactics on them and, therefore, have different requirements for resources. Our challenge is to adapt quickly back here in Canada to enable their success. We need to ensure that throughout this town, the decision makers in Ottawa understand that they need to pile on and assist those men and women.
Senator Meighen: It sounds to me like a challenge you have not successfully overcome yet.
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: We have been quite successful up to this point.
The Chair: To rephrase Senator Meighen's question, the picture this committee gets is that you spend more time fighting off bureaucrats than you do fighting off the Taliban, and we are not sure that is the right system. Are you familiar with the Brown report?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: I am not.
The Chair: The Brown report examined the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, RCMP. In many respects, they have a complex organization that is quite different from most others, but it has some things in common with yours. One of the recommendations of the Brown report was that the constraints of Public Works and Government Services Canada and Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat be removed from them to allow the managers of the RCMP to manage the whole process themselves. The rationale was precisely along the lines that Senator Meighen has given, and that is that you are unique organizations and Treasury Board does not appear to be structured in such a manner. They are fine if you are buying typewriters across the board for 28 departments. You do buy typewriters, I am sure, but you are also buying some very complex equipment that sometimes may work or other times may not work exactly as you hoped. Are you aware of any study that might be in place that would examine whether or not it is appropriate to have the Department of National Defence deal with Treasury Board?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: I am aware that the previous Assistant Deputy Minister of Materiel put a project together in that regard. In my experience over the past two years, a very busy two years of operations ensuring not only that we meet the short-term needs of our combat forces but also the longer-term needs, we worked in close relationship with Treasury Board, the Department of Finance, Public Works, Industry Canada and Privy Council Office. We set up a mechanism whereby we get together on a constant basis to ensure that we are tracking all those major projects that were announced back in June 2006 and these additional projects as they come online — the fixed-wing search-and- rescue aircraft and these other projects as they unfold — to ensure that, despite the fact they are all representing different departments, they are all pulling on that rope in the same direction. We set up those mechanisms in our department through Assistant Deputy Minister of Materiel working with Public Works and the other departments that I mentioned.
Senator Munson: I will work on the question Senator Zimmer asked. You are not sleeping every night, general. You did say, in response to Senator Zimmer, that you worry about the right people and about bench strength. Are you telling us that this is one of the major weaknesses right now?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: One of our challenges right now is, as the chief mentioned, getting people with technical backgrounds in some of our fields, especially in the navy; getting people who have a significant technical background, such as radar and sonar technicians. We have the same challenge getting those people with a technical background into the air force. As well, we will be facing this generational gap of people with 20 or 25 years of service who are reaching gates where they can actually retire with a portion of their pension, and the demographics of those behind them are quite strong.
If we want a sergeant with 10 or 15 years of experience, it takes 10 to 15 years to produce these guys. How do we ensure the people in the jobs now are happy to stay on? We find that it is an individual choice to join the forces, but it is almost a family choice when someone retires. The spouses play a significant role in indicating when the military member may retire. How can we ensure those families are happy to stay within the Armed Forces and at the same time try to grow our bench strength, be they in a technical field or just across the board?
Senator Munson: Is there a vacuum?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: It is not a vacuum. We are actually in pretty good shape right now, but it is the concern about, ``what if?''
Senator Munson: Switching topics just a bit, in your opinion, what challenges face the new boss, the Chief of the Defence Staff, following General Hillier? He was ``General Charisma.'' He related to the Canadian public, and people felt closer to the military and bought into many things he talked about. What are the challenges for his successor?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: We are riding a wave with Canada where Canadians can identify with those men and women who are in harm's way, representing them, be they at the point of the spear in Afghanistan, be they at 40,000 feet or in the North Atlantic. Canadians, through the eyes of those in uniform, understand what their Armed Forces are doing. The challenge will be how to continue to ride that wave of public support, and how to ride the wave of those men and women in uniform who have internalized all the transformation, that the transformation resonates with them; they agree with it and want to see it continue. How do we both continue to resonate with Canadians and the internal audience?
Senator Munson: I asked those questions, and now you are asking me the same questions. How does a new person do that?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: It is leadership across the board, not just whoever is put at the top but the entire chain of command across the board. We have said it at the senior leadership, and we have heard the same being said on all the bases in our deployed units, that is that people like the changes and want to know how we continue on with them.
Senator Stollery: I want to first remind everyone that I am not a permanent member of the committee. I am helping out today, so some of the questions that I have may be understood by the permanent members better than they are understood by me.
I am curious about recruitment. I have been in Parliament for 36 years. When I came to Parliament, we all talked about the Armed Forces, about 100,000 men. We now have 55,000 personnel in the Armed Forces — I have also heard a figure of 64,000, so I do not know which figure is right. However, when I came, we had to have a little over 100,000 personnel.
It reminds me of that story Woody Allen tells about the definition of a stockbroker: He invests your money until it is all gone. The figures seem to keep going down but the talk goes up.
I have been in a few war zones, more than I would have liked, and I am aware that in Vietnam the figure that is used is that about 15 per cent of all of those soldiers actually saw any action. Despite all these figures that people throw around, the fact is that only a small percentage ever hears a shot fired in anger. Let us be clear about that.
I know that for other people $16.5 billion may not be a lot, but I think it is a lot. It is particularly a lot if you can only put, for example 1,000 people out on patrols — I am talking about the army, of course. The figure that the forces strive for has now dropped in my time by at least 30,000, and maybe below, and now the plan is to get it back up again. Again, when I was a young man, everyone I knew in the U.K. was trying to dodge national service, and all the French soldiers I ever met were not happy to be there. They did not want to be where they were. That seems to be the story in Canada as well evident by the problem of recruiting soldiers, or else the numbers would not have been consistently dropping over the past 36 years that I have been in Parliament. What is the answer to that?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: Senator, I would say that I am not sure that your perception about whether Canadians want to join the forces is spot on. My experience, having talked to a number of recruiting commanding officers, is that people are lined up at the front door to join. One of our challenges is how quickly we can bring them in, which is terrific. That goes back to my comment earlier about how I should over program with the target at 7,000. Maybe I should make the target 8,000 or 9,000. The question is how I can change the approach such that I can speed up their induction process and get them into boot camp as quickly as possible so that they can train. That is a significant push.
Senator Stollery: Is it not a fact that we have been lowering the physical requirements?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: We were using the PT test, the physical fitness test, to slow down the process. The PT test happens as soon as they arrive in St-Jean, Quebec, which is the location of our basic training camp. As soon as people arrive, they do their PT test, and most pass the test. When they do not pass the test, they go into a remedial fitness program, and the moment they pass that test, they are back onto the mainstream line to accelerate this process. The last thing we want to do is turn away people, who, because of whatever sedentary lifestyle they had, do not have the wherewithal to pass the first PT test, which consists of a push-up, a chin-up, and a mile-and-a-half run. Therefore, we will give them the opportunity in St-Jean to get on with the business. There is huge motivation to do it and get back into the mainstream. By doing that, we have broadened the candidate pool tremendously. These people want to join.
Indeed, another point in regard to operational tempo, for whatever reason, however we are doing it, our people want to go back into operations. When I visited theatre right after Operation Medusa in November 2006, I would walk around and say, ``Soldier, what is really upsetting you?'' The common theme was, ``Sir, this policy about not doing multiple tours in Afghanistan, we just do not like that.'' In fact, the other day, at the Edmonton airport, after coming back from Cold Lake, Alberta, I met four soldiers on the way back to Petawawa, Ontario. These soldiers just came back from Afghanistan last year, they had been on the leadership course in Wainwright, Alberta, and they said that they want to go back to Petawawa and tell the sergeant-major to put them on the list for the September tour. They want to go back. These are the soldiers who will be in armoured vehicles, in infantry-carrying vehicles and doing the business. For whatever reason, we have many incredible professionals who want to serve and who also see the huge changes that are occurring.
It is true that this is the first time the Canadian Forces has seen growth, with the exception of a small spurt in the late 1980s, since the Korean War. In the Korean War, we were in the order of 125,000 personnel. In 1988, we grew to 90,000, but since 1988 our numbers have diminished significantly.
Today, you mentioned 55,000 people in the regular force. Those are the people who are fully trained in the regular force. There are another 10,000 who are not fully trained but are in all the training pipes, be they soldiers, officers, airmen or sailors, for a total of 64,500 regular force, people in uniform, 55,000 of them trained and good to go.
In addition to that, we have about 2,100 reservists on full-time duty not only in Afghanistan but also in air force squadrons and on ships, whether they are on the maritime coastal defence vessels or on the frigates. That is all in the regular force or full-time duty, so that is in the order of 66,000 full-timers.
On the reserve side, we have about 34,000 names of reservists. At this moment in time, about 25,000 of them are on paid strength. Those are the current numbers. The target numbers under the Canada First Defence Strategy are that the regular force will increase to 70,000 and the reserve force, in terms of paid strength, to 30,000, for a total of 100,000.
Senator Stollery: The fact is that you have 55,000 trained people at the moment, and that includes the navy, the air force and the army.
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: That is correct.
Senator Moore: I want to pick up on the questioning of the chair. You mentioned the five big capital acquisition items. I would like you to give me the breakdown of figures. We are talking about a total of between $45 billion and $50 billion. For the first item, fixed-wing search-and-rescue aircraft, what is the cost? I understand it to be 17 new aircraft.
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: The minister indicated, when he made the announcement, that he wanted to hold back on the costs of each one to maintain some leverage in regard to the contractors in each case. That was the minister's guidance.
Senator Moore: Does that mean you cannot give us figures on any of these items?
The Chair: I think the point is being made that if they give a specific figure now, they cannot bargain well.
Senator Moore: I understand. Well, it is tough not to be able to talk about that.
The Chair: Can you give an order of magnitude?
Senator Moore: He said $45 billion to $50 billion.
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: That is the order of magnitude of the overall projects.
Senator Moore: That is for these five projects?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: That is for those major Crown projects, and the other aspect is that the cost of each one is determined by when they are actually delivered. Actually, if we receive a piece of equipment, let us say in the year 2020, the accrual accounting methodology would carry us beyond 2028, so we are well outside a 20-year scope paying for that piece of equipment. That $45 billion to $50 billion would be expanded beyond this 20-year time frame.
Senator Moore: The chair mentioned a couple of other items that I had on my list here. I did not see the joint unmanned aircraft; I did not hear anything about the submarine mid-life upgrade project; he mentioned the space projects. I do not know if he mentioned the Polar Epsilon and Project SAPPHIRE. I did not hear anything about the joint support ships; there are to be three of those, I think. It was announced June 2006. I did not hear anything about the Sea King helicopter replacements or the 19 new and 6 used Chinooks we are to have. What are the additional costs of those items?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: In the procurement of the five projects announced in June 2006 — the C-17, the C-130J Hercules aircraft, the joint support ships, the medium-lift trucks and the medium-to-heavy-lift Chinook helicopters — the acquisition cost was in the order of $16 billion to $17 billion, and the integrated logistics and support for that brought it into the order of $30 billion for all of those. Those all predate the Canada First Defence Strategy, so that is why you did not see those projects listed.
In addition to that, the maintenance project for the submarines, that is the Victoria In-Service Support Contract, is part of our normal business of maintenance. Similarly, the Halifax-Class life extension, the Halifax-Class ships, predates what you have there. It is the same with the Project SAPPHIRE, the space project. All those predate what we are describing there.
Senator Moore: You mentioned that those predate items total approximately $30 billion in addition to the $45 billion to $50 billion of the five big projects that you mentioned in your debriefing?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: That is correct; and at the same time, all that must be in the investment plan that I mentioned of what is affordable over this 20-year horizon.
Senator Moore: That is a lot of money. Where will the funding come from?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: That is why I just mentioned that the 20-year funding, including those injections that we have had since 2005 and then the escalator at 2 per cent starting in 2011-12, funded within that envelope over all those years.
Senator Moore: For example, last year the consumer price index went up 2.6 per cent, maybe a little bit more, but you are banking on the consumer price index or inflation, whatever the standard might be, not increasing more than 2 per cent?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: It would depend on each different aspect of defence. In industry, you have different escalators. The right escalator depends on what industry you are referencing: the aerospace or ship industry, steel or fuel industry each have a different inflationary factor.
Senator Moore: They all have one common denominator, and that is the Canadian taxpayer's dollar; that is influenced by the forces of inflation and is also how this $18 billion is to be paid, so that is what I am talking about.
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: Our financial people were working with central agencies. The Department of Finance and Treasury Board collaborated to work out the formulas for us to follow to forward the major rebuilding of the Armed Forces for the foreseeable future to ensure we had the rigor there and get the best return on the Canadian taxpayers' investment in their security.
The Chair: General, there is a paper coming forward on this at some point, and I must say that the committee struggles with these numbers. Can we arrange for further briefing on it to get an understanding of how the financing works into the future?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: Absolutely. Again, my Chief of Program and the Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance and Corporate Services worked out our costing formulas into the future. We went through a rigorous process to ensure that right down to the individual person, the individual supply supporting that ship, that aircraft, that soldier battalion in the field has been costed from stem to stern.
The Chair: No one here has said that you are wrong, but we are saying that there is a degree of skepticism going forward that you are sufficiently funded, and we would like to, at some point over the next few weeks, arrange for someone to give us more briefing on that.
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: Absolutely.
Senator Nancy Ruth: How do the recruiting numbers change? Who changes them? How does that all happen? How do those numbers of recruits move up and down?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: We anticipate, in our modelling, in the order of about 7 to 8 per cent attrition. With our current growth, as I mentioned earlier, we are planning that the regular force would grow by approximately 1,000 people per year and the reserves by approximately 750 people per year. The personnel modellers suggested an intake of 6,500 people this past year to address attrition and, on the regular force side, to grow by 1,000 people because the anticipated attrition would be in the order of 5,500.
Now we are seeing the impact of the demographic gap or bubble I spoke about. Some people get to the 20- or 25- year gate and decide they have had enough and elect to retire. Our attrition rate then bounces above 7 per cent into the 8 per cent gap. Some of our allies are envious about any attrition below 10 per cent. Some of them deal with attrition in the order of 12 to 15 per cent. In that regard, we should be happy; but at the same time, we want to ensure that we grow and have all the skill sets and levels of experience to ensure we remain as professional a force as we always have been and should be.
This is a balancing act of bringing in the right number of people and ensuring that the training pipe, be they army, navy or air force, is not so overtaxed that our quality of competency is compromised across the board. It is not only bringing them in the front door but also ensuring the training lines for all the services have the wherewithal to ensure that those people get out to the combat or operational units as soon as they can with the right skill sets.
That is why I said a moment ago that we will try to lean forward and over program for personnel. The long pole in the tent here will be the training systems and how much they can accommodate. We can train many infantry soldiers fairly quickly, but as soon as we get into more technical streams, be they on the technicians side or pilots or aboard ships, it is more difficult, especially if the training is prolonged based on the technical difficulty.
How do we balance this whole thing out?
Senator Nancy Ruth: That is how it moves.
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: Absolutely. It is constantly changing.
Senator Nancy Ruth: You said earlier that often the decisions for the attrition or retirement were due to the family circumstances and input of the wives. Do you do anything in terms programming with the wives that would encourage them to stay or go?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: In our new families, it is the spouses. We have learned so much over the past three years to ensure that those families have the support they need when their members are deployed, be that in Afghanistan or Africa, or indeed floating aboard a ship somewhere in the Arctic for a while. How do we ensure that those families have what they need? We just had a major conference in Toronto, bringing together military families' resource centre staff, base commanders and chiefs as an exchange of lessons learned to apply best practices. Our chief of military personnel with his staff has compared notes with the Americans, the British and the Australians. Everyone is facing the same types of operational pressures. We need to identify the causes for attrition and how to alleviate them. We are learning how we can turn the lessons back into action to ensure that the spouses are happy with their lot in support of the Canadian Forces.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Often, back in my hometown of Toronto, the forces have been down in the Rogers Centre putting on a big show with their guns and helicopters and recruiting like heck. However, why not go to the pride parades in Toronto or Vancouver and others cities? I have been asked, as member of the National Security and Defence Committee, whether I believe that the forces remain as homophobic as forces around the world have been historically. Could you tell me why do you not recruit at the pride parades?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: The Canadian Forces welcomes diversity across the board, and we are a reflection of Canadian society.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Do you recruit in that community?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: I do not have that detailed information. I would have to refer that to the Chief of Military Personnel on the recruitment process.
Senator Nancy Ruth: When you do your programs for families, which you just mentioned, do you include gay partners and spouses?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: Absolutely. Within the department, everyone who is in the department has support from military family resource centres.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Would you ask your Chief of Military Personnel why they do not recruit at the pride parades?
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: Yes, I will.
The Chair: You have been very patient for the last hour and a half, and we are grateful to you. I am told that, in the department, they think this is a terrific way to spend an afternoon. Thank you very much, general, for appearing before us. Thank you for your candid answers to questions. We know you have a very challenging job, and I am continually impressed with the hours you put in. I have a feeling you like the job, and that may be part of the explanation.
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk: Senator, we are all trying to make a contribution.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you very much for appearing before us and for assisting us in this examination.
Honourable senators, I would like to deal with a small item with respect to the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs. Senator Meighen, you have the floor.
Senator Meighen: Your Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-287, an act respecting a National Peacekeepers' Day, is pleased to report that the bill passed without amendment with the following observation: Your committee notes that the purpose of National Peacekeepers' Day is to acknowledge the past, present and future efforts of Canadian peacekeepers and all Canadians who work for peace.
Accordingly, Mr. Chair, I move that the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence now adopt Bill C-287, an act respecting a National Peacekeepers' Day, without amendment, but with the observation, and that the chair or his designate report the bill to the Senate at the earliest opportunity.
The Chair: Thank you. Are there any questions or comments? Those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Carried unanimously.
I would suggest that Senator Meighen be delegated to make the report to the Senate. Senator Meighen, would you be prepared to do that?
Senator Meighen: Yes, happily.
We have before us now Lieutenant-General A.B. Leslie, Chief of the Land Staff. Lieutenant-General Leslie joined the 30th Field Artillery Regiment while attending the University of Ottawa. In 1981, he transferred to the regular force and initially served in the 1st Regiment, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery. Lieutenant-General Leslie also served on a succession of tours in Germany, Cyprus and Bosnia, for which he was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal for his actions under fire in August 1995. Recently, he was appointed Commander of the Task Force Kabul and Deputy Commander of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. He assumed the role of Chief of the Land Staff in June 2006, and he is also considered to be one of the frontrunners to replace General Hillier as Chief of the Defence Staff.
With him today is Chief Warrant Officer Wayne Ford, who is the Regimental Sergeant Major of the army.
[Translation]
Lieutenant-General A. B. Leslie, Chief of the Land Staff, National Defence: Mr. Chair, the army remains dedicated to training soldiers for national and international operations. The good news is that the soldiers of the land forces, superbly supported and assisted by all Canadian forces, have accomplished a tremendous amount in the past year.
[English]
The army has dramatically changed and improved the way in which the force generates soldiers, which is our job one, and units, formations and brigades for complex operations, taking into account the recent experiences in battle. A dynamic and responsive lessons-learned process has resulted in significant course changes for hundreds of land-centric training packages.
The army culture is changing for the better, wherein a large number of soldiers, who will and have been engaged in life and death combat, are more open and blunt about what is going well and what is not, and not shy about challenging old ideas or voicing their opinions on new ones.
[Translation]
Our primary doctrine for modern operations, based on the idea of adaptive dispersed operations and with an emphasis on counter-insurgency missions — located slightly to the right in the spectrum of conflict — has been rewritten and published. This has led the land army to take a new step internationally, rapidly distancing itself from the Cold War paradigms of only a few years ago.
[English]
This doctrinal work, which has been accomplished in a remarkably short period of time, has led to multiple discussions, war games and think-tank sessions across all ranks of the army that have resulted in new battle group and formation structures for both the regular and reserves, and new requirements for both kinetic, for the application of lethal force and non-kinetic, winning the hearts and minds, capabilities that did not previously exist.
[Translation]
This has led to a complete and well articulated reworking of the army's equipment procurement plan that looks forward 30 years. In order for the required results to be achieved, a great deal of essential and sophisticated equipment has been purchased and rapidly deployed, sometimes directly into a theatre of operations. That has contributed significantly to lives being saved and to the success of the mission.
[English]
New tactical command and control architectures and new ways of thinking have led to the Canadian army being amongst the most digitally advanced land forces in the world, with new systems and procedures being developed from the bottom up and introduced into action within the last six months. The army's combat support units and formations have started a complex period of evolution, while dramatically contributing to mission success both at home and abroad. They too have suffered and been killed and wounded in action while fighting to get supplies through to the manoeuvre forces or amongst the medical staff who are willing to put their lives on the line to save their soldiers, despite having a myriad of tasks and, at times, insufficient capacity to get them all done.
[Translation]
Similarly, a cultural change is firmly underway that makes it clearly understood that everyone who wears a combat uniform, and who fights on the ground, is first and foremost a soldier, and then a specialist in a given area.
Though it is easy to say, this attitude is very difficult to instil in a number of support organizations that operate outside the army's chain of command. Transferring the three Canadian Forces schools and the Communication Reserve to the army has certainly helped to entrench the idea.
[English]
In a similar vein, the regular and reserve components of the army have seldom been closer, both professorially and in spirit. Thank God for the army reserve. The response from the soldiers of the reserve brigades and battalions to the call to arms has matched that of their regular force brethren and has been nothing less than magnificent, with many thousands now in full-time service, either at home or abroad, and sharing the costs.
[Translation]
Recently spearheaded by the remarkable work of the Chief of Military Personnel and his team, the level of care provided for our wounded and for the families of fallen soldiers has considerably improved. In addition, the various regimental families and associations have provided invaluable assistance to comrades and families who have lost loved ones.
In support, civilian members of the army team have responded to the call admirably. They continue to take on an increasing share of the workload caused by the departure of soldiers from training and support establishments leaving, for periods of up to 18 months, for pre-deployment training or for the mission itself. They often do this without replacements being found for the important tasks that still need to be done.
Civilian personnel on military bases, in schools and in support units, are on the march too. With our new focus towards the north, incorporating the Rangers into the army has proved very beneficial in drawing our attention to this skilled and vital specialty whose expertise, ability and attitude are often neglected.
In support of this initiative, some army units will be tasked with becoming specialized in Arctic and northern operations.
[English]
The soldiers, units and formations of your army have been proven in battle, in complex peace enforcement and assistance missions, and tempered over the last 18 months to two years, both mentally and physically, in a fashion that is unprecedented since the Korean War. The army is undergoing the most significant period of change in over 50 years, with new doctrine, new equipment, new structures, new training regimes and new attitudes.
The results, which have resulted in national and international acclaim from our friends and allies in terms of how your soldiers, units, brigades and formations have conducted themselves on complex operations, both at home and abroad, is a direct function of those thousands of hard-working regulars, reservists, civilians and rangers who have contributed to getting them ready. The level of support from the army, from all DND, level one organizations and indeed across town and the nation has been nothing less than outstanding, with special mention to a variety of organizations that have been extraordinarily competent and supportive in terms of their hands-on involvement in getting the job done. There have been some great success stories amongst the regular reserve, ranger and civilian members of the army team. There are many more to come.
The army is facing challenges, the most significant of which are the growing shortage of experienced tactical-level leaders within the field force — the folks who actually do the work out there — and the continuing fact of a hollow army. However, it is a good time to be a Canadian soldier as the sense of purpose and focus in serving the defence needs of the nation is extraordinarily high.
That concludes my prepared statements. I would be delighted to take your questions, assisted by the army sergeant- major, my fireteam partner.
Senator Moore: In the past, you had some critical comments in regard to the new command structure and thought maybe it left the army short of experienced personnel to fill the various positions in the new headquarters. Equipment is getting worn out; we are having difficulty meeting the continuing demands for personnel to serve in Afghanistan. I would like you to comment on those, and then we can talk about your budget sufficiency, or lack thereof.
In view of the comments you just made, give me a rundown on your comments in the recent past.
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: The intend behind the formation of the new command headquarters, the operational command headquarters, one of which deals with international operations, one of which deals with domestic, one of which deals with support and one of which deals with special forces, is recognized and fully supported. That intent is to separate force generation from force employment.
In the past, we had one relatively small team that tried to do it all. Generating the forces, recruiting them, training them, equipping them, bringing together from the individual levels to a team of say 10 or so to groups of 100 companies, the battle groups of 1,000 personnel and then into a task force of 3,000 plus, with all the enablers that go into them is very complicated. The same is true of actually overseeing the conduct of the missions. As is natural, the pendulum has swung, over the last two years, hard over toward ensuring that these new operational command headquarters have been set up for the assets that they think they need to get the job done.
The impact on the army, because the people in these new headquarters had to come from somewhere, has been obvious. People have been taken out of army regiments, battalions and brigades to populate these new headquarters resulting in a gap within the structures of the army at a time when we need them the most. It is natural.
When there are new ideas, you have to find the resources from somewhere. In this case, resources are people with 10 or 15 years of experience who can get the job done. There is a competition within the Canadian Forces for the same pool of scarce army personnel who have experience, the boots on the ground in international missions, who can make that transition to work in headquarters.
Senator Moore: Recently, a news item told about a request for us to provide one person in a command position, and we declined. Was it in Ghana? Is this a result of the pressure to have more people at headquarters?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: I think it was the Congo. I do not know the degree of formality of the request. I am aware that some thought was given to sending a Canadian command team to the Congo, but it is never one person. When one sends a general officer to run a very complex, multinational structure, as I did in the former Yugoslavia, several hundred people are required to assist.
We are as fully committed as you might expect vis-à-vis our current international obligations. I do not speak for the Canadian Forces; I speak for the army.
Senator Moore: I understand.
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: It would be very challenging for the army to take on something additional. If it is so important that everything else must stop, we can obviously do so, but there is a consequence to that.
Senator Moore: What about the aspect of my question dealing with equipment and the concerns you have expressed in the past?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: The army has thousands of vehicles, and they exist to be used by Canadians, for either domestic response or international deployment. With the current operational tempo, a finite number of vehicles combined with a finite pool of vehicle technicians in uniform and the availability of spare parts makes it not necessarily a function of money but of marrying up the technicians and the availability of spare parts. I will say a few words on issues we face on availability. Our vehicles are undergoing hard usage in combat and in training.
At any one time, the army's contribution to Afghanistan is roughly 2,250 soldiers. These soldiers are forming, that is, going through individual, low-level training on cultural awareness and the nuances and complexity of the Afghanistan theatre. Another 2,250 soldiers are doing individual training with weapons and familiarization of the more sophisticated threats that they can expect to face. We train them how to interface with Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada and the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, and what the roles and responsibilities are for reconstruction and humanitarian assistance. We also have 2,250 training in collective. We bring the teams together in their thousands, and we train them. We launch them out the door at the same time as 2,250 soldiers return home.
At any one time the army has 16,000 regular and reserve soldiers in the field. That is quite remarkable. All those soldiers need equipment to train on. The equipment is going 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and is being brilliantly maintained by a whole lot of people, including civilian employees who stepped up to the plate in our large garrison locations to fix vehicles at two o'clock in the morning so that they can be back out at three o'clock or four o'clock.
As a result, our vehicle-off-road rate, VOR, depending on the platform — and the heavier the vehicle is, the more likely it is to break because our young men and women use them hard — is between 20 per cent and 30 per cent. They do not stay that way throughout the year, but that applies across the entirety of the fleets. That is the bad news.
The good news is that we are introducing new fleets so quickly that at times I am sending them into Afghanistan to let the smart young men and women in uniform to figure out, with a bit of assistance from technical experts from the industry, how to use them better, faster and smarter. It will take time and some money to figure out how to support our vehicle fleets here in Canada. There are solutions.
Senator Moore: Are they in Canada for training purposes, et cetera?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: Yes, for training purposes. The vehicle fleets overseas get priority of effort, which is understandable. Maintaining and supporting the vehicle fleets in Canada requires money. Every indication I have received is that I will get it. We may be looking at civilian contractors coming on to our bases to do the in-garrison support to free up the very valuable uniformed technicians to go out to the field, both in Canada and on international missions.
Senator Moore: In your opening statement you spoke about a 30-year plan. Does that plan refer to Afghanistan?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: No, sir, it does not.
Senator Moore: What does it refer to?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: The spectrum of mission types that the Government of Canada may choose to engage in range from domestic response, which is job one, all the way up to mid-intensity combat, which is at the other end of the spectrum. Along that spectrum, we have peacekeeping, peacemaking and counter-insurgency. In addition, there are sub- paradigms within that larger context. In Afghanistan, for example, we are conducting a counter-insurgency campaign as well as engaging in peace enforcement, peacekeeping, humanitarian support, local and regional reconstruction, support to Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada and CIDA, and training indigenous forces.
In terms of the professional art of soldiering, it does not get much more complicated than Afghanistan.
The 30-year plan to which I referred in my opening remarks has to do with the army's personnel growth plan and our equipment management, in terms of a bubble of funds that we believe will be made available to the army.
I twice mentioned the idea of a hollow army. The good news is that the army has been authorized to grow by 3,075 regular force personnel over the next three to four years, with which I am delighted.
Senator Moore: It is a matter of recruiting interested people. We had this discussion when you appeared before us previously, and you said that you would look after recruitment. It is not an easy thing. Have you addressed that? Have you seen any improvement since you were previously here?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: I am still not happy with the overall time it takes to get a young Canadian in off the street after he or she has shown interest. If they want to be a reservist, they want to be shown around an armoury within a week, or certainly within month, they want an indication of when they can show up at an army base to start basic training. There are still many instances where that is taking too long.
Having said that, an enormous amount of work has been done over the last two years to blow through some of the institutional roadblocks. To a certain extent, this is an issue for the Canadian Forces to solve. We have created these road blocks over the last 15 to 20 years.
Senator Moore: Did you address the reserve side of it as well as the regular force side of the personnel?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: Absolutely; in our minds, frankly, with respect to regular or reserve personnel, we do not particularly care anymore.
Senator Moore: They are phasing in the reservists with the regulars.
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: It is not where you come from; it is what you can do.
Senator Moore: Exactly.
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: Bless them; the reserves have responded in a fashion which is unprecedented in my 30 years as a soldier. It is amazing.
Senator Moore: In looking after the army's personnel requirements, you also focus on the recruitment of reservists as well as the regular forces.
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: Yes, sir; 17,600 of Canada's reserves are members of the army. That number has grown by an additional 1,800 because of the transfer of the communication reserve units under command as of April 1.
Senator Meighen: Welcome, Lieutenant-General, and Chief Warrant Officer Ford, it is good to see you here before us. I understand you are not here for questions but merely for counsel.
Chief Warrant Officer Wayne Ford, Army Sergeant Major, National Defence: Ask away, sir.
Senator Meighen: To follow up on Senator Moore's last question, what you have said is absolutely true. The reserves have performed in an outstanding fashion. Without the reserves, heaven knows where we would be in terms of fulfilling our military requirements around the world.
What have we done in particular to assist and encourage the recruitment of reservists and to make their lot easier, both while on active service and after service on a deployment, for example, their reintegration back into civilian life?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: Without the reserves, I, as army commander, would not be able to do that which the army team is currently doing — categorically.
Right now, we have close to 500 reservists and not only in Afghanistan. Afghanistan, for us, will end in 2011. We have many other reservists on other missions. We have to think about institutionalizing how we get our troops ready, equip them, train them, and provide the right leadership and the right cultural awareness for what will happen after 2011. The Government of Canada will decide where we will go. It is logical to assume that we will go somewhere and do something under circumstances which may or may not be as dangerous as in Afghanistan, but the same sort of basic training criteria will exist.
Without the reserves and the close integration of the regular forces and the reserves, we would not be able to sustain the numbers that we have currently going out the door. The good news is the reserves have more than stepped up to the plate. I believe what we are doing now is sustainable, but it is really tight. That is why the army sergeant-major and I spend the vast majority of our time in Ottawa, talking to reserves, talking to regulars, trying to ensure they understand the mission, what their involvement is and finding the right people with the right skill sets to go overseas and do this. By the way, we also need people to stay at home and ensure job one is done, which is protecting Canadians in Canada.
In terms of the numbers, I mentioned 500 personnel, roughly. That is what I think is sustainable. We have another 3,500 on full-time service. Over 40 per cent of our officers and senior non-commissioned officers, NCOs, on the reserves right now are on full-time service in training institutions, schools and helping to fix vehicles — just getting the job done. Those numbers are unprecedented in my 30 years.
Senator Meighen: That is extremely encouraging. I am still wondering whether the structure that governs a reservist joining up and receiving training is flexible enough and suitable to attract them. I assume you could do with more reservists going through the system. I see it as a system essentially geared — at least, in its initial stages — to university students, and not to someone who is out in the workforce. If I am not mistaken, you require two 12-week training courses at the outset. That would be difficult for someone working as a senior mechanic in a garage to say to his or her employer that he is off for 12 weeks this summer and fall and next year, summer and fall. Is there anything that can be done to broaden the net, so to speak?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: Yes, something can be done. Over the course of the last two years, hundreds of army training courses have been examined, taken apart and put back together again, not only for the reservists but also for the regulars with a view to buying them more time at home. We still have lots of work to do in that regard, but a large number of our courses are better than they were.
When the army sergeant-major was a young combat engineer, he would probably go away for two to three months every year to do professional development courses in Gagetown, New Brunswick, or wherever the courses were offered, away from his home station. Now we have so many soldiers doing those activities and training to go off to either Afghanistan or other mission areas that we are trying to buy time at home for them, so we are modularizing many of our courses to buy them time at home. We are not there yet. In many courses we are, but some are still too centralized and do not cater to the fact that not everyone is available, such as university students, for 12 weeks.
Another point of view is that we are sending folk into harm's way; we shall not drop the training standards. It is my job to look at just about every one of those folks before they deploy overseas — either myself or accompanied by my fireteam partner — and ensure that they are ready to go. In certain respects, our training is getting longer, more intense and more expensive. Frankly, that is the way it is.
On the one hand, we want to further modularize our courses. On the other hand, we will not put people in harm's way unless they have the best possible training available, and sometimes that means spending more time away from home than you might otherwise suspect.
With respect to the reservists as well, with 500 reservists going overseas every six months using regular force equipment, there is no easy way to train someone how to use the complex communications, medical or fighting systems that we have now. We cannot afford to trim those. Once again, we are stuck between the desire for quality and the desire to buy them time at home. I do not know if that answers or over answers your question.
Senator Meighen: I am still worried about the 12-week allotment for a non-university student. I think I saw nodding heads, and therefore I assume that you understand the problem for someone not in university. A university student could find 12 weeks in many instances. A non-university student would find it more difficult.
Let us leave that for a second. You are a very strong proponent of reserve participation, and that happens to agree with my view; I am pleased to hear that. We all recognize the magnificent contribution, to which you have alluded, of the reservists. We could not do what we do without them.
Critics have sometimes said that the Canadian Expeditionary Force Command, CEFCOM, is a command looking for a job, and perhaps the job is the Olympic Games. Indeed, you will make quite an effort at the Olympics. Will we be able to do both the Olympics and our continuing mission in Afghanistan at an adequate level?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: On the assumption that the troop levels for Afghanistan will not diminish markedly between now and 2011, and on the further assumption that the number of tasks that would be suitable for army soldiers to fill for the Olympics remains relatively constant, the answer is, yes.
Troops are also available who will be undergoing their preparatory training at the culminating stage before they get on the planes to go to Afghanistan in March and April of 2010. We have already started to take a look at the sequencing of that training, pushing it slightly to the left, which frees up close to 3,000 people who can be used as a superbly trained strategic reserve, and make them available as sort of an emergency reserve throughout the Olympic Games task, should it be required. Keep in mind that the period of the Olympics is about two weeks. However, there was a caveat of ``if the numbers I have seen in terms of the task remain relatively constant.'' In which case, I think we can do it.
Senator Meighen: It is obviously not, as they say, a slam dunk. The way you said, ``I think'' probably mirrors the reality.
With respect to recruiting, if there was more money available, would we be able to recruit more quickly? Would we be able to induct and train more people to the appropriate level? It appears that there might be a problem of money and of trainers to train those who need it because many of your trainers have been deployed. I do not know to what extent there is still a shortage of trainers at home.
You said that you have been allotted 3,000 additional troops this year and next; correct me if I am wrong. If that is so, that is assuming that they have come into the system successfully and have not been blocked because security clearances were not completed or medical examinations were delayed, et cetera, all the litany of challenges we heard in past years about the difficulties once you indicate you want to join the Canadian Forces of actually doing so.
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: Senator, vis-à-vis the Olympics, defending Canadians at home is job one. We will succeed on that. It is RCMP-led. They will define, over the course of the next little while, to Canada Command the exact numbers they need from the army. We will get it done.
On the Olympics themselves, the moment at which the troops are required on the grounds, a week before, the two weeks of, the week afterwards — more specialized troops are required longer — it will be job one for the Government of Canada.
In regard to numbers, it is 3,075 personnel. I am sensitive about the preciseness of that number. I would hate in the minutes to show that I agreed that it was 3,000. It is 3,075.
Senator Meighen: I am sure those 75 people are critical.
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: Absolutely.
Senator Meighen: Particularly if you are one of them.
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: With respect to attrition and retention, attrition is growing. We have a demographic bubble of baby boomers that we are trying to resolve. We are asking folk with 20 to 25 years experience to stay longer. We are trying to keep the excitement level high. One of the greatest instruments we have for doing so is international missions. The army sergeant major and I, as mentioned, talk to just about all the soldiers before they go overseas in one of the big training exercises. It is our practice to gather them in a big circle and explain what we are doing and why, how good they are and at the very end ask who does not want to go. Of the 15,000 plus we have talked to so far, I think we have had one taker who said that he did not want to go.
Senator Meighen: He is a brave guy.
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: Yes, it is a little bit of stage management on our part. It is hard to say that you do not want to go in front of 3,000 of your buddies. They are bold and know it is a tough job. This one individual, bless him, had an issue concerning his wife and things had just arisen literally that morning, and well done on his part. He is not going; there is no dishonour there. He will get another crack at this mission.
Attrition numbers are growing in certain military officer classifications. Military specialty classifications range from 7 per cent to 10 per cent. The historical average over the last 10 years has been 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 per cent.
With respect to recruiting, as you know, the army is not responsible for recruiting per se, but recruiting is everyone's responsibility. I am not trying to duck the issue here. We have close to 10,000 great Canadians on our basic training list. That does not thrill me. Those are 10,000 young Canadians who have made the decision to join. Because of a lack of throughput and capacity in our schools to give them the skill sets they need to go overseas and survive, we have not been able to put them on training courses. That is something we have to work on.
Senator Meighen: Can you be precise on that? Is that money, facilities or trainers?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: It is instructional capacity.
Senator Meighen: You do not have the trainers to train them?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: No, we do not, or the spots in the schools and the numbers of equipment to do it better, faster, smarter. We must synchronize our big, heavy combat systems and the small ones that support them with the availability of ranges, with the availability of — in certain cases — extraordinarily rare commodities such as specialized war stock ammunition, with the instructional capacity, which is relevant and hopefully combat-experienced, with the availability of the personnel, depending on the linguistic preference they have for their training, and we have to cycle that such that it marries up with the deployment ratio of whichever battle group we are going out the door with. A lot of math and science is involved with this, but it is still an art form.
The bottom line is that we have close to 10,000 people on our basic training lists — air, land and sea — of which close to 5,000 of those are army folk. We are getting better at getting them into the army faster. However, more work still has to be done in getting folk off the basic training list and into battalions and regiments where their real training starts to get them ready to go. There is dramatic room for improvement in the Canadian Forces to get that done.
Senator Meighen: I will leave it at that. I still am not clear as to what the fix is. Is it money? I am looking for the quick fix, but maybe there is not one.
Chief Warrant Officer Ford: I will give my opinion from the army sergeant major's perspective. As the commander mentioned earlier in his presentation, the hollow army that we have at the tactical level, the leadership piece, those are the same folk that require the training system to be able to implement and instruct our soldiers on that training. We have to better synchronize our intake of recruits and bring them into the training system. Before that, we have to ensure our training system is running at 100 per cent capacity. Until we get there, it becomes difficult to bring those recruits into the training capacity, train them at 100 per cent and bring them out. We are making great steps but are not there yet.
Senator Meighen: I am sorry, but why is it not running at 100 per cent? Is it because it is not big enough, or there is not enough money or not enough people?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: I am a general. I will take every penny you give me, truly.
Senator Meighen: You do not have to be a general to do that.
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: The main issue for the army is that junior and senior NCOs are leaving; they are the core and backbone of any army.
However, we are placing additional demands on them. They are leaving because of demographics, but thankfully many are choosing to stay when they could get moderately well-paying jobs — I was about to say, ``great paying jobs,'' but I do not want to encourage other senior NCOs to leave. They are staying out of a sense of duty and trying to pass on their hard-earned experience to the folk coming behind them.
The army right now is short 1,000 master corporals, which is the base level leadership. We have a solution for that. Between now and December, I want us to promote 1,000 master corporals to that rank, which means they have to go through a 12-week modularized training course, regular and reserve, to provide the additional instructors that we need not only to get our folk ready to go overseas but to train more so that we can get them off the basic training list, to clear the deck to be able to handle the growth of 3,075 regulars. We are will get that done. That is job one.
We will change the rules slightly. We will recognize combat and operational experience, experiences which otherwise we would force people to go on course for. They still have to go through a threshold knowledge and basic training requirement.
We will take, in certain cases, privates and make them master corporals because they will have demonstrated that leadership under unbelievable circumstances on international missions. It is almost like a wartime solution to an organization which has a lot of its folk in the fight.
However, that is the first tranche. Next year, we want to do the same with sergeants, and the year after that with warrant officers. In three years, by the time we peek at the 3,075 personnel growth, if it all works out — and I am the eternal optimist — we should be able to do the regular force growth and sustain the current operations. However, it is complex business.
Senator Zimmer: I know you were the area chief of staff in Western Canada in 1996, and I want to go on record commending you for the leadership that you provided to the troops for outstanding service during the flood in Manitoba in 1997. Manitobans gained a new appreciation of what you did and the other services your Armed Forces provided, and the memories live on forever. Would you pass that back to the troops? The memories are still there from Winnipeg, and will be there forever.
You know the phrase, ``You live by the sword, and you die by the sword.'' As I scooped Senator Munson on the previous witness, I just got scooped by Senator Meighen on one of my questions, but I do have a supplementary question on the reservists.
We just came back from Afghanistan. We saw that the troops are not only providing security but are training the police, providing education, building roads and doing development. They were building a bakery, a road and an embroidery shop for women. Given that shift from combat operations to mentoring and eventually to more development work in Afghanistan, should your units continue to be made up of reservists?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: Senator, thank you for the kind words. In all fairness to the troops, during the floods, I was a colonel in an office, and it is always the soldiers who do the all the work. They filled the sandbags and interacted with the folk and had tremendous success. I will pass on your comments to them.
In terms of the civil-military cooperation, or CIMIC, issue you referred to, CIMIC is a lot more than we originally thought it would be at the height of the Cold War. Soldiers, officers and NCOs, most with a lot of experience via regular reserve, interact with the locals, the battle group and with observer-mentor liaison teams, the ones who do the good work in training the indigenous forces. They interact with CIDA and act as a conduit between those who have the funding and the true developmental expertise, CIDA and Foreign Affairs, and the village elders to ensure that what is being proposed can be achieved within a time frame or according to the elders' priorities. We have six or seven teams in Afghanistan, and each team has three or four people. It is true that the vast majority come from the reserves, but a significant number are ex-regulars who have rejoined through the reserves to serve their country.
As of a few days ago, I approved the establishment of a bunch of new structures, which are grouping capabilities together in the army, one for each of my land forces areas, and which have communications, intelligence, CIMIC, regulars and reserves to allow us to better force generate these types of activities. To answer your question, I am very comfortable with the great work being done under the current CIMIC structure, but we need more of that. As of April 1, new ideas are being considered in the army chain of command, and new organizations are being set up to have a better blend of regulars and reserves.
Just as an aside, sometimes a hard-core regular who has done nothing but serve in a regular force battalion or regiment for 20 or 30 years does not have the same breadth of experience as a reservist who, when not soldiering, may be a banker, a sanitation engineer in the city, a consultant or a power generation expert. By the way, they are also a captain or a sergeant. We find those skill sets very valuable when dealing in the CIMIC realm overseas. If we need a bunch of irrigation ditches, and we happen to have an engineer who has experience in roads, it is easier. We may not get that same breadth of skill from your hard-core regular. We may if we go to a professional combat engineer, but they are in scarce supply.
Senator Zimmer: When I was here with the minister in 1976, we did provide services to the Olympics, but I remember the numbers were closer to 15,000 soldiers, perhaps because it was closer to Montreal and Ottawa. When most people think of the Olympics, they think of security, but that is not the case. They provided communications and many other services and did a tremendous job. I am sure the number was closer to 15,000 to 20,000 personnel. You are talking about 3,000 personnel. Is that because they have cut back on those services, or have they been replaced by the police or RCMP? The numbers do not seem to be in line.
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: Sir, as you know, the detailed lead within the Canadian Forces comes from Canada Command, CANCOM. I believe they are coming to talk to you. The 2010 Winter Olympics of roughly two weeks duration followed by the Paralympics have been mentioned. These are two discreet venues with relatively inhospitable terrain that canalizes approaches, with two access points and other alternative access points. I have been out there and seen it. Although we are not responsible for the mission, those are our troops, so we tend to do this.
The RCMP security effort is RCMP-led; therefore, we are in second row support. It is not only army troops, though. Included in the list are air, naval assets, command and control architecture, nuclear-chemical-biological response, special forces and VIP support. The numbers to which I am referring are within my remit, which is army. If more are needed, obviously that will go quickly to the top of the priority list. Through a relatively judicious rebalancing of the training times and when we will be sending our soldiers to get ready to go to Afghanistan, we are confident that we will have additional soldiers available should something untoward happen.
What keeps us all focused is the unexpected act — what will pop up between now and 2010 that will cause us to shift or reposition forces — so we have to build a little bit extra capacity into this.
The Chair: Could you elaborate on what you described to Senator Zimmer a moment ago? Are you creating a new organization in the army that is different from Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, PPCLI, or the Royal Canadian Regiment, RCRs, or the Van Doos as the corps to go overseas? Are you creating permanent units that have others groups attached to them to fill out a battle group?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: In the short term, we are tactically grouping existing units. Within each of the land force areas, there are communications units, intelligence units, certain discreet engineer units, CIMIC organizations, psychological operations and information operations units. We are packaging those so that we have what is broadly termed information operations assets that are grouped together.
That is not a new unit per se; it is ensuring that like is working with like so that they can get to know each other and can further develop those skill sets before they get to the training exercises in Wainwright, Alberta. You do not want your hockey team for the big game meeting just before you get on the plane. Therefore, no new units are being stood up to deal with the non-kinetic activities that we are now focused a great deal on. ``Kinetic'' refers to the violent, unpleasant bit; ``non-kinetic'' refers to the war-winning enablers that allow you to help the local population resolve their issues.
In terms of army structure, a lot of work has been done over the last 18 months to form affiliated battle groups. A good example is the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment, 2RCR, based in Gagetown, New Brunswick. Because the battalion strength had been low, the army had to go entirely across the four areas; that is, the West, Quebec, the Maritimes and Ontario to get rifle companies to make the structure. 2RCR did a great job; they can all be proud of the good work they did. However, that does not contribute to team cohesion and the instinctive knowledge of how your friends will react under stress unless you come from the same regimental family and are used to working together.
We have come up with new structures for our rifle companies, which are the building blocks of the army. About three or four years ago, a rifle company was 100 personnel; it will now be just under 150. A battle group was 600 or 700 personnel; it will now be anywhere from 1,200 to 1,500. That is where the additional 3,075 people of regular force growth will go. They are not going to headquarters. We have reduced army headquarters over the last two years by 30 per cent. The same logic holds true for the other members of the combined arms team. Our indirect fire assets, our surveillance assets, target acquisition, mini unattended aerial vehicles, sound ranging bases and radar units have grown from peacetime strength of 100 personnel to close to 240. Combat engineers are needed every time you turn around on a complex mission either at home or overseas. Peacetime engineer squadron was around 100 people; it will now be about 250. We are not creating many new units. However, while there will be some new ones, the vast majority are building on the structures we already have.
Senator Stollery: As I said to our previous witness, I am not a regular member of this committee. Maybe my points will be known to other members of the committee.
My own experience in these matters was mostly with the Algerian war. I think it is important that the public understand the numbers. The numbers are important.
We had approximately 480,000 soldiers — 60,000 or 70,000 in my particular district. When I listen to these numbers — and, in a guerrilla campaign, it is the usual story — we are really talking about our ability to put two battalions on patrols, as I understand it. That is, two battalions or 1,000 soldiers depending on the size of a battalion in the Canadian army. Is that correct?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: The boots on the ground right now are in the order of 1,200 soldiers. You are bang on. In the old days, that would have been two battalions and now it is one, large composite battle group.
Senator Stollery: You talked about a couple of interesting points and made an excellent observation. To anyone who has actually been around the forces, it is the sergeants, and so on, that run the army. You rarely run into an officer when you are out. The people who are keeping you alive are the soldiers. I know a lot about that. My own views and observations have led me to the conclusion that the Canadian army is rather top heavy in the officer department and very light in the actual soldier department. As you said, how can you train people if you do not have the sergeants? They run the operation.
I cannot help but make these observations, but my question relates to that of Senator Moore and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. You talked about international missions. However, with those numbers, I cannot see anything significant happening in anything, actually — certainly not in international missions. I led the Foreign Affairs Committee on a mission to the Congo not too far in the recent past. I have had knowledge of it in the past 50 years. I ran into the MONUC operation — a French acronym for the UN peacekeeping force — in the Congo. They say that it is 17,000 strong; the largest force that the UN has ever put out. I met a Pakistani brigadier-general in the south. The Pakistanis and the Indians are a formidable group of people. If they did not have them on the ground, there would have been a bigger bloodbath than what had already taken place.
Our previous witness talked about spouses and how they were resisting the deployment of their partners to Africa. However, the last time I looked, there were only eight members of the Canadian Armed Forces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. With these numbers, you cannot do very much of anything anywhere. However, it does seem shameful to me and to my colleague on the Foreign Affairs Committee, after completing a large report on Africa in which we recommended that there should be more Canadian involvement in this tragic situation where about 5.4 million people have been either starved to death or murdered — and many of them murdered; do not underestimate that.
In our own trip to the Congo, we had to take into account the rocket-propelled grenades, RPGs, there.
There was no Canadian involvement at all in a tragedy of such a huge scale. We had General Hillier before the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and he sort of sloughed it off. I do not do that, nor do members of our committee. It seems unfortunate that the Canadian Armed Forces, with the limited resources that you obviously have, has not played more of a part in one of greatest tragedies in the world over the last 10 years.
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: The counter insurgencies, helping indigenous and fledgling nation states stand up on their own feet requires a large number of boots on the ground, such as the experience you have alluded to in the case in Algeria. As you know, we are a professional and volunteer force. One of the considerations we have is taking care of our troops when we send them overseas, under circumstances that faced my father. As a young lieutenant, he went overseas in 1939 and came back in 1945.
Senator Stollery: That is like all of our fathers.
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: We can only do that to them so often without them walking away. It is a fine balancing act between choosing the missions and what level of forces and leadership ambitions we have, and then focusing our efforts to get the results. In the case of Afghanistan, obviously the Government of Canada sent us. It is our number one priority, so by definition it should receive the number one priority of effort.
Is there capacity to do other things around the world? The answer is, yes, absolutely. When you talk about sizable forces, were you mentioning a number?
Senator Stollery: It is a multinational force; I believe the total is 17,000 soldiers. I saw soldiers with little hats from Uruguay. It is not just one particular country, but undoubtedly the commander in the south sector was Pakistani. That is the old Indian army. They have been doing this forever. In the north sector was a British brigadier.
When we were on helicopters, we had snipers. It is the first time I had ever been in a helicopter with snipers. Does Canada have no role to play? It is not just a question of building countries that are collapsing. The Congo collapsed a long time ago, and it is a very special case. Everyone at the management group in Kinshasa, where I have been a couple of times, asked us because of our bilingual capacity and our lack of colonial background if there could not be more Canadian involvement in MONUC, the UN mission. The answer over the last several years has been a tremendous silence.
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: It is trying to balance, sir, the quality of life of the professional NCO cadre. Some of the middle- grade officers are on their fifth, sixth or seventh missions, not necessarily in Afghanistan but in the former Yugoslavia or wherever; by the time they reach the 20- to 25-year point, they can vote with their feet.
Senator Stollery: Do they not want to go then?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: We will go wherever we are told to go. If it is truly of the utmost national importance to Canada, as happened with your father and mine and the sergeant-major's, our soldiers will put their lives on hold for six years and go off and fight a huge international conflict, as happened in 1939-45. However, what is the balance between forces away and time at home?
Senator Stollery: I respect your reply. I guess I am old-fashioned. I was brought up on that old song, ``It's the soldiers of the Queen, my lads . . . .'' I guess people do not do that any more.
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: Our soldiers will go wherever Canadians want to send them, without hesitation.
Senator Stollery: You are saying that if you do send them, they may not stay in the Armed Forces.
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: In my case, I have a variety of superior officers, probably the single most important ones, living in my house. If I were to go overseas for six years, I would be delighted to go to the Congo; it would be a lot less dangerous than Ottawa.
However, how often can one, as a soldier, a sailor or air crew, expect a reasonable degree of normalcy? I do not speak for the navy. Vice-Admiral Drew Robertson is more than capable of doing that. Some of our frigate crews are almost meeting themselves coming back off missions. Yes, they can go overseas as their forefathers for five or six years at a time, and they will do so again, but eventually the domestic front will get tired with their partner being gone, male or female.
We will go where you send us. We will do it.
Senator Stollery: I think they only asked for a lieutenant-general, as I read in the press today. They were not actually asking for any soldiers, so you may be a volunteer.
Senator Day: I would like to ask a few questions to help me understand the role that you play, as a commander of land forces, when in that fuzzy area from the transition from force generation to the operational side of things.
As I understand it, there are regional joint task force commanders. Do you use the same regions for your land force regional land forces?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: In four of six cases, yes, sir, I do. The four army area commanders — one in Atlantic, one in Quebec, one in central Canada, which is Ontario, and one in the West — report to me. I write their annual assessments. I assign them funding and training priorities. I assign them a whole host of controlling mechanisms to allow them to get their jobs done. They are very competent brigadier-generals. Each of them has on average 10,000 folk under their command, not including cadets. However, in all of those cases, for certain activities, command responsibility is shared with commander of Canada Command. If there is a domestic situation, those assets will be chopped to him to allow him to do what he has to do, activities that in the past were conducted by the army.
The intent behind these new headquarters was to split force generation from force employment to allow focus to occur.
Senator Day: In the past, your predecessor, as chief of the army, would be involved in both force employment and force generation. Your role now under transformation is force generation, but some of the people who report to you could be double-hatted and report on the operations side to Canada Command and to you with respect to the force generation side. Is that correct?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: That is absolutely correct.
Senator Day: That is passing down the line a little bit the double-hattedness, but does it work well? Is this concept in transformation working well, to say that the Chief Of Land Staff is responsible only for force generation, whereas some of the people that work for him are in both force generation and force employment?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: It makes life complicated. Having said that, neither the army sergeant major nor I are shy about offering our opinions about the deployment of army troops.
Senator Day: I am sure that is the case. In terms of activities, you talked about CIMIC, being the civil-military cooperation, and preparing your soldiers. This is force generation; you are preparing them to deal with the civilian side as well as being land forces personnel. As an army soldier, they have to learn to deal with non-soldiers. Is that done at the operation level when you start your training for an operation, or are you doing that on a regular basis prior to the formation of the joint battle group?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: The CIMIC teams, comprised mainly of reservists but not exclusively so, show up anywhere from six to nine months prior to deployment. In the army, we have a fairly large force generation system that we have developed over the last two years, which moves capability, instructional talents, money, vehicles, ammunition, Afghan interpreters, Afghan cultural experts, soldiers from Afghanistan, and Afghan soldiers who come to Canada to help us train. We move those around the country depending who is on deck and when. Although CIMIC personnel are within the area structures, they do not actually receive everything they need to train hard until they get to a certain point on the road to readiness, which in most cases occurs nine or twelve months out.
The downside is that, unless we are on that road to deployment, our job one is ensuring that everyone around is getting ready. We do not get the capabilities or equipment ourselves. All our energies are focused on that big machine that is kicking out dozens of companies, battalions and regiments in an 18- or 24-month cycle.
Senator Day: There could be air force, navy and land forces personnel involved with CIMIC.
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: That is entirely possible. However, many times the role of a CIMIC team leader is to act as the interface between the battle group, the observer-mentor liaison team, CIDA and Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. That requires thorough knowledge of how the battle group works and the personalities within the group, and a sense of the team. Unless they have been through the entire road to readiness, they probably will not add much value to CIMIC.
Having said that, navy and air force people have joined CIMIC teams and done brilliantly.
Senator Day: Would they be under your training command at that time?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: Yes, they would.
Senator Day: What role does the Chief of Force Development have in terms of creating a joint group that is getting ready to go on operations?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: He has no role to play in that.
Senator Day: As I understand it, the Chief of Force Development reports to the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff. What role does that person have?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: He harnesses the developmental activity for equipment capabilities and growth, and works very closely with the Chief of Program, who, as the name implies, runs the program in terms of where the money will be spent for the Canadian Forces, the Department of National Defence. He has no role in bringing together the many disparate teams to ready them for an international mission. That is the purview of air, land and sea commanders.
Senator Day: The next group getting ready to go to Afghanistan will do some training in Wainwright. Is that still under your command, even though it is a joint group? What role do you play at that level?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: They remain under army command until such time as the army sergeant major and I declare them operationally ready. That happens literally as they are getting on the airplanes to go.
Senator Day: Even though in that group there could be air force and navy people?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: I am the lead joint force generator for Afghanistan. Yes, many excellent air force and navy people come out to do this.
I was overseas a little while ago and saw, lying in the dust on his belly, a grizzled figure who looked like any other soldier. He was poking and prodding at an unpleasant thing that goes ``bang.'' He had a big beard, which is not typical in the army. It turned out that he was a naval dive expert swimming in the dust in Afghanistan defusing an explosive device. We backed off a bit at that point.
I offered him an immediate transfer to the army with a promotion. He turned me down. My point is that they are doing great work. They do great work anyway servicing their ships and other naval activities, or whatever the case may be.
More skill sets, no doubt, could be gainfully employed in a mission such as Afghanistan or wherever we go next.
Senator Day: This is an extra responsibility that has been given to you by the Chief of the Defence Staff to be the force generator for Afghanistan, presumably because the army plays the largest role there.
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: Yes, the army comprises probably close to 90 per cent of the troops deployed in theatre. Job one is still defence of Canada, and we are always force generating troops to do those activities as well.
Senator Day: That has been helpful. Is the Wainwright activity still force generation in preparation for leaving Canada to go to Afghanistan?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: Yes, it is.
Senator Day: When this committee travelled across the country, we heard several times that training units were being robbed of equipment that was being sent to Wainwright for large formation training.
Have you solved that problem, or do you still have units across the country whose equipment is now in Wainwright?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: I am the one responsible for robbing army units of equipment to send to Wainwright or wherever else we are doing large-scale collective training. We do not do it all in Wainwright; we also do some in the United States. We deploy two large formations to Afghanistan every year. If we are in a winter cycle, it is very difficult to train at the scale that we do in Canada when it is minus 40. The training usually takes place in January, so we tend to go down to the U.S. to do that in conditions eerily similar to those we find in Afghanistan.
I understand the context in which you said that it was ``robbing.'' I would prefer to call it a judicious reallocation to where the effort must occur.
Some soldiers in the army are upset about losing their army car because the nasty army commander has sent it to Wainwright for other people to train on. That is too bad, but that is the way it will be because we cannot delay providing just about everything needed by the people who are going overseas.
On my behalf, hard-working people in Ottawa are constantly reprioritizing and moving equipment about the country. In one year, thousands of vehicles are brought together to ensure that the people who need them most get them when they need them.
Because we currently have so many soldiers in the field, which in one sense is a good thing, availability of range and training areas is also an issue. Wainwright, Alberta is one stop on the journey to getting ready to go overseas. A lot of training is done in Petawawa and Kingston, Ontario; Gagetown, New Brunswick; Valcartier, Quebec, et cetera.
Senator Day: As the commander of the land forces responsible for generation of soldiers, are you satisfied that in a fairly short time you will have enough equipment that you will not have to make a judicious selection of where best to use the limited equipment that you have?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: In the main, yes. There are some heart-warming and very welcome additions to the fighting and support fleets in the army. Quite rightly, most of the heavily protected or armoured assets are going overseas. In time, some of those will trickle back home. They will be rebuilt and available for more training in Canada.
We are retooling significant numbers of our old 113 personnel carriers by giving them a few thousand pounds of extra slat armour on the sides as well as belly armour. We are using those to replace light armoured vehicles, LAVs, which are being damaged in training or in operational contact. The truck project will introduce 1,000 to 1,300 additional vehicles in the next couple of years.
I am keen on developing the art of the possible in relation to a more heavily protected infantry assault vehicle in limited numbers in the next couple of years. We have the main battle tank issue. In the next couple of months we hope to get the 100 tanks that you — thank you — were involved in acquiring from the Dutch to be retooled in Canada and thrown into the mix. Those big machines are saving lives every day.
I am optimistic that in three to four years we will have many more vehicles than we have now, of different types.
There is an issue. Certain equipment types are very rare and expensive, and we never have enough of those and never will. For example, the Expedient Route Opening Capability, EROC, package, which is an engineered, highly specialized group of three or four vehicles, whose main job, believe or not, in this age of high-tech warfare, is to drive in front of troop-carrying vehicles and hit a mine or explosive and then blow up. I know you have been to Afghanistan, so you have probably talked to those brave young engineers who strap themselves into these vehicles and drive down the road. If they hit a mine with the front wheels, they are designed so that the front wheels go flying. They go for a bit of a ride and shake themselves off and carry on. I think there is one man who has done three or four. It is quite a ride.
Those are very expensive. We will never have enough of those to ensure that we can distribute them, according to the old Cold War army structure, around the country. We will move those around the country in time and space to put them where they need to be.
Some of our air defence systems, at many tens of millions of dollars each, will not be distributed so everyone can have them all the time. That is the idea behind the managed readiness.
Senator Day: You mentioned Canadian Forces Base Gagetown. In concluding, I want to congratulate you and the commander of CFB Gagetown and the commander of the combat training centre for their fiftieth anniversary celebrations ongoing in New Brunswick. The spirit is very high in the region. I wanted to pass that on to you.
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: Sir, I am sorry I missed those celebrations. As you know, I was in Germany with some of our tank crews getting ready to go.
The Chair: Transformation in the current iteration has been underway for about three years now. We have seen a shift from where the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff was responsible for operations and had a relatively small staff; now we have four different staff, and, clearly, they are drawing on the army, navy and air force. The rationale given to us at the time the transformation was announced was that it would provide for a much simpler control system, a much simpler shift so that the people in Canada Command could simply and very quickly authorize activities without having to do a lot of consulting. Has that proven to be the case? In your experience as the army commander, is that how you see it?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: As you know, sir, one's perspective is a function of where one sits. From my point of view, it would be very rare for someone to plan on using army assets without consulting the army commander. I tend to frown on that.
Not for territorial or rice-bowl issues, but it is a large, complex organization of 55,000 people, which the army sergeant major and I run on your behalf, on behalf of all Canadians, and for people to assume that they can move things around without second- and third-order consequences being relatively simple, is incorrect.
We are consulted. We are consulted a great deal on what people think they have in mind for army brigades, regiments or battalions.
In terms of the complexity from the force deployment point of view, I am sure it has made it easier for the focus to occur on international missions. In my opinion, though, it has not made the interactions between me, the four operational commands, the three environmental chiefs and the strategic joint staff any easier.
The Chair: A report suggested it caused duplication and triplication in staff. Is that your experience?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: Out of necessity, when you have more than one of something, by definition, especially in large, complex organizations, you can expect a certain amount of redundancy. Whether or not that is duplication within the operational commands, I am more focused and concerned about the numbers taken out of battalions to go to headquarters because I am looking at it from my perspective, which is a requirement to send troops out the door to do things.
Senator Nancy Ruth: One's perspective is a function of where one sits, and here I sit as a woman on this committee. My interest is in training, particularly with respect to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, of which Canada was part of the drafting and accepting, on women, peace and security. It is of great concern to me that soldiers know about this before they go overseas.
Can you tell me a bit about how that feeds into your curriculum and what type of training soldiers get in that?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: Senator, I am not aware — and I apologize for that — of any specific training that is based on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325.
I can tell you that soldiers are no longer defined by gender. I was in Germany and got back a few short hours ago, and on Thursday, I saw two very tough young troopers in one of our armoured regiments who are deploying overseas as Leopard 2 gunners; they are the people who will initiate the contact to put a 120-millimetre shell out the other end, at a series of unpleasant foes.
As you know, we have had female soldiers killed in combat.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Resolution 1325 is about how soldiers go into a foreign country and treat civilians, particularly around issues of women, peace and security. If you could find out if it is even mentioned in your curriculum, I would be most grateful.
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: Senator, I will do that.
Senator Nancy Ruth: We have passed this reservists' bill. I guess you are happy. What else could we do for you?
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: Keep it up. Truly, to all senators: Keep it up; keep up the support; keep up the interest. When we ask for stuff, we expect to get a whole bunch of hard questions, and, by golly, we do. We go, and we do what you ask us to do. The rapport, the links between Canadians and the Armed Forces right now is great. Some may disagree with this mission or that mission. However, it is not our business; we go where the government tells us. We do a good job, I think, in the main. The time will come when we will say that we need something. If we say that, then there are good reasons. Generally, we have either got it or been led to believe we will get it. That is one heck of a difference compared to when I was a second lieutenant 30 years ago, where my main worry was shiny boots and other stuff. We have all come a long way. We have matured as a nation. I have not answered your question, specifically.
I could always use more money, of course. I am a general.
Senator Nancy Ruth: You have mentioned a number of things in response to the questions, but I was thinking more of a piece of legislation as opposed to a budget item.
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: We are on the right track. Some good work has been done recently to get the provinces onside with some of the issues with reserve legislation. More refinement to that legislation may be suggested by experts, of which I do not count myself in, over the next 12 to 24 months as the first cycle kicks in. I hope support to and from the reserves and the regular army and other folk of the Canadian Forces will continue.
I cannot believe I am speechless when a senator asks me how she can continue to help me. I guess that is a message in itself.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I am glad you are as satisfied as you seem to be.
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: There is always room to do more, though.
Senator Nancy Ruth: There is in women, peace and security too.
Senator Day: You may or may not want to comment on this, but as you know, from its inception, this committee has strongly advocated for the Canadian Armed Forces and building up the Canadian Forces in strength and numbers. We had one of your predecessors here, who said that they could not handle any more money. That is what I am reminded of when I hear that question.
The general commented that they had sufficient money to do what was required of them and that they could not properly use any more money that we might advocate for the Canadian Armed Forces. That is what is behind some of these questions, behind the question, ``What can we do for you?''
The Chair: I am not sure that was in the form of a question.
Senator Day: You may want to say thank you; you may want to say that notwithstanding those previous statements, we would like to have a lot of equipment that we do not have right now.
Lt.-Gen. Leslie: There is quite a menu of capabilities which I, and my team running your army, would like to have. I am not saying this to be politically correct: From my point of view, as the army commander, it is either coming or it has already been delivered. Some nuances have to be worked through; and some competitive bid issues about which actual vehicle we will buy or who will do the refurbishing. However, at the strategic level, that is detail.
For example, I would like to have every one of my soldiers equipped with night-vision goggles, which sounds relatively low-level. This does not represent a tremendous amount of money — tens of millions, which to some is a lot of money when you are talking about that many troops to have that capability. We are buying it as quickly as it is available on the international market.
I would like to have some of our armoured vehicles with newer defensive suites to better protect our soldiers. There is a world shortage of a certain type of armour because many people are using it in a variety of international venues, and we are getting it just as quickly as we can. I would like our LAVs to be upgraded faster than they currently are. The assembly line is open both in London and Edmonton doing great work, but an international spare parts issue exists. It is not only Canada that is running LAVs. We developed a hell of a good vehicle and sold thousands to the Americans. Well done us. It is nice to have equipment before the Americans have it. It is good. To have them buy from us too, that is even better.
These are issues of nuance and detail, but from my perspective, as army commander, we have to solve the personnel issues; we have to be able to promote our young people, which is also a retention tool. We have to recognize our combat experience; we have to buy them a certain amount of time at home in between missions, and all those things are approaching fruition within the army. That is why I am trying to think through. We are talking about heavier assault vehicles, armoured patrol vehicles. I have been given indications that those are well within the art of the possible. We need new guns to replace the old ones, and once again, that is well within the art of the possible. It will eventually pop out the other end of the system.
I am not talking 10 years from now; I am talking 18 months, 12 months. The big issue for us is people. Large numbers of folk are showing up at our recruiting centres. This is not necessarily a Government of Canada issue to solve; this is an issue for us uniform-types. We have to solve the fact that we have 10,000 great, young Canadians on our basic training list and have not moved as aggressively or as quickly as we might have to get them into the regiments and brigades soon enough. If, over the next year, we could chop those numbers down from 10,000 to 5,000, most of our concerns disappear, which is great news.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, general, I would like to thank you and Chief Warrant Officer Ford for appearing before us. It has been an instructive two hours. I am grateful to you for assisting us in our study. It has been useful; your answers have been forthright, and we are grateful for them.
Chief Warrant Officer Ford: I want to say, before you close it up, chair, that despite the challenges the army commanders spoke of today, it is a great time to be a soldier in today's Canadian Forces. As I go out and talk to the soldiers, the morale and spirit of the soldiers that we have serving in today's Canadian Forces is extremely high. I am very proud to be their army sergeant major as the commander of the army commander.
The Chair: It is good to hear from you because we know you are the conduit from the enlisted personnel to the leadership, and thank you very much for your contribution.
If I may just say to the members of the public viewing this program, if you have any questions or comments, please consult our website at www.sen-sec.ca. We post witness testimony, committee reports and confirmed hearing schedules. Otherwise, you may contact the clerk of the committee by calling 1-800-267-7362 for further information or assistance in contacting members of the committee.
Colleagues, could I have a motion to move into camera, please?
Senator Moore: So moved.
The Chair: Those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We will now go in camera.
The committee continued in camera.