Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 7 - Evidence - Meeting of October 4, 2010
OTTAWA, Monday, October 4, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 4:05 p.m. to examine and report on the national security and defence policies of Canada. (topics: Arctic sovereignty and security; and the state and future of the Canadian Forces Reserves).
Senator Pamela Wallin (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, and senators, welcome to the thirteenth meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence in the Third Session of the Fortieth Parliament.
I welcome two new senators to the committee: Senator Don Plett, from Manitoba; and Senator Dennis Patterson, from Nunavut. I also welcome Senator Segal as a visitor today. I understand that Senator Grant Mitchell, from Alberta, will join the committee as well.
Senator Dallaire: Madam Chair, if I may, Senator Mitchell is replacing Senator Banks. I wish to put on the record a thank you to one of the committee's founding members who has retired from committee. I thank Senator Banks for his services over the years.
The Chair: We would all agree. We appreciate Senator Banks hard work on the committee.
We will look today at an issue that came to people's attention during the summer and early fall. In September, a fuel tanker ran aground in Nunavut waters. It was the third such grounding in a four- to five-week period. At the time, some leading Canadian experts said that the incidents underlined the inadequate charting of Arctic waters. Some experts have commented that this is the single biggest issue in the Arctic. That drew our attention and we decided to ask the experts to speak to this part of our discussion on Arctic sovereignty and security.
From the Canadian Hydrographic Service we are pleased to welcome Savithri Narayanan, Director, Dominion Hydrographer; and Dale Nicholson, Regional Director, Central and Arctic Region. We have asked Dr. Narayanan to speak to us about the responsibilities of the CHS to provide accurate up-to-date navigation charts and other information and to determine how this influences the discussions around the extended continental shelf under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Savithri Narayanan, Dominion Hydrographer, Canadian Hydrographic Service: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee to discuss the state of navigational charting in the Arctic, a subject of growing national and international interest and of growing public scrutiny subsequent to the recent groundings.
Canada has the longest coastline in the world at nearly 250,000 kilometres, which has been used effectively to establish a solid economy based on maritime commerce.
Nautical charts are the road maps to Canada's waterways. They indicate lane separations and boundaries to prevent drifting into dangerous areas and, most importantly, warn of unseen dangers. The Canadian Hydrographic Service, CHS, has almost 130 years of experience in building this infrastructure and keeping it up to date in support of the Canadian economy, safety of mariners at sea and production of our ecosystems.
The Charts and Nautical Publications Regulations made pursuant to the Canada Shipping Act and the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act require ships in Canadian waters to carry and use nautical charts and related publications issued officially by or on the authority of the Canadian Hydrographic Service. The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), to which Canada is a signatory, also requires coastal states to provide adequate navigational charts for their respective waters as a fundamental component of safety of navigation. Under the Oceans Act, the CHS is responsible for conducting hydrographic surveys, producing and distributing official government navigation charts in paper and electronic forms, and supporting nautical publications to help guide mariners.
The CHS manages a portfolio of approximately 950 charts and 50 publications covering all three of Canada's oceans plus major inland navigable waterways. We make these products available to mariners through a network of over 800 dealers across Canada and around the world. Despite the CHS's ongoing activity, many Canadian charts still contain data collected before the advent of modern positioning systems and, hence, pose a risk if used in conjunction with accurate positioning systems, such as GPS.
In the Arctic north of 60-degrees, the area Canada is responsible for is equivalent to 7 million square kilometres — about three quarters the size of Europe. Furthermore, 47 per cent of Canada's Arctic is underwater and consists of numerous channels, inlets and shallow continental shelves that require high-resolution bathymetry to make charts to modern standards. In addition, the window for data collection in the Arctic is very short due to ice and weather conditions. Consequently, only about 10 per cent of the Arctic is charted to modern international standards. Main shipping routes in the Arctic fare slightly better but still only 35 per cent are charted to modern standards. By comparison, 40 per cent to 50 per cent of Canada's entire southern waterways are charted with nearly 100 per cent of the most critical channels being complete.
In order to address the significant level of effort required to modernize Canadian charts, taking into account the age and sparseness of the information contained in them and increasing demands for coverage hitherto not achieved, CHS in 2002 developed a risk based charting scheme that classified Canadian waters into high, medium and low risk areas. These areas were based on the level and type of traffic, environmental conditions, conditions of existing charts and the history of accidents, among other criteria. We have also developed levels of service standards in consultation with industry and publish them on the CHS website.
Under this prioritization scheme, we initially had only 20 charts categorized as high risk in the Arctic because of low traffic in the area and the high cost of charting. Though the immediate strategy has been to chart primarily along a narrow corridor of the Northwest Passage, we have been adapting our charting plans and risk assessments to respond to emerging needs. For example, we have recently charted approaches to the Nanisivik deep-sea port to support National Defence and Pangnirtung harbour in the preparation for the construction of the new small craft harbour there.
Though charting the Arctic is challenging, the good news is that technological advancements are helping address some of these challenges, such as satellite technology and special laser optical equipment that can be installed on aircraft that will help better delineate the coastline and collect water depth information in near shore areas up to a depth of 50 metres. Advancements in acoustic technology and increasing capabilities of underwater unmanned vehicles to collect bathymetric information will no doubt help advance charting in the future.
Now I will move on to the latest groundings in the Arctic. The Clipper Adventurer was a cruise vessel that grounded on a rock and had some damage, while the Nanny, a fuel tanker, was grounded on sandy bottom. Fortunately, in both cases, weather and sea conditions were favourable, allowing the vessels to be eventually freed. No lives were lost and significant environmental damage was avoided.
It is to be noted that the water depth information on the chart for the area where the cruise ship was grounded is based on track lines conducted before the days of precise satellite positioning. That is, the depths are measured only along a single track, with no investigation of hazards on each side of the vessel's path. However, a Notice to Shipping warning of a shoal very near to the location of the grounding had been issued, based on a report by a Coast Guard commanding officer in 2007.
In the case of the tanker, the grounding site is along one of the approaches to the recently announced High Arctic research station, as well as along the supply route connecting many communities in the area. The chart for this area also contains track and spot soundings, and a preliminary Notice to Mariners was issued by one official in the area, based on a reconnaissance survey conducted in 1997.
Canada's North has been experiencing steady growth in maritime traffic over the past few years. That trend is expected to continue, with new traffic patterns evolving due to increasing economic growth in the region coupled with expected longer ice-free conditions. New users are sailing in the Arctic in increasing numbers and venturing further afield than ever.
The recent groundings in the High Arctic have provided an early warning of the risks created by the current gaps in charting. Though the efforts to free the Clipper Adventurer and the Nanny were successful, they were hampered by the lack of up-to-date charts in that area. To date, the overall costs to the Government of Canada to respond to these two groundings appear to have been upwards of $3 million, only some of which may be recovered from the insurers over time. This shows that prevention of marine incidents is the best and most cost-effective mitigation strategy over the short and long term, supported by modern charts.
Canada faces a significant challenge in building a Northern infrastructure that will support the growing demand for navigational products and services in the Arctic. Canada's Northern Strategy will provide the necessary framework to address this challenge.
I would like to conclude by thanking you once again for the opportunity to speak.
The Chair: Thank you for that overview. To be clear, the rock that the MV Clipper Adventurer struck, was that on marine charts?
Ms. Narayanan: It was not on the charts but there was a warning issued.
The Chair: For the area?
Ms. Narayanan: Yes.
The Chair: The recovery efforts were restricted because there were no up-to-date charts in that area.
Ms. Narayanan: We were fortunate that the CCGS Amundsen was first vessel that went to help the cruise ship. The CCGS Amundsen had hydrographers on board, as well as the hydrographic instrumentation. They were able to do a preliminary survey.
The Chair: And do it live time?
Ms. Narayanan: That is correct.
Senator Dallaire: How would you compare the state of our knowledge and the accuracy of our data in our Arctic, with the state of knowledge and technology being applied in the Russian Arctic area?
Ms. Narayanan: We use good technology and we have been surveying our areas. In some ways, we are ahead of the Russian Federation.
Dale Nicholson, Regional Director, Central and Arctic Region, Canadian Hydrographic Service: In terms of the technology, we have more multibeam systems, which are high-resolution systems for collecting data. In terms of coverage, I would say that is another question.
Senator Dallaire: The Russians are using their Arctic area for commerce and they have extensive coast guard capabilities. There is a great deal of traffic going on in a large part of their Arctic area. Is their technology and their knowledge of the Arctic is at least equivalent, maybe even a bit ahead of us? Would their ability to assess the hydrographic needs be helpful in assisting us in performing our tasks?
Ms. Narayanan: It is interesting that you raise this point. I came from a meeting today where Russia, Canada, Norway, the U.S. and Denmark were sitting together to discuss how we can work together to improve the conditions in the Arctic. We are discussing sharing the technology so that the Arctic, as a single entity, will be safe for our mariners and our ecosystem is protected.
Senator Dallaire: During the Cold War, Norway built massive fortresses in their fiords and had outstanding data on their entire coastline. Some of us were engaged in circumpolar security and the concerns about the potential use of that region for military operations. Do you not believe that the subsurface knowledge by the ex-Warsaw Pact or the Russians is more advanced than ours — Canadian, not American — of our subsurface areas in the Arctic?
Ms. Narayanan: Norway, again based on the presentation we had this morning, has very good coverage of its waters. Russia still uses older technology, but they have many more ships than we do to survey the Arctic.
The common thing that came up in today's meeting is that there are still very large unchartered areas. You have to remember that cruise ships like to go where no one has gone. Even if you chart the usual shipping lanes, they want to go elsewhere; they want to explore uncharted waters, and that is one of the challenges we all have to face.
The Chair: That is a very interesting point.
Senator Dallaire: That is exactly what I was going for.
Senator Lang: I want to refer to your multi-year project to chart the Arctic. I know the government has made a multi-million dollar commitment. Perhaps you can indicate how much money will be spent on this commitment. When do you expect that to be completed? In addition, please tell us if you are on schedule, and perhaps give us more information on the program.
Ms. Narayanan: If we use the existing resources and, assuming that technology and existing human resources stay the same, it will take a significant amount of time to chart the necessary areas in the Arctic.
Senator Lang: I know there have been public commitments to chart the continental shelf. If I am not mistaken, millions of dollars are committed to do that charting.
Perhaps you can tell us how much money was committed. I am assuming it was done under your shop. Is that correct?
Ms. Narayanan: Senator, are you referring to Article 76 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea? You have to remember the territorial delineation is actually to determine where our fence will be. When we talk about the charting, it is what is there within our property. The funding you talk about is to define, map, survey and do the geology to determine exactly where our fence should be.
That work will be done and we will be submitting our claim in 2013. We had 10 years to do that. We ratified in 2003 and we will make our submissions in 2013.
Senator Lang: How much money is dedicated each year to charting the Northwest Passage and the normal charting you would do in a year in that area?
Ms. Narayanan: I do not have the exact figure, but our budget is roughly $30 million. We dedicated 10 per cent of that to the Arctic and the rest to southern waters including the Great Lakes.
Senator Day: It is 10 per cent for the Arctic, did you say?
Ms. Narayanan: Yes.
The Chair: Given it is only 10 per cent of the budget, how much of the Arctic waters remain uncharted?
Ms. Narayanan: The Arctic is a very large area. Perhaps we do not need to chart everywhere. We need to focus on the main shipping corridors, the access to communities and possible areas where ships will sail in the future.
In addition, if the water is deep, then we do not need to put as much effort into it as it is not as important for shipping. From that point of view, we do not need to have 100 per cent of the Arctic charted.
The Chair: Out of your budget, you have now 10 per cent allocated to the Arctic. There is so much focus on the Arctic now. It adds a lot of pressure if trading routes are to be expanded and if those nasty tourist vessels will always want adventure and all those things. You have to anticipate and expand with only a small amount of the budget.
Ms. Narayanan: It is always a balance. You want to ensure the vessels travelling in the south are kept safe as well. That is why we have established this prioritization scheme, and then we address the high priority areas.
Due to the increased traffic in the Arctic, we are shifting priorities. It is like Nanisivik; we charted that area because it is a deep-sea port and we are trying to charge access to the communities.
It is always a balance between available resources, risk, traffic and environmental conditions. It is a difficult thing to do.
Senator Lang: A previous witness stated that there was some question whether the Northwest Passage was sufficient for deep-water shipping. Do you have any comments?
Ms. Narayanan: First, the Northwest Passage, as you know, is not a single passage but a series of channels. The water depth varies along the channel. The CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent and CCGS Amundsen go through that passage.
I am not sure of the draft we are talking about, but I will ask Mr. Nicholson about the water depth availability in the channel.
Mr. Nicholson: There is a lot of variability, but deep-draft vessels can certainly transfer through the Northwest Passage, depending on what route they follow. There are about five different routes and depending on their draft, they can find a safe route.
Senator Patterson: You talked about the budget allocated to conventional mapping and hydrographic work in Canada, but I believe you are also involved with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, hydrographic mapping. Is that paid for separately or does that draw on your ongoing work in mapping Canadian navigable waters?
Ms. Narayanan: The UNCLOS project is funded separately. Of course, there will be a bit of back and forth between the core funding and the UNCLOS funding, but it is funded separately for a specific period of time. Our funding is until 2013, when we submit our document.
Senator Patterson: Does that work for the Convention on the Law of the Sea draw on your existing human resources, even if the budget comes independently?
Ms. Narayanan: There is a little bit of that, but most of it is funded by UNCLOS. We bring new staff and they are trained through this project as well, so there is not much of a resource drained from our A-based funds.
Senator Patterson: Could you give us an idea of how much additional funding you receive to do the UNCLOS work?
Ms. Narayanan: Do you mean on an annual basis?
Senator Patterson: Yes.
Ms. Narayanan: In 2010-11, for example, we have about $7.8 million.
Senator Patterson: What about the total until 2013?
Ms. Narayanan: We had two allocations. The first time was $69 million over 10 years. This is for the entire project, including NRCan and DFO. Subsequently there is $40 million over four years.
Senator Patterson: That is $69 million plus —
Ms. Narayanan: Yes, plus $40 million.
Senator Patterson: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Could you explain what you will do on this project to prepare the case for the extended continental shelf? What is the project?
Mr. Nicholson: With Fisheries and Oceans, the Canadian Hydrographic Service collects the depth information. Depth is a big part of the criteria in deciding where our continental shelf is. Therefore, we are collecting the depth data and analyzing that for our submission. NRCan would be collecting seismic information, which is investigating the geology of the area, which is also a factor.
Senator Day: Thank you. I will not ask more questions on that subject, although the sea shelf and the UNCLOS submission you are working on are very interesting and topical. I wish you well. If you need more money let us know, because there is a great deal of potential in that work.
The Chair: Senator Day is very rich and he will just give it to you.
Senator Day: I chair the Finance Committee.
I have two or three points of clarification, Ms. Narayanan. One of them is that a cruise ship likes to go into uncharted waters. Presumably this is an area that Canada claims as Canada. Whose responsibility is it if they get into trouble? Who comes to their rescue? Please explain about insurance claims when they are heading into unchartered areas.
Ms. Narayanan: I am afraid I will not be able to answer the second question. Regarding the first question, when a ship is in trouble, the Canadian Coast Guard is the first responder.
Senator Day: In spite of the fact that they are going into an area that is uncharted and they know that, and it is a very high risk for them, does the Coast Guard still feel a responsibility and does the Canadian purse have to fund the rescue?
Ms. Narayanan: We are talking about human lives.
Senator Day: Yes, and we are talking about a cruise ship operator's decision. You spoke about a risk-based charting. This is for navigational aids, and you moved into a risk-based analysis, but then you went on and talked about even though it might be high risk, if it costs a lot you do not do it. Therefore dollars play a role in this risk-based analysis, plus how much it will cost us to do it. Do understand you correctly?
Ms. Narayanan: Yes, dollars do play a role, but if it is a risky area and there is a lot of traffic then the weighting factor varies between dollars and safety.
Mr. Nicholson: First, we are not dealing with navigational aids, which fall under the Coast Guard. We do the charting. Yes, we look at the traffic patterns; we look at the types of vessels, and we try very desperately to put our resources where they are most needed.
Senator Day: I suppose I understood you correctly. It really surprises me that only 10 per cent of your budget is going to Arctic surveying. We are aware that the interest in the Arctic is growing and we know that for 145 years we did not do anything up there. It is surprising that you are using only 10 per cent of your budget on Arctic surveying. Who determines that only 10 per cent of the budget will go to the Arctic, or does that come out of a risk analysis?
Ms. Narayanan: It is basically the risk analysis, but one must remember that the interest in the Arctic is a recent development. It takes quite a bit of time to collect the data, to analyze it and to produce the charts. There is a time delay from the time a priority emerges to actually being able to produce the navigational charts and other publications to be ready for their use. There is a time factor involved as well.
We anticipate as best as we can, but sometimes things move too quickly before we can actually respond.
Senator Day: My final point of clarification is in relation to the two ships that you said grounded this last summer, one of them a cruise ship, and the other a fuel tanker. In both cases, you indicated that the charts were not perhaps as good as they could be, but you had issued a Notice of Shipping warning of a shoal. The other was a preliminary Notice to Mariners. These presumably are notices that did not come to the attention of the ship operators. Is there some way we could get these notices to come to their attention so we are not going up there to get them off grounded shoals?
Ms. Narayanan: According to the Canada Shipping Act and the carriage requirement, when we issue the notices the captains are expected to carry them on board and then use them, along with the charts, for their navigation. They need to use these notices.
Senator Day: You have made a point in both of the instances you brought to our attention of saying that notices had been issued. Presumably you want us to read into this that if they had read the notice they would not have grounded. What do we do about that?
Mr. Nicholson: The establishment of NAVAREAS will help us with that in terms of broadcasting international information and those types of warnings. I think that will move us forward.
The Chair: Please explain.
Mr. Nicholson: The Maritime areas of the world are covered by NAVAREAS, and in those areas, countries take the responsibility to issue notices, warnings, including weather warnings or other hazards. We have just established such an area in the Arctic, and so those warnings will be broadcast internationally. It still does not change the fact that the captain of the vessel is responsible to check for these warnings, because paper charts or electronic charts have to be kept up to date. That is our method of keeping them up to date.
Senator Day: What I am looking for is some suggestion as to what we could do to improve this situation.
Mr. Nicholson: Just for clarification: We do not know for sure that the second vessel was there on purpose. They may not have been in that area that was shallow on purpose. Perhaps something else happened.
Senator Day: They might have blown in there or something.
Mr. Nicholson: Right. I do not have a good answer for the other part.
Senator Lang: When a ship goes up into the Arctic, do they notify an authority that they are taking a voyage in that area, and where they are going? If they do, would that not be one of the times that they are notified that there may be some changes and they should check the records so at least there is a warning that there are changes?
The Chair: We are asking you questions that may not be in your jurisdiction. That is the problem. You do the maps. You are not responsible for the warning system, right?
Mr. Nicholson: Right. Notices to Shipping can be issued by virtually anyone. The Coast Guard does the broadcasting of those Notices to Shipping.
Senator Mitchell: Not to belabour this point, but one immediately thinks that some charges would be laid against the captains or the owners of these ships. One assumes that there would be penalties or jail terms for flagrantly abusing protocols and rules. However, that would not fall within your jurisdiction. Are you aware of anything like that?
Ms. Narayanan: No.
Senator Mitchell: Dr. Narayanan, you point out something that is very interesting to me but seems to be counterintuitive:
. . . many Canadian charts still contain data collected before the advent of modern positioning systems and, hence, pose a risk if used in conjunction with accurate positioning systems, such as GPS.
You would think just the opposite would be true, or you could think that; at least I do. What does that mean?
Ms. Narayanan: Think of a data point on the chart. If that was put there before the modern positioning system was put in place, you do not know whether it is exactly there or a few metres this side or that side. When you use the GPS, which tells exactly positioning, you are comparing that with a point on the chart where you do not know exactly where it is. You need to look out the window, you need to look at your sounding system and you should be aware of what is going on surrounding you. The warning is already on the chart. It says that this is older data and the mariners have to be aware of that.
Senator Mitchell: You said that your priority focus is to chart traditional or regular courses for the ships. One would assume that those areas are ice-free for a portion of the year. The pressure is building now because there is less and less ice. How would that make your job any bigger if you are just looking at the traditional courses or channels anyway? Do you see what I am saying? Are you saying ships will start using new channels that look okay? Will there be a pressure to build? Will you pick new channels?
Ms. Narayanan: There could be ice in the channels because much of the data that we have is obtained through drilling a hole in the ice and measuring the water depths. The charts do not just cover ice-free areas. It also covers areas where there is ice.
We look at the traffic patterns and where people are going and based on that information, we decide where we want to chart.
Senator Mitchell: People are obviously choosing to go in different places because they are hitting rocks, and so on.
Ms. Narayanan: Yes, Senator Mitchell, or there is an interest there or there is a community in that location.
Senator Mitchell: Finally, you listed a number of countries that are working together to share data. I am not sure that we are in competition with any of those over what will be deemed to be our sovereign areas, but sovereignty is a huge issue. We are sharing data with Russia, for example, which you might say could make it easier for Russia to use our space and establish their sovereignty. How are you managing that issue? I do not want to sound paranoid.
Ms. Narayanan: When producing the charts, our responsibility is to make the charts for our exclusive economic zone, EEZs. There are boundaries between Canada and the U.S. and Canada and Denmark. In that case, we work together to see what is the best way to produce a chart for that boundary area. Yes, in that case, like with the U.S. and with Denmark, we do share the information to produce the chart. That is not in relation to the boundary sovereignty issues because that requires a lot more analysis. A different type of rationale is used to decide where that fence will be located.
Mr. Nicholson: We work cooperatively with the other countries in terms of collecting data for the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea project. In fact, we worked closely with the U.S. collecting data in the Canadian Basin this summer.
Senator Mitchell: And with Russia, too?
Mr. Nicholson: In terms of Russia, we have definitely obtained data that they had so that we could share in terms of the scientific analysis.
Ms. Narayanan: If I could just add, cooperation of data is one part, but the most important thing is to have common standards. A ship leaving Singapore and coming to Montreal needs to ensure that every symbol on the chart, irrespective of which country it is travelling through, is the same. We need common standards. That is a key topic of discussion in the international forum.
With respect to UNCLOS, it is good to share the data. A specific formula decides the extent of each country's territory. If we are using the common data and there is a conflict, then at least we will not be concerned about the data. It is not a bad idea to start with a common set of data and then do the interpretation. The methodology and conclusions are important.
The Chair: You have left us with the sense that there is not a shared international symbolic language. You are working on it but it is still in the process, is that correct?
Ms. Narayanan: We do, but we are working together to ensure that international symbology is followed. Charts change and new symbols are added to them. We are working together to ensure that all countries understand the symbols.
Mr. Nicholson: As a member of the International Hydrographic Association, it is important to have common symbology. There are always areas that we do not have charted that might be on a chart in Japan or elsewhere. There are some differences.
Senator Segal: We are working with the Danes, we are cooperating with the Americans and we have some modest exchange with the Russians. A good portion of our Arctic, your statement says, is under the water. The Russians would argue that a good portion of their Arctic is underwater, and where those two portions meet is a matter of some modest dispute.
I assume that you have technical relationships with the hydrographic service in Russia and you exchange on a technical basis. Do you know all that you need to know about where they are headed on their submissions so that our submission is a better submission than theirs, both technically and scientifically? If you do not know that, are you dealing with other government agencies that can help you get the information?
Ms. Narayanan: As to the quality of their submission or content details, we need to talk to the people involved in the UNCLOS program. I do not want to make a comment because I have not had discussions on this particular topic.
Within the Canadian Hydrographic Service, NRCan and DFAIT, a team focuses on UNCLOS. The three of them work together and do all the international negotiations and collaborations, et cetera.
Senator Segal: You would, I assume, see your organization and its leadership as part of the team that is focused on Canada winning that dispute as opposed to just being technically correct?
Ms. Narayanan: Yes. The Canadian submission will be put together, and I hope we will be successful. If we are, then the territory where we will have the rights on the sea bottom will be equivalent to about three Prairie provinces. It is a big deal for Canada.
The Chair: How are you dealing with the retreat of the Arctic ice? Is it there? Is it an issue for you now? Are you planning in budgets to incorporate this change? If there is more open water, presumably there is more work to do.
Ms. Narayanan: The question of ice distribution in the Arctic —
The Chair: We will borrow that phrase. That is good.
Ms. Narayanan: I think we have a lot of work to do, even under the present conditions. As we said, less than 10 per cent of the Arctic is charted to modern standards. As the ice pattern changes, there will be more vessels coming, different types of vessels, but I think we still have quite a bit of work to do.
Mr. Nicholson: We work closely with the different client groups in the Arctic to try to get ahead of exactly that. In some cases, we do not have surveys done where there is a more efficient route, for example, because they have not been technically going there because of the ice cover. We are trying to get ahead of that as much as we can.
The Chair: Does your budget anticipate that change? Does your budget anticipate changes to your staff, or your human resources or financial resources?
Mr. Nicholson: We try to allocate our budgets to the highest priorities and those priorities shift.
Senator Lang: I want to follow up on the comments about the technological advancements that are helping to aid your ability to chart in the Arctic.
You refer to satellite technology. I know there are significant changes and advancements being made in the satellite program for Canada. Could you tell us what that is doing for you to advance your charting or increase the amount of it? Could you describe how the new satellites and the advancements in satellites and maybe proposed advancement of satellites will help you to do your job?
Ms. Narayanan: In order to produce a chart, we need water depth information. We need to know where the coastlines are, where the underwater cables or the bridges are, and the location of the harbours. We need a whole suite of information.
The satellites give us precise coastline information. We have coastline information on our charts now, but it is based on a series of measurements taken over many years. Satellite technology will give us that precise coastline.
Another very useful technology is radar, which can be installed on aircraft that fly over the near shore area. These radar units can penetrate up to 50 metres under good weather and sea conditions. One of the difficulties is to chart the near shore coastal region where big ships have difficulty navigating. Flying over those areas using radar technology while allow us to get that information.
The third one is the autonomous underwater vehicle. We tested two AUVs this summer in collaboration with National Defence. AUVs can travel a distance of about 400 kilometres in a single launch. One does not have to go straight into the area where one wants to survey. One can stand at the edge of the ice and launch the AUV, which will go underwater and then come back to the mother ship. We tested two of those units this summer. It is our hope that under the UNCLOS program we will be able to survey areas not accessible to icebreakers by using the AUVs. These are some of the technological advancements that will help to accelerate the charting in the Arctic.
Senator Lang: Is the satellite charting of the coastline done with the present satellite system or is that with a future satellite system?
Mr. Nicholson: When Dr. Narayanan talked about the coastline, the reference was the shoreline only. No satellite technology can measure the depths accurately enough for charting. It will give us an indication, plus or minus 200 metres in depth, so we know where it is very deep. Charting accuracy cannot be done with satellite technology.
Senator Lang: Will the satellite that is currently in place provide you with the information to chart the coastline?
Mr. Nicholson: Yes. We use satellite information to help us with the coastline.
Senator Lang: You only need to use it once, do you not, and then it is on the chart.
Mr. Nicholson: That is correct. In some places it changes with new infrastructure and that sort of thing.
Senator Dallaire: The point was raised that because the interest in the Arctic is new, we are just starting to understand the serious aspects. I would like to bring to your attention that in a 1987 white paper, a Progressive Conservative government talked about building six nuclear powered submarines. One of the major roles was for the Arctic. I would extrapolate that had that happened, our hydrographic charting ability would be more sophisticated than it is today. Perhaps the concept was ahead of its time, but it is a great loss to us now.
My point goes back to your baseline funding, which I believe was Senator Segal's point. If the government expresses the idea of moving the centre of Canada more north, which I hope continues, are you saying that in your baseline funding under such a policy you have not submitted significant demands for increased funding for capital acquisition, operations and maintenance and person years to meet the significant challenges and accelerated timelines to handle the Arctic area?
Ms. Narayanan: Senator Dallaire, you ask a question that is difficult to answer. We are a technical group, and we produce charts. Those kinds of discussions are above my level. I am afraid that I will not be able to answer that question.
The Chair: We understand and appreciate that.
Senator Dallaire: I do not.
The Chair: You can see the focus of this group as we look at the larger issues of sovereignty and security. These charts are pretty important. I believe you said that only 10 per cent of the charting in the North is up to modern standards. Did I hear you correctly?
Ms. Narayanan: Yes.
Senator Mitchell: You said that 10 per cent of the budget goes to charting the North.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Narayanan and Mr. Nicholson. We appreciate your attempt to the best of your ability to answer some of these questions outside your purview. We will find answers to them, rest assured.
Thank you both for being with us today.
From time to time in the past few months we have looked at the state and future of the Canadian Forces Reserves. We are pleased to have with us today Lieutenant-Colonel John Selkirk, (Ret'd), Executive Director of Reserves 2000, a national body that, in a sense, lobbies on behalf of Canada's militia. His military service started with the militia in 1960, when he joined the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry. Later he transferred to the Canadian Army Regular and served with the Canadian Guards and the Royal Canadian Regiment. Upon retiring in 1994, he rejoined the militia as Commanding Officer of The Brockville Rifles. In civilian life, Mr. Selkirk worked for Correctional Service Canada. Currently he works as a business and training consultant.
Before you present your opening statement, do you use the words "reserves" and "militia" interchangeably?
Lieutenant-Colonel (Retired) John Selkirk, Executive Director, Reserves 2000: No, senator, I do not. I try to make the distinction that the army reserve is the militia but "militia" is the correct term.
What is Reserves 2000? We are a network of Canadians from all walks of life, including a good number of retired military personnel — the majority of our membership — from both the regular force and the reserve force. Often, these are people who have retired from both, such as I have done. We include in our numbers academics and professionals who advocate, more than lobby, providing more defence capability in Canada with reservists. Our primary concern is the militia. The militia is the army reserve. There are three other reserves in Canada: an air reserve, a navy reserve and a medical reserve.
Reserves 2000 was formed in 1994 when defence planners attempted, or made a move, to cut the militia in half. At that time, we looked forward and thought that the job would be done by the year 2000, hence the name, but here we are today.
We believe that rather than a smaller militia, Canada needs a larger militia. This belief is based on two major factors. The first factor is that the Canadian Forces, as currently constituted, do not have the capacity to deal with serious terrorist threats within Canada, especially given the importance and vulnerability of our energy and transportation structure in this vast nation. Protecting that infrastructure and dealing with the consequence management of damage to it, we feel would require at least twice as many soldiers as exist today.
The second factor is simply cost effectiveness. The cost of maintaining full-time regular soldiers is high — about five times greater than maintaining the cost of one reservist; and I can go into the details of that calculation. Others in this world generally make that same calculation. The skill sets required for the tasks involved in securing this very vulnerable infrastructure of ours can be maintained year round by the part-time reservist.
That said, current policies within the Department of National Defence will actually shrink the militia this year. Given the threat and the cost effectiveness of reservists, we feel that the current policies must be reversed. These are serious and complicated issues. I hope that brief introduction will give you an opportunity to fire some detailed questions at me, which I will attempt to answer.
The Chair: Thank you, we will do that. I am not sure whether people know the overall numbers. I was quite startled to learn that there are 34,915 primary reserves in Canada, 15,477 supplementary reserves, 4,398 Canadian rangers, 10,213 cadet organization training service reserves, 370 Canadian Army reservists in the current tenth Canadian Forces rotation in Afghanistan and 242 primary reserve and Canadian ranger units in Canada. There are approximately 300 Canadian communities with Canadian Forces reserve units, and 2,540 Canadian Forces reservists have been deployed in domestic operations this year alone.
Senator Dallaire: Lieutenant-Colonel, you are our first witness in what will be a significant look into the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces today and in the future.
I was heartened to hear that the Reserves 2000 structure seems to have moved away from the old militia World War II concept of bringing back one Canadian corps structure and that you are now linking the requirement of militia presence or footprint across the country in all these armouries. I am heartened that you are keeping them, based on an integration of the reservists into the national security framework against internal problems, such as anti-terrorism. We know the country has been built with the concept that no one will ever attack us.
We have spent billions of dollars, certainly since 2001, on national security. We have invented all kinds of outfits, organizations and so on. Would you say that none of that money has actually moved to the reserves in terms of infrastructure, equipment and training for that task, and has that task been articulated as a mandate to the militia?
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: Senator Dallaire, I will answer the second question first. The task has been allocated by the former commander of the army to the militia for domestic operations. That is not only articulated in orders that have been issued, but training that has gone on and exercises have been run to meet those needs, and you will also find in the Canada First Defence Strategy that the reserves, or the militia, is the primary manpower to effect domestic operations, while the regular force will be the expeditionary force. That makes a lot of sense. Expeditionary forces have to be ready to go in a moment. Hopefully, you would have a little more time, perhaps, a build up to something internally.
The first part of your question relates to increases to the defence budget.
Senator Dallaire: To the security budget, not necessarily the defence budget. There is now a minister of security, and billions have been moved that way.
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: I am not familiar with the details of how much has moved outside the Department of National Defence. When we first started, I think the defence budget was about $12 billion. This year we will spend $21 billion or $22 billion, including Afghanistan. Not much of that has gone to militia units in terms of increases in numbers. There is some new equipment, I will say, but the infrastructure is basically the same as it has always been.
A lot of that money, as I think you were implying, in terms of operations, O&M each year, is spent on the increased headquarters that Canada now has, and it is our contention that we are over headquartered. Taking some of those resources and putting them back on what I would call the armoury floor and back into the regular force, back into field units, is what we need to do.
Senator Dallaire: We are talking a bit at cross purposes. There was always aid to civil powers, assistance to civil authorities. Those were tasks given to the Canadian Forces. However, since 9/11, we have introduced a whole security envelope to the nation that did not exist before in any structured fashion, or a few bits and pieces, but not with a minister, a band-aid or resources. A lot of money went to that. The border people received money. They even have pistols now.
This mission of integrating the militia into that mandate, which is different from what we have just described, did not move money from that security envelope into National Defence specifically to enhance the capability of the reserves. It did not move money either in infrastructure, armoury floors, getting more recruit PYs or militia days, training days, to do more exercises, et cetera, to do those tasks; am I correct?
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: You are absolutely correct, senator; it did not.
Senator Dallaire: Because you are the first person on the block, you are sort of a target rich person. You said a reservist costs one fifth the price of a regular. However, you also need five reservists in order to have one deployed, and not necessarily on a continuous basis because they go to school and the like. However, in an emergency, it is surprising how they can deploy. During the ice storm, massive reservists jumped school, did not go to classes, and deployed to the task.
To what extent is Reserves 2000 falling on its sword in that it is essential to keep the overhead within the headquarters of the militia alive to keep those people deployed in all the armouries across the country, in all those regiments? You have a hundred or more infantry regiments out there, and God knows how many artillery regiments.
Do you need that type of structure within the militia to provide that capability? Before we hit the big boys, what about at that level?
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: We feel that the unit is the heart, the sinew, the strength of the reserves. One could make an argument that if a militia unit is only 150 strong, why does it need a lieutenant colonel or a regimental sergeant major, RSM. We say that with the minor cost of maintaining those very small unit headquarters, getting rid of them, to put it in a common phrase, the juice is not worth the squeeze because you would lose so much in terms of profile within the communities from which the units draw upon that it would not make sense.
Second, those individuals are trained better if they are a lieutenant colonel and an RSM. As we have seen in the last few years, and when, at this particular moment, about 4,600 militia soldiers are on full-time duty, many doing fairly complicated staff jobs, those folks would not have been there had we reduced that unit level of overhead. We are not opposed to reducing the overheads beyond the unit level, which we feel are quite high. Many militia brigades are 200 or possibly 300 people strong. Do you need that many people to organize the training of 10 units, or whatever is in a brigade? Each of those brigades is different. It depends on the geography. Certainly, when it comes to the size of the national headquarters, it is completely out of proportion to the size of the force that Canada can deploy in the field.
Senator Dallaire: I will not go into the force reduction, because I was told in the chamber that we were not reducing; we were capping at 68,000. Now you are telling me we are reducing, which is significant news and must be questioned.
To what extent has the expeditionary deployment of individuals to Afghanistan to the regular force on a continuous basis and the heavy class B full-time deployment of reservists to backfill many of the regulars, put the unit leadership and their continual building up of their units, as well as recruitment and training, under duress.
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: I would say a considerable amount of duress, because the very leadership you need to get that recruiting, basic training, and that job done are the ones who are away. It is the captains, majors, warrant officers and master warrant officers are the ones primarily on the class B call-outs.
The majority of the class Cs who are actually in Afghanistan, those are, for the most part, privates and corporals, so units can afford to let them go. That is wonderful for units, because they will come back with tremendous experience. However, to answer your question, it puts a great strain on the organization as it exists today.
The Chair: We intend to pursue this issue.
I will go to Senator Segal, who we asked to join us today because he has written extensively on this topic.
Senator Segal: I will be brief. We had General Leslie here before us. When we had the distinguished general in front of us, the question was asked about what would happen to the reserves when the troops came home from Afghanistan. I think it is fair to say that his response was that he cannot keep alive positions in local reserve units that were tied to the disposition in Afghanistan and when the Afghanistan troops come home there will be some of those positions that will disappear.
That happened around the same time as there was an effort, somewhat tentative, to reduce training days at reserve units across the country, which of course reduces strength because if you cannot train you do not have deployable strength.
I wonder if you could give us a perspective on where you think that all sits now and what the hard reality is that reserve units are likely to face, unless someone engages either within the department or government or Parliament to keep the trend from doing something other than heading downward?
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: That is really the crux of the matter. First, what you mentioned was more than a tentative reduction in money for pay, which therefore automatically translated into a reduction in strength. Back in December of 2009, in order to meet the requirements of the internal government readjustment of funding, the army told a number of units across the country that their pay budgets would be cut. Essentially, the regular routine for a militia part timer in the wintertime is two nights a week, one weekend a month. That is the sort of routine of training. Of course, so many of the younger soldiers, who are students, are depend on that pay coming in because that is how they are financing their education.
What happened in December 2009 was a good number of units were told, "We do not have the money now; you cannot parade, except possibly one night a month, until the beginning of the new fiscal year." For the first three months of 2010, a large number of militia soldiers would not be paid. What would happen? A lot of them would walk. That would be a shame because we have already invested a lot of money in their training.
The minister's office realized the damage that policy would cause and reversed it although by the time the reversal was complete it was already February so some of them lost a month. I do not think it had a really serious impact on retention. It was caught soon enough.
In my opening remarks, when I said the current policies would reduce the militia, this has to do with the recruit quotas that were issued for this fiscal year. The Department of National Defence has calculated the size of the reserve, on all classes of service. I know that two or three people in this room are intimately familiar with the classes. Class A is a soldier on part-time duty and class B is on full-time duty. The class B soldier sometimes helps the reserve unit because you have to have some full-time folks to make that work. However, in recent years, mainly because of Afghanistan, a lot are on full-time duty filling empty holes in the regular force, and then finally we have a term of service called class C, which is a reservist who is filling a regular force position and getting paid regular force wages to do it. All of our folks who go to Afghanistan, once they start training, are on class C. Today there are probably 1,600 or so militia soldiers on class C.
The department has lumped those three categories together and said, when we add all that up, we have about 21,000 or 22,000 soldiers. The size that the militia is supposed to be is about 19,300. Therefore, the whole thing is over-strength and we will not recruit very much this year.
I have done a bit of a survey among my folks who have talked to their units, and I have not found a unit in Canada that has been given a recruit quota large enough to allow it to grow this year. That is despite the fact that in the Main Estimates it says somewhere that the reserves are supposed to grow by 900 this year. I concede that the estimates said "reserves" and it could be that the navy and the air force will grow by 900, but they are small and I do not think that is the case.
By virtue of the fact that the recruit quotas have been made so small, the class A, the ones in the units, the part-timers, will shrink because the full-time folks will continue on doing what they are doing. They are on contracts. They will not be let go.
At the unit level, there is a constant attrition, a constant turnover, which is a healthy thing because we are training more young Canadians, we are giving more young Canadians the opportunity to serve their country, we are providing them with life skills and teamwork skills and leadership skills. It is a wonderful thing for Canada. We are not bemoaning the fact that attrition in the militia is high, but it is high and very rapidly, unless you keep intake just as high, units will shrink. Once units begin to shrink then the next cry is "Too many units at too small a size, we have to amalgamate, we have to cut units," and that is the danger.
The Chair: From what Senator Dallaire said, they are holding the ground but recruit numbers are down, which means by next year you will start to see the ranks diminishing?
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: Exactly.
Senator Segal: Other countries are remarkably more generous with respect to the civilians who, as Mr. Churchill used to say, were twice the citizen when he or she joined the reserves. In terms of how small companies, employers, manage a member of their team going off for military service for an extended period of time, we have paternity and maternity leave in Canada, we have compassionate leave, and we have a long list of leaves that are part of the employment structure. Has your organization ever considered what a military service leave would look like, i.e., a period of time during which a reservist could volunteer, be in Afghanistan or be off on service for a year, and get some compensation in a fashion that would allow the company and the individual to afford it? I know the government has moved with respect to its own employees, the federal Crown federally regulated through legislation amending the Labour Act a couple of years ago. What about the broader community not covered by that?
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: Yes, we have thought of that question. One way to encourage employers to allow their folks to go is to use the stick. In other words, if you do not do this we will punish you somehow.
Our contention from square one has been that the carrot is better and that a sensible way, perhaps, without having gone into massive studies on this, would be to offer employers some sort of tax break if they allowed their employees to go, so that would allow them to hire behind.
The biggest problem is not General Motors or the federal government with lots of employees; it is the small employer. Maybe he has only two or three guys. Maybe the person who wants to deploy is his key draftsman or something. He has to hire behind him so that is the problem. A better way to go about it would be to offer an incentive as opposed to a punishment.
The Chair: That debate is under way. There are lots of people saying please do not make us keep the job open because we will not hire people in the first place if you do that.
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: That is always a concern. I know people who have not told their employers that they are in the reserves because of that concern.
Senator Segal: Just a point of information, if I could. My colleague Senator Dallaire talked about where all that national security money has gone and how little of it has gone to the reserves. To be fair, when the government decided that terrorism was a criminal problem, it by definition meant that the policing agencies and the border agencies got the lion's share of the cash. I am not quarrelling with the decision, but that is what followed upon that decision. Other countries have taken a slightly different approach and they reallocated the funds. I think that was the Chrétien administration. I am not being critical; I am just reporting that.
Senator Day: Colonel, thank you for being here and thank you for the work you are doing with respect to Reserves 2000. I thank you first for clarifying classes A, B and C so we can understand the terms we are using.
Our chair read out that there are almost, according to the records, 35,000 primary reserves in Canada. Does primary reserve include classes A, B and C and anything else?
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: No, senator. That is anyone who has joined the Canadian Armed Forces under the terms of being a primary reservist. Senator Wallin read out other categories such as the supplementary reserve.
The supplementary reserve is an unpaid position. It is merely a list of addresses and names. I would hazard a guess that it is wildly out of date and probably not worth a heck of a lot.
Senator Dallaire: It is only good for five years.
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: To answer your question, that would be the primary reserve.
Senator Day: Does Reserves 2000 accept the figure of 35,000 primary reserves in Canada?
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: No. I am not exactly sure where that figure came from. Was that in the Main Estimates?
The Chair: No, we just got it from DND. What is your number on that?
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: I believe the size of the primary reserve is in the order of about 26,100. That is what they are budgeting to pay this year.
The Chair: Could they have gone up to 34,000 because people were brought in because of the activity? We have had the Olympics and any number of things.
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: I do not really know. I see that figure here as well; 35,500 is another figure that is shown. You would have to ask the DND bookkeepers how that happens.
The Chair: We will.
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: I know the size of the militia. It is in the order of about 23,000.
Senator Day: Did you say 22,000?
The Chair: We then have air, navy and whatever else.
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: I do not believe it adds up to 35,000.
Senator Day: What is the figure that you gave us earlier of the overall reserves, what you think it might be?
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: They are budgeting for 26,100 this year.
Senator Day: There is a difference between "authorized," the unit has an authorized number and a "budgeted" number. Can you explain?
The Chair: We have one figure here, 26,000, which would be paid, but the overall number around 35,000 would include all in — that is, the others that are not paid. Does that make sense?
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: No, it does not, senator.
The Chair: We will wrestle this. We will get these numbers.
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: What you will probably hear, and I can probably answer Senator Day's question on this, is that the primary tool for measuring how many primary reservists we have is who received a paycheque last month. In the era of the computer, and so on, maybe that is a crude measurement. However, that is how they have done it over at DND for many years, namely, how many paycheques were issued in a course of a month. If a person had paraded in the course of a month, that individual was considered to be effective. That was the unit's effective strength. If a person had not paraded for 30 days, they were on the non-effective strength. Every unit commanding officer wrestles every week with trying to keep his NES, non-effective strength, to the minimum. It is a bit of a nightmare. A lot of folks have a good reason for not parading. However, I know that the non-effective strength of the militia is nowhere near as large to add up to 10,000 at the overall reserve strength. I am not sure where that could come from.
Senator Day: Let us assume someone is injured and his reason for not coming out or not parading is that he is injured. Where does he fit in here?
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: That could add into that category. As you are probably well aware, when any military member is injured in the line of duty he or she is not released until the medical people say the member is fit or has made some sort of medical decision. There is a thing called the medical patients holding list. Some of members can be on that list.
Senator Day: Your comment was that there is a policy of shrinking the size of the militia. Is that because of budget? That is, not changing the authorized number but saying that you are authorized to have 100 in this unit but we will only give you money for 75 members?
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: That is exactly it. The reason the units will shrink is not because of the amount of pay that they have to hand out over the course of the year. It is because there will be natural attrition. If the recruit quota is less than that, and it is in every case that I have questioned, then ipso facto the unit will be smaller at the end of the year.
Senator Day: The recruit quota is based on anticipated attrition?
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: I believe so. There is also a question of training capacity, which I accept could be something that would cause a problem. However, I would submit that Canada so needs a large militia that these massive staffs that we have in headquarters should be able to figure out a way to do the training as required.
Senator Day: My final point is just another point of clarification. We could talk on for some time on these issues, but this is a good first session. You talked about training and the Canada first policy statement of militia being here to look after Canada and the regular force as a deployable expeditionary force. Yet, Senator Dallaire talks about the militia being able to fill the gaps in the expeditionary force.
Do you see a difference in training for militia and reservists different from the regular force? Is it realistic to assume that militia can step forward and fill gaps on a deployment mission as we have been doing quite considerably in Afghanistan?
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: Yes, senator, I do. The proof of that is in the pudding. We are doing it.
The lower rank level, the corporals and privates, for example, are quite capable, with the pre-deployment training that now goes on, of stepping right in. Once they get to Afghanistan, I am told that if you visit a rifle section you cannot tell who is a regular and who is a reservist. Unless a militia officer had a fair bit of regular experience ahead of time, you will not take a militia company commander and get the same performance in Afghanistan as you will get out of a regular company commander, or certainly a battalion commander.
However, I think the Canadian army has done a superb job in giving the reservist the required individual training and then the collective training with the unit the reservist will deploy with. That is a very expensive proposition, but I am sure it has saved lives and has made our soldiers tremendously effective in the field.
Senator Day: That training takes about 12 months to 18 months.
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: It is approximately one year. I think they might have shortened it recently just a bit, but we should not send our sons and daughters in harm's way without doing everything we can to train them. I think the army has done a superb job of that training.
If I could just carry on with that thought for a moment, it is our contention that all soldiers, regular or reserve, should receive a baseline modicum of training that allow them to perform, all of them, the same basic tasks — rifle range, marksmanship, that sort of thing.
The regular, however, will be better at it during the course of any given year because he or she is practising more. The reservist, though, because he or she has passed a threshold level test, can be ramped up. However, it will take more training to get the reservist up to that level.
I think it is an important principle that you will not train the reservists at the basic level to a lower standard. Everyone must meet a certain basic standard and then further training allows them to be deployable.
Senator Day: The policy statement is that militia and reservists will be trained for activities in Canada. Are they receiving a level of training such that they can step in if there is a terrorist act, home-grown terrorism or an insurgency in Canada? Are they being trained adequately for that purpose?
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: As individuals, again that basic level of training allows them to reach a certain point. I would not deploy any reservist on internal security operations without a period of intense individual and collective training.
The real part of that is more the collective training problem; you have to work together to be effective. After all, an army is just a mob unless all the pieces are trained to work together and to do all the right things. The collective training piece is very important.
One would hope that there might be some warning of whatever comes out in the future and we would be able to do that sort of training. If not and if the overall level of security threat is deemed to be so high, perhaps somewhere in that warning system there should be a level where you start to do more training for reserve soldiers in case they have to be used.
The Chair: On that training piece, you are saying you think that would be a good use of them. However, to Senator Segal's point, this is much more a Public Safety jurisdiction than a DND jurisdiction. Why would military resources be deployed to train them to deal with terrorism?
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: As far as I am concerned, we do not have enough police forces in this country to look after the problem.
The Chair: However, we do not have enough trainers to get regular forces to Afghanistan at this point; they are working flat out.
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: Absolutely, but we will not be in Afghanistan forever.
The Chair: People receiving better training is more a matter of forward projecting. Right now, there is a strain on the training system. Do you assume that will ease?
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: Yes, it will ease. I have to pick my words carefully. I think they are superbly trained for the overseas expeditionary roles that they go into as individuals. To meet the domestic requirement piece, should it ever come to that, I think it would be very unwise to take people right out of the armoury and say, "Here. Go and do that." There would have to be a period of training.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: We received the list of reserve members, primary reservists, cadets and others. What is the percentage of women in the reserves? Is there a quota for female members or a specific approach to attract women?
[English]
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: There is no quota, but I am proud to say that, throughout my service, we recruited women equally and I think we did a very good job of bringing women into what was a non-traditional area for women.
It went gradually. Starting off, they could only be clerks and then store people and things like that. However, now, as you are well aware I am sure, women can serve in any branch of the Armed Forces. Submarines are the only exception, I believe.
I think the Canadian Forces did a very good job of making that happen. I am not aware of any quotas. However, I would say that I think you would find that there are probably more women in reserve units than in the regular force.
Another aspect of diversity is ethnic background and I think the ethnic and cultural makeup of the reserves is more reflective of Canadian society as a whole. In particular, that is true in the big cities, which is where people head.
In terms of the militia and the other reserves, even if you are not measuring defence capability, Canada is getting a good bang for the dollar out of the assimilation of new immigrants and making them feel a part of Canada; women are being offered an equal opportunity for employment.
There are many spin offs that come out of reserve training that are not necessarily measured in defence capability but are good for Canada. I encourage more and more of it.
The Chair: I will come back later and ask you about my own hobbyhorse, which is the COTC.
Senator Mitchell: Over the last number of years I have been on the committee, we have had discussions with senior staff in the military about hiring women. You have suggested there are a greater percentage of women in the reserves than in the regular force.
Could you give us some idea of the difference why it is that way? Why are you having that success in getting women in at the reserve level?
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: I cannot give you any percentages because I do not know. It is just my gut feeling that there are. The reasons are somewhat similar as to why you have a more culturally diverse population in the reserves.
Many young folk, especially those who are coming from some ethnic backgrounds, are reluctant to commit to going away from their families for training, work and that sort of thing, so they do not join the regular army because they will have to go any place they are sent.
However, if you can join the organization and stay at home at the same time, that makes it more attractive. I believe that is a factor.
The Chair: Others have also suggested that it is the base; that if they come from an urban base, which reservists do as opposed to a rural base, which seems to be a bias in the regular force somehow, that those societies are more homogeneous.
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: Certainly, that is true. You will find there are many reserve units in rural ridings and they are not as diverse, but then the riding is not diverse, either.
Senator Lang: Looking at the situation that Canada faces, we are coming to a parting with, if not a conclusion to, Afghanistan and the forces will be moving back. Our focus and priority will change dramatically, and the day-to-day running of the force will be much different than it is today.
I read that Canada's full-time force has more officers expressed as a percentage of total strength than our closest allies — substantially more. Perhaps you can tell me if this is valid.
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: Those numbers are mine, so I know the numbers. Yes, the percentage is about 20 per cent.
Senator Lang: It says 22 per cent here.
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: Okay, it might even be more now.
Senator Lang: This percentage is from 2004.
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: Yes. I think there is some good historical evidence that the fewer number of officers, the more efficient the armed force.
I quoted in that paper the German experience in World War II where they started off with a very low percentage and, at the end of the war, they had even fewer because they never diluted their standards as to who was would be an officer. I do not think too many people would argue that the Wehrmacht had an efficient army.
I think there are some good reasons to look at this situation. It is interesting that back in those terrible times after Somalia, two academics who looked at the problems of the Canadian Forces — Dr. Jack Granatstein and Dr. Desmond Morton — both suggested that we should look at this problem. Nothing was ever done about that, to our knowledge.
Senator Lang: You quote statistics from 2004. Do we have statistics for 2009?
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: They are available. I just have not updated that paper. If you have the horsepower to do it, I think it would be a very good exercise to go through.
Senator Dallaire: You have to watch those figures, but if your infantry battalion is only 500 strong and an infantry battalion in another country is 1,000 strong and has the same number of officers, then your numbers will be skewed by ratios.
The same exercise started with the number of generals. We said we had too many generals for the number of troops. When we created all those military civilian positions when we integrated the force headquarters with the Department of National Defence, we made equivalencies to civilians for generals, so we created positions where a civilian and a general are interchangeable.
When you are looking at these numbers, you have to go farther than the numbers of officers that are sort of per ratio by structure. You have to look at the operational output of those organizations. We are under strength in comparison to all our allies in our force structures in our units. That is why we have the number of officer numbers. We could argue that, but that is an overriding factor in the number of officers in the Canadian Forces, unless you disagree.
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: I disagree to this degree, that in the field force, as you are well aware, an infantry battalion today is probably still about 40 officers and about 800 members in the unit.
Senator Dallaire: No, it is 500 members at best.
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: Okay. The number of officers employed at the unit level in the Canadian army is a very few number of officers. Where all these officers are employed is in these massive headquarters that we have, and that is another argument. If we cut the size of the headquarters, we would not need as many officers. If you do not have as many officers, your overall costs can be lowered. You do not have to train them.
Senator Dallaire: I agree with you, as long as you do not replace them by a whole bunch of civilians, which we have done.
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: I know, and I agree with you.
Senator Dallaire: The civilians are not cheaper.
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: Yes, exactly. I agree with you.
Senator Lang: Obviously this is an issue that —
The Chair: Testimony from Senator Dallaire.
Senator Dallaire: Having been the ex-ADM of human resources, I am afraid I am caught up in this.
The Chair: Yes, you are.
Senator Patterson: I have some very specific questions. Recently the government has introduced job protection for reservists called to full-time duty and some provinces have adopted this. It has also been made possible for reservists to buy back and contribute to a pension plan. Does Reserves 2000 have any comments on those initiatives?
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: We feel that both initiatives are very positive. On the legislation issue, even though I would hazard a guess that no company or no individual has been prosecuted under those laws, just the fact that they are there is a very good message.
Second, on the issue of reservists contributing to a pension, yes, I think that is a good thing. We are all in favour of both.
Senator Dallaire: Reservists are paid by the day unlike the regular forces personnel who are under contract. The pay structure for the reservists comes out of the operations and maintenance budget, and it is not out of a pay budget like the regular force. This makes that pay structure vulnerable to every nuance; you are trading off ammunition, fuel, and spare parts to pay reservists.
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: Absolutely.
Senator Dallaire: Do you see a need to move to a more formal pay structure for the reserves? Would such a reform stabilize the reserves, give more depth, and possibly reduce attrition?
The second part is the training standards. When you go above corporal to sergeant and warrant officer and above lieutenant to captain and to major, are we demanding, not just in the militia but you know of the air force and navy reserves, standards too high for them to be able to take the time off to achieve those levels of training? Is that not undermining your leadership structures?
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: To answer your first part of your question, we have been dealing with the minister's office on that very issue. We have been advocating that there should be a policy which would do exactly as you have said and put reserve pay into some sort of category so that the individual who joins the reserve is looking at a contract situation. In that way, the reservist can estimate his or her yearly salary.
Senator Dallaire: Like a permanent part-time position.
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: Exactly. The minister replied to us on August 18, and I will paraphrase his reply. He says he has the vice chief at this moment considering a policy. By the way, that whole issue was driven by that situation I described of December 2009.
There is ministerial direction that something should happen. The CDS is also involved, and he has obviously told the VCDS to get on and do something. So far we have seen nothing. This has been going on for quite a while. Perhaps in your future deliberations you could go back to that issue, because it is a fundamental issue for the health of the reserves.
The second part of your question on courses, yes, we are demanding an awful lot of reservists and regulars too, as you have said. We are practically at the breaking point of asking especially the middle management people to go on — I am talking here of the sergeants and the captains — very lengthy courses away from home.
The schedulers of training, be they regular or reservists, have to be more considerate of the reserve's lifestyle schedule — the fact that the reservist has a family and a job. There are far too many horror stories of reservists who have gone to their employers and said that they want to go off and do a specific course. The reservist has booked his or her leave and then about a week before that course is scheduled to start, he or she receives a notice at the armoury, that the course has been cancelled because they did not have enough people to put it on, or whatever the reason. I think over the years that issue has been raised so many times that I think the army has tried to be better at it, but they are pushed right now because of Afghanistan. In future, however, if we do not look after folks we will lose the good ones. It is a shame, but that is the way it is.
The Chair: You are not suggesting that the reserves be treated financially exactly the same way as regular force.
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: Which would be to put them on a salary?
The Chair: Right.
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: No.
The Chair: Not at the same rate of pay.
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: No, but there should be a more formal agreement with the individual that if you sign on with us, you can expect at least this amount over the period of time, but you have to do the training to get it. Whereas a person on salary, if the regular army does not train that soldier the soldier still receives his or her salary. If the militia does not train, the reservist does not get paid.
Senator Dallaire: Forgive me, but my question was very much on the salary envelope for the reserves being protected, which it is not now.
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: I agree, and that is what the vice chief is supposed to be looking at.
Senator Dallaire: The Chair: Thank you very much, Lt.-Col. Selkirk. This is our first big crack at the issue of reserves. We appreciate you laying it out for us so clearly.
Fellow senators, ladies and gentlemen, we will go in camera for our discussions.
Lt.-Col. Selkirk: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you, senators, for listening to me.
(The committee continued in camera.)