Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 11 - Evidence - Meeting of December 3, 2012
OTTAWA, Monday, December 3, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 4 p.m. to examine and report on Canada's national security and defence policies, practices, circumstances and capabilities.
Senator Pamela Wallin (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this gathering of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. Today we have the pleasure of the company of Lieutenant-General Peter Devlin, Commander of the Canadian Army; and along with him, Chief Warrant Officer Mike Hornbrook, Army Sergeant Major.
The Canadian Army, I think it is fair to say, over the last decade or so has been tested under fire in Afghanistan and reached an extremely high operational tempo. Our troops and their commanders did us proud. Let me just say thank you as we begin this discussion.
Our combat operations ended there about 16 months ago, although we are still very much involved in the on-the- ground training process in Afghanistan. You will give us a better number, but perhaps up to a thousand Canadians are still on the ground there.
In general, however, the tempo is slowing a bit. We all know that money is tight, so where does the Canadian Army go from here as the CF undertakes a transformation aimed at cutting overhead but staying strong?
We welcome General Devlin to give us his opening remarks, and then we will, of course, continue our questioning, as we always do. Welcome, and please go ahead.
[Translation]
Lieutenant-General Peter Devlin, Commander of the Canadian Army, National Defence: Honourable senators, it is a great pleasure for me to be here to share some thoughts with you this afternoon.
[English]
Your army trains soldiers and trains teams to win. If you will allow me, I would like to come back to that theme of training in a few moments.
It has been about a year since I last had the honour of addressing the committee, and there has been some change over that past year. One of the changes is a brand new army sergeant major. I am seated next to Chief Warrant Officer Mike Hornbrook, an infantry soldier and a leader with over 30 years of experience in the Canadian Forces. It is a delight and a treat for me to be able to share Mr. Hornbrook with you this afternoon.
While there has been some change, there are also some constants, such as a level of complexity, volatility and interdependence in the world today. However, your army remains centred on a soldier, a soldier that is skilled, confident and proud, a soldier that is trained to operate in teams, across the spectrum, from humanitarian assistance, through peacekeeping, to stability, to combat. They are agile, versatile and rapidly deployable.
Your army today is about 50,000 in strength. There are about 20,000 regular force, 20,000 reservists, 5,000 rangers and 5,000 civilians that make up the army team. I would emphasize, if I may, that 74 per cent is in the field force, so three quarters is in the pointy end and only 4 per cent function in headquarters.
On the training front, I would like to emphasize that your army has been synchronizing and rationalizing both individual and collective training for years in anticipation of coming out of the combat mission in Afghanistan, and that rationalization has been directly aimed at supporting the Canada First Defence Strategy missions.
We have transformed with an eye on tomorrow. As a bit of a taste for the transformation that the army has already undertaken, I would emphasize the fact that we have invested in Canadian Forces enablers. These are CF enablers that have been born in operations, both domestic and international. For example, 1,500 positions were invested in intelligence modernization, force protection, counter improvised explosive device support, helicopters, UAVs, influence activities, to name just a few.
The contemporary operating environment, the training scenario that was developed by the army, has been adopted by the Canadian Forces, an environment that provides a near-peer enemy, the challenges of civilians, international and non-governmental organizations that all work in that complex battle space of tomorrow. Your army has also streamlined army command and control, reducing the size of national and regional headquarters, and restructured our approach to support.
The army has also done our part in contributing to reductions. Since 2010, we have reduced the number of civilians by over 1,300 and the number of full-time reservists, commonly known as Class B, by over 400; and we have provided to the centre over a hundred regular force positions for reinvestment in higher-priority capabilities.
Over that same period of time, our budget has dropped by 22 per cent. As you would expect, that has had an effect on people, infrastructure and training.
While we have transformed, we have worked hard to protect Level 5 training, Level 5 being combat team, a grouping of about 300 soldiers, with their equipment, undertaking live-fire training. When you undertake live-fire training, it is only then that you synchronize both lethal and non-lethal effects on that complex battle space of tomorrow, that complex battle space being domestically here in Canada, working in the chaos of a natural disaster, or in a combat environment internationally.
It is a privilege and honour for me to be here. I would like to pass the floor to Chief Warrant Officer Hornbrook, who will say a few words.
[Translation]
Chief Warrant Officer Mike Hornbrook, Army Sergeant Major: Ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honour for me to be here with you.
[English]
Permit me, please, as your army sergeant major to quickly reinforce one point, if I could, on training. Your magnificent soldiers are incredibly smart, they are fit, and they are well disciplined. They have been continually achieving mission success, whether domestically or internationally, on operations. I would submit that their success is directly attributable to the continuous training they do throughout their careers, whether it be individual training on technical or leadership courses, or the collective training piece that the commander spoke about, and whether it be a section of 10 folks or what I would suggest is vital to us as an army, namely, the combined arms team, the combat team of approximately 300 folks, culminating in live fire, with all their weapons, their various platforms and the personnel. There is a lot of coordination. In my opinion, training is the foundation of soldiering, and that is the bedrock of our army.
The Chair: Thank you for those opening remarks. I would like to ask you the following, if I can, General Devlin: We recently had Lieutenant-General Stuart Beare appear before us. I want to get your views on this. One of the things that was suggested in the original transformation documents is that you take all of those people who look after the home game, everything that is done here in Canada, and all those folks that look after the away game, and all those potential assignments that they might have, and missions abroad, and they have put that under one umbrella. Is that working for you?
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: It sure is, senator. I now speak to just one person, one HQ when it comes to the coordination of the force generation efforts to support domestic or international employment. I think it is a very positive thing. It allows us to harmonize and to get the most bangs for our dollar as we undertake our training, our force generation efforts.
The Chair: So it has been a more streamlined process. We have been told already there are money savings and personnel savings as well?
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: That is correct. General Beare could comment specifically on the people and money.
The Chair: As he did, but for you it is just easier to deal with?
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: Absolutely; it sure is.
The Chair: That is good because we have him on the record at this point. Let us begin with Senator Dallaire.
Senator Dallaire: General, you have a veteran army, which is quite significantly different than what we had for decades before, which has gone through over 20 years of very complex and ambiguous missions, including everything from Haiti to Afghanistan — a full spectrum, as you say.
In meeting the challenges of the future with such an expert, capable army, how can you sustain their interest and their keenness to continue to be at a level of readiness, which I am not sure exactly what it will be, when you are sustaining such significant cuts in your discretionary funding, which is affecting training, ammunition, fuel, rations, and so on? Although you indicate you have absorbed the 22 per cent cut, when you take away the stuff you have to pay, like PILT and so on, your cut is in discretionary money and can be up to 40 per cent. How will you sustain that veteran army?
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: That is a great point. While we have had our budget reduced by 22 per cent, there are a bunch of fixed costs; you mentioned one, which is PILT. It means that the training budgets for the formations are probably about 45-plus per cent lower than it was. We have adjusted our management readiness plan from six-month windows — so six months; 18 months for our army — to be eight-month cycles, for a total of 24 months, which saved us some resources. We are also training to a lower level than we trained when we were training for combat operations, but we fight hard to keep Level 5 live as the basis of our high readiness training.
Your point, though, is an exceptional one. When Mr. Hornbrook and I speak to the soldiers with all that experience, we look them in the eye and we say, ``We are speaking to the next generation. You, ladies and gentlemen, are the next generation of leaders inside the Canadian army, so do not take that lightly. It is an exceptionally important task. We need your wisdom, we need your experience, we need your talent, we need your drive to be able to be part of the army of tomorrow.''
I am sure that we will not have all of them because they will move on to other things. While I used to get stressed about that, I take comfort in the fact that they are joining Canadian society. They bring that level of discipline, that level of experience and those memories into our society, which I think strengthens our society.
There is less money, sir. We are speaking to the next generation, and we will lose some.
Chief Warrant Officer Hornbrook: If I could, please, that is an excellent point. This is actually something discussed both at command and on the sergeant majors' net as well, namely, this generation, this culture of soldiers we have right now understand training, both individual and collective, with the end state being a deployment. We are now getting into what in my generation is normalcy. We understood this is normal, that you have a certain level of readiness that you must maintain in order to top on theatre mission specific, or what have you, to then go off and deploy. However, while you are doing that, this generation also may not have the experiences in some of the areas that senior NCOs or sergeant majors would be expected to have, whether it be winter warfare or areas like this. That type of training, to a certain degree, can actually be quite exciting for them. It is reinforcing some of the fundamental training with our folks. The fact that to some of them that is new also adds a bit of excitement.
Senator Dallaire: The high tempo over the last 20 years has made it that the army essentially was changed from being a garrison army expecting to go to war to an army that has been at war, coming back to garrison, licking its wounds and adjusting to this new environment. As it is moving into that sort of environment, it is expecting surely a support capability that will sustain it in regards to not only activity rates, which are the exercises, and so on, but also recuperating the training they have missed, like the trade training they need for promotions, which means again away from home a lot, and so on. Have you seen a problem arising in regard to cuts that are being made in quality of life, in support of family structures, or whatever — that is, the surrounding the troops and their infrastructure, like quarters and things of this nature? Has that started to appear from the veteran army that might be less tolerant than the old peacetime army that we used to be?
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: That is a great point, sir. As of now, there has been no effect on family support. I think the covenant and the obligation that Canada and the military leadership have made to their soldiers, sailors, airmen and women are such that we need to be alert to that particular issue. There remains the appropriate resourcing for family support.
If I could touch on training, there is a very deliberate effort inside the army to look at individual and collective training and at individual training that can be exported to home garrisons. On the collective training front, I know you are aware of the Canadian Manoeuvre Training Centre in Wainwright. I tell people that it is not only a place to train but a capability, and that capability can be exported to any of our bases across the country so that there is a greater level of stability at home for our soldiers and for their leaders. There is a deliberate effort to look at individual and collective training to provide it in home garrisons, to minimize that time away from home.
The Chair: Senator Plett, you indicated a supplementary?
Senator Plett: Yes, if I could, chair.
You just mentioned Wainwright there at the end, and we had the privilege of visiting Wainwright a while ago. It is a great facility and they do great training there.
Senator Dallaire rightfully said that we have a veteran army, and you agreed with that. Would that not help you a bit in the training and would that not help alleviate some of the cuts, if you will, that have been made, that you have a veteran army and that you do not just have an army of rookies in training and that many of these soldiers in fact have received extensive training? Would that in any way help with the situation?
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: There are pros and cons to that, very much, sir. The pros are exactly that, namely, a tremendously experienced military, a tremendously experienced army, and veterans who are richly understanding of counter- insurgency operations. I think that they have less experience in a conventional type of operation. They have less experience operating in the field in more austere conditions than we grew accustomed to in the Afghanistan and even the Balkans theatres. We use the term ``respect for fundamentals.'' You might use ``back to basics'' as a term, but the army only advances with purpose so we never go back.
The basics can energize people and provide new and unique opportunities for soldiers and their senior NCOs. The fact that we are a veteran army based on counter-insurgency operations provides a level of strength, but it also provides some of the challenges, to which Senator Dallaire alluded.
Senator Mitchell: It is great to have you here. I want to pinpoint the significance of the cuts. I understand that about $98 million has been taken out of the land readiness budget, your budget. What percentage of your total budget would that be?
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: We lost 22 per cent.
Senator Mitchell: What exactly does that mean in terms of capabilities? That is not an insignificant cut. You have mentioned that you have laid off civilians.
If the cabinet said today that they were considering deploying a battle group somewhere in the Middle East, what would your advice to them be?
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: We have been able to protect this combat team training, live. The complex battle space of tomorrow demands formation, brigade group — two more levels of higher training. With Level 5 live training I can tell the Government of Canada that we need 60 days' notice to move, in which case we would be alert to the theatre we would be likely to deploy to, conduct a reconnaissance study, train, understand the human terrain, do some language training and move our vehicles to ports of disembarkation to be able to ship them.
We have deliberately planned our training and protected our funding to be able to meet the 60-day notice to move. That is important to us. It provides a level of flexibility for the Canadian Forces and for the Government of Canada. There are some tasks, though, for instance, a non-combatant evacuation operation, humanitarian assistance, where our elements are on hours' notice to move as opposed to days' notice.
Senator Mitchell: Can you give us an update on the CCV acquisition? There have been a couple of false starts there. Are you hopeful that we may be getting closer?
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: Three variants of close combat vehicles are currently being tested at the proving ground in the U.S. I understand that the testing of those three vehicles, that being cross-country, firepower and protection, will be completed sometime this month. Then an evaluation will be conducted of the strengths of the three vehicles and there will be negotiations with the company, so we anticipate that there will be an announcement mid next year.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: General, it is a pleasure to see you here again. Chief Warrant Officer, good afternoon. General, I would like to talk to you about the reserve. It is dear to the hearts of the Prime Minister and your minister and it is dear to the hearts of most members of the committee. We recently published a report on the reserve.
LGen Devlin: To ours too.
Senator Nolin: It is dear to your hearts too.
LGen Devlin: Absolutely.
Senator Nolin: I know that from personal experience. Now you are faced with a huge challenge in the form of this budget cut—temporary, we hope—of 22 per cent. You described the parameters and how your operation can work in spite of it all. But the fact remains that the reserve must be protected from such a big cut. I would like to hear what you have to say about the challenges, the approaches and the instructions you are giving to your staff to make sure that the Canadian army reserve remains effective, agile, properly trained and ready to support the army's efforts.
LGen Devlin: That is a good question. We are so proud of our reserve and of the extent to which the reserve and the regular forces are integrated today. Salaries for the reserve are one of our fixed costs.
[English]
Our challenge is to attain a level of training that is appropriate, exciting and relevant to the territorial battalion group and the Arctic response company group that exists in our four areas across the country. That is the operational output of the reserve force. There is no talk, while we are around, of reserve force cutting.
Senator Nolin: That is why I asked you the question. That needs to be on the record.
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: As far as training budgets go, though, training might be done closer to garrisons in order to save costs and allow that level of training to take place within budget.
[Translation]
One more thing: the challenges with the new capacities that now exist.
[English]
The Canadian Forces enablers born in operations — things that I am so confident will be deployed wherever we go tomorrow, be it domestically or internationally, whether it is tied to force protection, manning the towers that would support an airfield or a port or a forward operating base, whether it be our capacity for civil-military cooperation, influence activities — those capabilities are things that the reserves are beginning to embrace. That is important for us, and I would suggest it is equally important for the reserve force.
Senator Nolin: When you speak about civilian interaction, are you talking about psy-ops? Maybe you could explain to the committee exactly what that is.
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: I spoke about the 1,500 regular force positions that we invested in those enablers that I mentioned in my opening remarks tied to intelligence modernization, force protection, counter-IED, helicopters, UAVs and influence activities. By dint of having civilian employment and part-time military employment, the reserves bring a magical capability to the Canadian Forces to undertake influence activities, that is, information operations, civil- military cooperation and psychological operations. It is wonderful that they are embracing those challenges, those enablers, because we will need them tomorrow.
Chief Warrant Officer Hornbrook: I could go on at great lengths about the pride I have in our reserve folks. They are successes; they have full-time civilian careers and are extraordinary soldiers. They bring enthusiasm to the workforce each and every day. They are amazing.
Two weeks ago I was in Halifax where I had the pleasure to see some reserve forces out on exercise. Their enthusiasm is infectious. They want to improve; they look for the challenges.
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: Twenty per cent of our operations are supported by the reserves, and we continue to do that with Operation ATTENTION, which, as the chair mentioned, is our operation in Afghanistan.
[Translation]
Today, the group comes from Quebec, and almost 25 per cent of them come from the reserve.
Senator Nolin: Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chair: It has come to be accepted wisdom that the reserves will bring to the CF specific talents for the future. Are you actually targeting that in any way? Are you telling those who are in leadership positions in the reserve that this is what you will need in order to have a full force and that you will be looking to the reserves for specific talents?
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: That is a great point, and we are working toward that. The army has a very deliberate force development approach, and 2013 is when we will have the army positioned to be aligned in 2016 to achieve army 2021. As we move forward to be able to receive our new equipment, whether it be CCV, armoured patrol vehicles, the upgraded LAV 3, trucks, et cetera, we also need to have a reserve force that is appropriate for the challenges of tomorrow. We are early in our conversation with the reserve force about the capabilities they want to sink their teeth into.
The Chair: However, it is under way, is it?
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: Yes.
Senator Lang: To follow on the reserves, we did that report, and I want to clarify. Looking ahead, can you give us any idea of the percentage of reserves that we will be having versus those in the regular force, or will we have to wait until 2013 for an understanding of that? You gave us figures now of 20,000 regular and 20,000 reserves.
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: We are 50-50, sir, and the concept has us remain 50-50.
Senator Lang: That is the answer I was looking for.
Moving on to the 22 per cent reduction that you referred to, when you say 22 per cent, it sounds simple, but the point is that there is the capital side of your budget and there is an operations and maintenance side of your budget, which is salaries and all the other aspects that go to the day-to-day running of your organization. Of that 22 per cent, what is the breakdown there capital versus O and M?
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: First, salaries other than reserve salaries are not part of the army's budget, so centrally controlled. The real effect on me with the 22 per cent reduction is that it touches people, infrastructure and training.
On the people side of the house, over 1,300 civilians, 400 full-time reservists and 100 positions, which do not really cost money because I gave them to the centre to be allocated to higher priority capabilities. However, that is the people, 1,300 plus 400.
On the infrastructure side of the house, the army has the responsibility for about 43 per cent of the Canadian Forces infrastructure across the country — 8,900 buildings, 2,000 kilometres of roads and 1,000 kilometres of underground tunnelling. Only the army has a presence in over 100 communities every single day across the country, armouries and bases. We have been able to devote only about 72 per cent of what the Canada First Defence Strategy asks us to pay toward recapitalization of infrastructure and maintenance and repair. We have done that to protect training.
I am troubled about our infrastructure in that I think it warrants a strategic look at infrastructure to maintain a certain level of presence across the country and to deliberately decide what we want to keep and what we want to divest ourselves of. It is difficult and packed with emotion, but it is something that I think needs to be done, particularly in the challenging economic times we deal with.
I have talked about how our training budget is smaller because of an adjusted, managed readiness plan and training to a lower level.
Senator Lang: I wanted to get your comments in respect to looking ahead and the changing world we are facing and the insurgents and the various other ways we are having to deal with conflicts around the world and the added benefit we have with technology changes and technology and how it comes to bear with respect to how we are going to train our forces to utilize that new technology. Obviously you do not need as many people, necessarily, depending on what you are going to do or what you are being asked to do. Would you comment on that? That is an important variable. Are we able to afford that technology so we can replace the number of people that we would have used otherwise?
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: That is a great point, sir. I will start off and then pass to the soldier beside me.
Just a couple of months ago, a test was done of an integrated soldier system project in Petawawa. The best sensor on the battlefield is a Canadian soldier, so imagine a soldier armed with almost like a cell phone that provides a rich level of understanding of blue positional awareness and is also fed feeds of when the enemy was identified, GPS- and map- enabled. He is connected to his buddy whom he might not be able to see but can talk to and can send information back and forth, and they are connected to their vehicle and connected up the food chain to folks who are making decisions about where to move, how to engage and the next conversation with leaders, whether those leaders be community leaders or leaders from the international community that are delivering aid or assistance. That is the direction we are moving in to have a soldier that is network-enabled, adaptive and positioned to be able to exploit the goodness that comes from a Canadian soldier, his or her equipment and the decisions that need to be made swiftly so we are ahead of the bad guys or ahead of the circumstances that are threatening the environment that we are working in. We put a lot of effort and a lot of energy toward that environment and leveraging the technology that you mention.
Chief Warrant Officer Hornbrook: If I can, quickly, that is a fantastic question, sir. I will be honest with you. The young leaders and the young soldiers of today take to this like a duck to water. I look at some of the stuff that is there, and I am intimated and have a hard time wrapping my mind around it. To them, this is sheer normalcy. We have taken the technology piece and looked not only at the efficiencies but also at looking after our folks and their families and time away.
On the individual training, we have looked at technology and gone with the distance learning, the DL. We have done the distance learning so that people can do this at home as opposed to having to do all this and spend more time away. We have taken a look at the simulation and brought that into our training system as well. I would offer that there are efficiencies to be saved there, but at the end of the day it does not replace collective training or live training. You can certainly go through a number of skills and drills to save time that could be better used when you actually get the boots on the ground.
This whole piece absolutely is being looked at with our training system, with the soldiers and also as part of the infrastructure piece when we look at places that we need for vehicles in order to have some of these simulators and whatnot as well, and the soldiers love it.
Senator Day: The questions that are being asked show that we are interested in knowing what tough decisions you have to make by virtue of a reduction in the budget or by virtue of the austerity we are going through in all departments, but in particular now with respect to the Canadian Armed Forces. That is what we are trying to get to. My questions will go in that direction as well. We are not trying to second-guess you, but we are interested in knowing where we are going and what decisions we are making, because you have the background to make the tough decisions.
First, with respect to the regular and reserves, the 20,000 and 20,000, does the 20,000 regular include communications, the enabler types and the special forces? Are they all included in that?
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: No, that would include just the army. It does include the signallers, the communications that are inside the army. It does not include those that are part of the Canadian special forces command, and it does not include those who wear green uniforms that are part of the personnel command, the materiel group or the Canadian Forces training institutions, such as our schools in Saint-Jean. It is the army-army-army.
Senator Day: That is that is helpful. The trend is that you discontinued 400 positions for the Class B full-time reservists. Can we assume that most of the 20,000 reservists are the traditional part-time reservists that we think about?
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: They sure are. Our end state, as a result of the primary reserve study that was initiated by the vice group, assigns us 1,099 full-time reservists as part of our establishment, which takes effect on April 1, 2014. That is what we are working toward. The rest of the 20,000 is all Class A part of that part-time army, working 37.5 days a year, plus collective training.
Senator Day: When we looked into the reservists in the past, we found some reserve units, university students, for example, were looking for a certain number of training days per year because that gave them the funds they needed to continue university work. However, in order to save, the units were reducing the number of training days. Are you watching that and trying not to fall into that trap?
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: We watch that very closely, sir. It is based on just that, a level of predictability, tied to 37.5 days, plus collective training events. As we have reduced the number of full-time Class B soldiers inside our units, the manning priority for the regular force has been to assign full-time soldiers to reserve units. Those are the folks who help coordinate their training, help with their administration and help with their sustainment and support. The base for a unit, which is about five folks full-time, would have as a priority regular force posted to those units to be able to provide that foundation that would enable their training to be successful.
Senator Day: My final question in relation to this area is about the government's decision to move to accrual accounting from cash accounting. There are a number of projects, and I am thinking of rolling stock, trucks and contracts out there and let. Are you finding that your budget is being reduced, and your flexibility within the budget is being reduced by virtue of putting off the actual funds out of your budget because of an accrual basis, where you just allocate each year the value of the asset for that year that you are using, and it goes over the lifetime of the piece of equipment? Does that reduce your flexibility with respect to going into other equipment contracts?
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: Fortunately for me, mainly because I am an infantry soldier, that stuff is taken away from me because I would just screw it up. Inside the contract world is where they manage that. I look after the money tied to training, infrastructure and people.
The contracts that are being awarded today for things like the upgraded LAV trucks and the tactical patrol vehicles come with an in-service support program. That is brand new for us. Therefore, if you buy a vehicle, like a tactical armoured patrol vehicle, you also you buy a 25-year maintenance program. While I think we will learn a lot as a result of these programs, and it does not take away the responsibility to provide that immediate support that we in uniform need to be able to deliver on the battlefield, it is trying to make more predictable the costs involved in running a fleet.
Senator Dallaire: I have a supplemental. You sit on the Armed Forces Council and DMC, or whatever it is called now, the defence management committee, and the capital program is presented to you and you have inputs into that. This last question is about the capital program. Have you, because of this budget, seen projects being moved to the right or scaled down as we are trying to implement this austerity program?
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: I have seen both. I have seen projects move in both directions, to the left and the right. I have seen projects move to the left because the money could be spent in advance of the fiscal years that had been programmed; that is, there was more flexibility with that project to spend.
I have also seen projects moved to the right. I have seen, sir, when we are looking to buy trucks, that as each day ticks by before a contract has been awarded, we lose trucks. Yes, I have seen fewer numbers of vehicles or fewer numbers of bits of equipment.
Senator Plett: Let me beat this horse a little longer. I am trying to get my mind around the cuts that we are making. Of course, we can talk about numbers and whether 22 per cent is a correct number or whether it should be 18 per cent or any other percentage.
We have been in theatre now for over 10 years in Afghanistan; obviously, this is one of the reasons why costs, training and infrastructure have escalated. Although we never want to be caught again as we were then, going into Afghanistan ill-equipped, my thinking is that as we are moving out of Afghanistan, it seems only logical to me, sir, that we would be scaling back on some of this training. Maybe you want to explain the Level 5, but if you are saying it takes 60 days for you to get up to a certain level, should the need arise, I would think that this government or any other government would step up to the plate and give you the resources that you need. Especially on the training side, it would seem that scaling back, if we are moving out of Afghanistan, we are not actively involved in any large-scale operation somewhere that we would do this. Could you comment on that for me, please?
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: I sure can. During the Afghan days, we deployed a task force of approximately 3,000 men and women to represent Canada. We came out of that role and currently deploy about 950 into Kabul and Mazar-i-Sharif to provide training and mentoring support.
We no longer train 3,000 people to be able to go out the door in support of a specific task mission like Afghanistan. Therefore, that task force level is what we used to try to do, roll back a couple of levels to a combat team of about 300 people. That is what we are doing today. That is not what we were doing a couple of years ago.
It is, from a scale point of view, significantly smaller, but some of the elements like live fire, tanks, tank infantry cooperation, artillery and other indirect fire support, an ability to be able to call in fast air and all the other things we have learned in Afghanistan — information, operations, running radio stations, deliberately text messaging the population because we are trying to touch them — go into a complex training environment that we run as part of our deliberate management readiness plan at a much reduced level. Where we train a task force of 3,000, we now have fewer troops in the field, and they would train as a grouping of combat teams coordinated at that task force headquarters level, but we would not train them until there was a need.
Senator Plett: I will change direction with one question. You briefly touched on the Canadian Rangers. Could you expand for us a bit on the responsibility of the Canadian Rangers and the role they are playing in the Canadian Arctic?
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: Sure. We love the Canadian Rangers. The rangers are extraordinary Canadians. It is approaching 5,000 rangers who operate in our North, not just in the Arctic. Whenever we train in the North, we make sure we train with rangers. They have an intimate understanding of their community, an intimate understanding of their terrain and their surroundings. It benefits us when we train alongside them. They teach us, and I think we also share some of our experiences with them.
Whether it is a large exercise or not — one that we conducted last year called Arctic Ram based out of Yellowknife had about 1,800 soldiers — there are rangers there. Whether it is a patrolling exercise, there are rangers there. Rangers always participate in our training. We benefit and Canada benefits; they are a special part of operating in the North. It is a pleasure to see, and there is just a rich understanding, and they are proud Canadians.
Chief Warrant Officer Hornbrook: The other thing I would offer is that a lot of times on search and rescue they are involved as well doing great things. These folks know what they are doing; they are just amazing.
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: About once a week there is a ground search and rescue led by the CF, led by the army, and mostly led by Canadian Rangers.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett. I do not want to leave people with the impression, because we hear repeated constantly in the public and in the media, that the combat mission has ended and so we are done in Afghanistan. That is not the case. Our trainers there are in a high-risk situation, and they need training of a certain kind to go there. Obviously it is different from a flat out combat mission. Would you describe what our men and women are doing?
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: Sure. It has been a few months since I was there and General Stuart Beare is probably in the position alongside Mr. Froment. From a force generation point of view, we put a lot of effort into training our men and women to be able to represent Canada with a level of pride and skill. They are involved in training a young, growing Afghan National Army; they are involved in training and supporting a national police force; they are involved in mentoring their leaders and often work in ministerial development positions. We have the responsibility for some schools, specifically communications and staff. We are involved in the growing aviation efforts with Afghanistan, and you are right, there is a threat there. There is a threat whenever you move around that country. There is a threat from within that is tied, in my view, to respect, and one of the most special qualities a Canadian soldier or Canadian leader brings to a foreign battlefield is a level of respect for those they work with as well as a high level of respect for the population with which they work. That is absolutely key and magical to being a Canadian soldier, and we emphasize that in our training. We make the training rigorous, and they are prepared to use lethal force if put in circumstances that would warrant that in Afghanistan.
The Chair: Do you have a rough number for how many Afghan soldiers or police officers we have trained? I witnessed some of it myself. It was a kind of in nine weeks we take them to grade 3 literacy. There were troops coming to that base every single day. Do you have a ballpark number?
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: Sadly, I do not. I would be happy to provide the committee with that background.
The Chair: Thank you. We are down to five or six minutes left and still have four questioners. I ask you to pose one targeted question and will ask that the answers be brief and to the point as well.
Senator Dallaire: It links militia and capacity-building military or training assistance programs. In Afghanistan we are gaining extraordinary experience training a country where the forces are at a low level of capability. You have militia training in Sierra Leone, building up that army, and you have a capability there of reducing conflict by building capacity in military forces in many developing countries. Have you seen that sort of capability being lined up after 2014 to be able to in fact participate in reducing the risks of conflict by training up military forces in developing countries that may be at risk?
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: That capacity and capability exists within the Canadian Army. You know that well whether it is regular or reserve force based on our experiences with missions in Africa, based on the experience of our mission in Afghanistan.
We have also been dealing with General Thompson from the Canadian Special Operations Forces Command because I think that conventional forces can also bring that richness of experience to the professionalization of security forces around the world. If you couple that with some of the work we are doing in South America with soldiers on training programs, with our South American allies, on enhanced language skills, Spanish, Portuguese specifically, we are well positioned, should the Government of Canada believe we can be of advantage, to provide stability and professionalization training to a nation that needs it.
Senator Mitchell: I am interested in the future mobility enhanced project that will provide armoured engineered vehicles, armoured recovery vehicles for support of the Leopard 2s and fleets, CCVs and so on. What is the status of that?
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: It is coming along very well. We have two different versions of tanks, 20 of each plus 42 training tanks plus our armoured recovery vehicles and the armoured engineered vehicle. They are essential for mobility and force protection. That is coming along well. We also need to get our mine rollers and mine plows on the Leopard 2 tanks.
Senator Mitchell: Do you have a budget for that?
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Could we talk about recruitment? Attrition plays a major role in staffing numbers. So now you are talking about recruitment. What are your intentions there?
LGen Devlin: The attrition rate is about 6 per cent at the moment.
[English]
As we said today, I think it will probably go up a bit as we have veterans seek a level of challenge and have the expectation to deploy that might not be realized. We will also go towards a more centralized Internet-based recruiting system, which might serve parts of the military well. I think it does not serve the reserve force well, and so that is an area where we have devoted a bit more energy. One of those full-time people in each unit of those five will be someone devoted to the recruiting effort of young Canadians into their units.
The Chair: A good point is that it does not perhaps work as well in the reserve system.
Senator Day: The Canadian Army Land Warfare Centre was activated in September. Is that still policy? Is it happening? Where was it set up? How many are involved? Do you have funds to carry on?
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: The Canadian Forces Land Advanced Warfare Centre was set up in Kingston, Ontario. It was really the repackaging of what we already had in Kingston. There are no additional people or resources. It is just a better way to fit into the Canadian Forces warfare centre and the other service warfare centres.
We took our capability development and training folks who live in Kingston and packaged them up to be able to work with our services and work with the Canadian Forces to better define that complex battle space of tomorrow, the combat development process and our preparedness to be able to deal with that. It is more alignment, consistency with the CF than anything else, sir.
Senator Day: We would be able to visit that, for example?
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: You sure would, sir. We would welcome that any time. As you know, there is a lot of army in Kingston, Ontario, including our staff college, the Land Force Doctrine and Training System, the Peace Support Training Centre, the communications school and of course the Royal Military College. I would be happy to coordinate a visit at any time for the committee down to Kingston, Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you for that. As Senator Plett mentioned, those of us who went to Wainwright had a very good experience there as well, although I do not know whether we want any of these guys driving tanks or not.
Senator Plett: We did.
The Chair: Thank you so much to both of our guests today, Lieutenant-General Peter Devlin, the Commander of the Canadian Army with us; and Chief Warrant Officer Mike Hornbrook, Army Sergeant Major. We appreciate your insights and thank you for coming on this semi-regular basis to keep us up to date on what is going on. We like this approach and we appreciate your cooperation.
Lt.-Gen. Devlin: I promise to be here; your army centred on the soldier and training is what we do. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Our meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)