Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 9 - Evidence - Meeting of October 22, 2012
OTTAWA, Monday, October 22, 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.
The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to call this meeting of
the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence to order. Is it
has been a while since we gathered. We have a very busy agenda today. We are
just thrilled with the guest list. We will be hearing first from
Lieutenant-General Stuart Beare, Commander Canadian Joint Operations Command.
This is an amalgamation of three commands and he has taken on the leadership of
that. Following that we will hear from Rear-Admiral Ron Lloyd, Chief of Force
Development. He was the senior person on the RIMPAC operations that many of you
will have been aware of over the summer. Even those of you watching on
television would have seen those operations off the shores of Hawaii where we
really put our men and women to the test. We will be hearing from Rear-Admiral
Lloyd a bit later. Also joining us later today, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Commissioner Bob Paulson will give us an update. There is legislation pending
that affects the force and his ability to command and discipline that force, and
we are looking forward to his latest update.
Let us begin with Lieutenant-General Beare. Many have been calling for a
rethink about how the Canadian Forces manage themselves at what they call the
home and away game; that is, everything that our men and women of the CF do here
at home, whether it is Olympics or G8 meetings or dealing with floods, and then
the away game, whether that is a Libya mission or Afghanistan.
The defence department has now combined three operational commands into one;
the move is intended in part to save some money but also, more importantly, to
put personnel to better use and make operations in Canada and abroad more
efficient. This new Canadian Joint Operations Command, because it is the
military they always have an acronym, will be referred to henceforth as CJOC. If
you hear us talking about CJOC this is not a sporting event, this is the
military. It is commanded by Lieutenant-General Stuart Beare. He was last in
front of the committee when he was commander of the Canadian Expeditionary Force
Command. That was the away game, and it has now all been folded under his
Welcome. It is great to see you again. We are excited to hear about this new
command and the benefits of this. Please go ahead with your opening remarks.
Lieutenant-General Stuart Beare, Commander Canadian Joint Operations
Command, National Defence: Madam Chair, I am very pleased to be here with
you today to tell you about the Canadian Forces' progress with respect to
setting up our command and control system around the world, be it here in
Canada, with our allies, the United States, or with our partners in operations
Two and a half weeks ago, we had a ceremony at the Canada Aviation and Space
Museum here in Ottawa where we retired from the Canadian Forces order of battle
the Canadian Expeditionary Force Command, Canada Command and Canadian
Operational Support Command, three distinct commands overseeing operations, and
we created in its place a unified command, as you heard today, described as
Canadian Joint Operations Command or CJOC. CJOC provides today, as a bottom line
up front, the same command, control and oversight for Canadian forces operations
at home and around the world and delivers to the forces committed to those
operations the communications, engineering, logistics and support services that
allow them to operate.
I am thrilled to be able to share with you an early report on what got us
here, where we are and where that may lead us in the future. Thank you for the
invitation to speak with you today.
This is different from other engagements with this committee, as typically I
have been told I have five minutes and then I am off the stage. I get an
electric shock and I am told that is it. However, I am told that this time, by
virtue of the fact that this is an introduction to a new element of your
Canadian Forces, I have a bit more time so I will take about 15 minutes, if I
may. I am allowed to use a tool called PowerPoint.
The Chair: Against our will, but we will let you do it anyway.
Lt.-Gen. Beare: You have in hand some slides that I will use to help
illustrate the story of who we are, what we do, how we do it and why we are
doing it differently today. I will ask you to turn to slide 2, which is an image
of the world and a very simplified illustration of all the challenges that exist
in this world, whether they be here in Canada, and the safety and security of
Canadians where we live; in our Arctic, including environmental changes up there
as well as the access to that precious part of our country; the security
conditions in the Caribbean and the hemisphere, including natural disasters and
the challenges of transnational crime; and then, further afield, in Europe, with
the financial crisis; North Africa; the Middle East, with the challenges we see
in the news every day, our ongoing commitment to creating security in Southwest
Asia, Afghanistan in particular; and our interests in the Pacific. All to say
the world is full of challenges, and what is happening in the world is the
business of all of us. We all seek to understand what is going on at home, on
the continent and around the world. My command as well is interested in that
understanding. Secondarily, we also have interests in what is going on in the
world. My command is interested in understanding what those interests are, in
particular as they may affect our current responsibilities or require new
Canadian Forces operations in that world.
Ultimately, each and every time we deploy into these places, the first
question we ask ourselves is what result are we achieving for Canada and for
Canadians by being there, be that an event at home, preserving the safety and
security of Canadians, or working with partners abroad. The world is incredibly
challenged and we have not taken our eye off that as we transition to this new
command, both maintaining operations today and being prepared for operations in
Let me turn to the slide that says ``CF Transformation.'' The journey towards
a command approach to CF operations began in 2005. You will have heard and are
familiar with the story of General Hillier's transformation in 2005-06, which
had some key qualities. The first one is that we see ourselves as a Canadian
Forces first. That includes its army, navy, air force and special forces.
Ultimately, it is the Canadian Forces, a package deal that delivers the results
and operations. We recognize and readily identify the army, navy and air force
in that image but it is a Canadian Forces-first philosophy, which fully exploits
the capability of our maritime, air and land forces independently or together,
The second is an operational focus. Some may be familiar with the Canadian
Forces that was built on a Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff model that left the
management of operations at the strategic level and did not have an operational
centre one layer below the headquarters to deal with the business of operations
day to day. By putting in Canada Command, Canadian Expeditionary Force Command
and Canadian Operational Support Command, we created that operational focus. We
gave the business to commanders to lead those agendas, getting it out of the
strategic and the policy world and putting it into the operational domain.
A command centre comparative means empowering commanders down range. We have
done that through the regional joint task forces across the country, through the
establishment of Canadian leadership abroad in the form of our JTF Afghanistan
in the past. Major-General Jim Ferron is in Afghanistan today, but leaders
abroad are flying the Canadian flag. I will show you what that looks like later.
The organizations that came from that were a joint staff for the chief of
defence to allow him to formulate military advice and issue strategic directions
to the entire CF. Below that the Canada Command, Canadian Expeditionary Force
Command and Canadian Operational Support Command execute those missions and the
Special Operations Forces Command, which remains extant as an independent
command, are doing the very pointy end of the special forces' business.
Transformation since 2005-06.
Since this transformation in 2006, we have noted the development of our
mission in Afghanistan and our operations in the Persian Gulf and in Libya, last
year. We have seen the Canadian Forces' exemplary support toward the civilian
authorities as well as the maintenance of order around the Olympic Games and the
G8 in Ontario. We have also seen the response of the armed forces to the crisis
in Haiti in 2010. And we have never failed in our missions that have taken place
here, in Canada.
In the operating environment of last year and this year, we have also seen
institutional influences, including a strategic review and a deficit reduction
action plan. The transformation report of 2011 included a re-posturing of the CF
in a post-combat operations environment from Afghanistan. Fewer people are
outside the country on missions, but they are still in as many places. There is
an increase in instability and uncertainty in the world, and an increasing load
on being prepared for the ``what is next,'' because who is to say where, when,
with whom or why in this world of increasing instabilities and unpredictability.
All of those factors, including a tremendous experience since the first round of
transformation, a change in the resources available to the force, and a
self-recognition of the idea of that we need to take resources from command and
control and continue to put them into the operational forces as much as we can,
resulted in a Canadian Forces decision and a government direction to integrate
our operational commands, which we have done this year.
Slide 5, titled ``CJOC United in Purpose'' illustrates how we have taken the
functions of Canada Command, Expeditionary Command and Support Command, and
integrated them into one operational command for the Canadian Forces. We work
alongside Canadian Special Forces Command routinely. Many times they work for
the commander of this new organization called CJOC. It is one centre for the
anticipation, preparedness for and conduct of operations for the CF globally. We
do not do it alone, out of the headquarters down the road here in Ottawa. We do
it with the entire command.
The next slide is an oversimplified organization chart of the Canadian Forces
under our Chief of the Defence Staff, which simply illustrates that Canadian
Joint Operations Command is one of the subordinate commands to our Chief of the
Defence Staff. His other commands are the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian
Army, the Canadian Air Force and the special forces and military personnel
command, and he exercises command oversight of NORAD as the Canadian authority
for the aerospace defence mission. Essentially, the army, navy and air force
develop and generate the maritime, air and land forces for CF operations and
they pass them to Joint Operations Command to be employed anywhere in Canada or
anywhere around the world.
The next chart is really an expression of our mission. The mission of
Canadian Joint Operations Command is to anticipate and conduct Canadian Forces
operations at home and abroad, and to develop and generate the forces that
integrate and enable those forces to include in operations the capabilities that
go beyond what exists within the army, navy and the air force. We anticipate and
conduct operations, and both of those are work, especially in a world that is
In one conceptual model, we anticipate running Canadian Forces operations by
understanding the operating environment. We have a responsibility to understand
the security environment and the defence environment in Canada, in our Arctic,
in our hemisphere and globally. We cannot do that alone. We need to do that with
partners, be they inter-agency, interdepartmental, other government departments,
allies, traditional partners or in other parts of the world with non-traditional
partners, so we need to understand what is going on.
We need to prepare for adapting what we are doing now or be prepared to do
new things. We have a high level of preparedness at home. We have units that are
on 4 hours, 8 hours and 12 hours response time to domestic need. We have a
search and rescue framework that is responsive virtually immediately in that
mission set. We need to be prepared to conduct operations in the hemisphere and
beyond with traditional partners or new partners, should we be required to do
so. In other words, in military jargon, we do planning.
Ultimately we conduct operations. The conduct of operations goes from the
warning that we may go somewhere, to getting there, to conducting operations
with partners, to sustaining that effort, to adapting it, if that is required,
to rotating forces through it if it is a sustained mission, to recovering it
back home, to reintegrating with families and learning lessons from those
In the conduct of operations, people see the planes, the battalions, the
ships, but there is much more to it than just being there. It is getting there,
sustaining it, doing it, adapting, recovering and reintegrating on the home
front. All of that requires us to engage broadly. We need to be completely
integrated with government partners, provincial authorities, law enforcement
agencies, continental partners and our traditional military partners around the
world in order to do all of that.
I do have one organization chart that is full of acronyms, and I will direct
you to that organization chart to show the composition of the command. I will
use an analogy to make a point.
If I ask you what you think of when I say the word ``army'', I imagine that
you would say a soldier, an APC or a tank. If I ask you what you think of when I
say the words ``air force'', you will surely say a plane, a pilot or a flight
crew, and for the words ``naval force'', a ship or a submarine.
Senator Nolin: A submarine.
Lt.-Gen. Beare: That is very good, but you would never have thought of
HQ here on O'Connor, for the army, or even HQ for the naval force at 101 Colonel
By in Ottawa. You think only of the operational forces in action.
When I say the words ``Canadian Joint Operations Command,'' the first thing
that comes to some people's minds is the headquarters, but actually the command
includes the headquarters. Fundamentally, the command is all those CF assets in
operations, so it is our response units ready for domestic operations. It is our
search and rescue teams ready for search and rescue day in and day out. It is
the regional joint task forces in Canada, in every region of the country, the
North, the Pacific, in the West, here in Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic. It is
our deployed task forces in 15 locations around the world, in Afghanistan, in
the Middle East, in Africa and in Haiti. It is also the joint operations of our
group in Kingston, which provides the communications — the signals units — that
extend our communications from Canada to our deployed missions. It is the
movement units that actually schedule, operate and drive the planning of air
movement, maritime movement, here at home and around the world.
The command is our personnel support services that get us there and take care
of our people while they are there. It is our Maritime Component Command in
Halifax. The headquarters in Halifax, as an MCC, works for Commander Canadian
Joint Operations Command in managing operations in the maritime domain. It is
the Joint Force Air Component Command in Winnipeg, with the Combined Air
Operations Centre, which provides to me the aerospace domain picture and
exercises for command control of air forces supporting operations.
It is 1st Canadian Division Headquarters in Kingston, which is the
ability to project headquarters to provide Canadian Forces command and control
to a mission here at home or around the world. It is our liaison officers in
other government departments here in Ottawa. It is our liaison officers with the
emergency management organizations in all the provinces and territories, and it
is my liaison officers in our U.S. partner headquarters, British partner
headquarters and French partner headquarters around the world and in the U.K.
and in France. That is the command. I always make a point of saying the command
includes its headquarters but is not limited to it.
Fundamentally, that is Canadian Forces Joint Operations Command. In order to
execute that command I am enabled by headquarters — one integrated headquarters
versus three, which is what it took a few months ago, and three deputy
commanders, versus one. One deputy focused on the home game — continental; one
on the away game — expeditionary; and one focused on all the support systems
that allow us to operate effectively at home and abroad and to be prepared for
what comes next.
The next slide illustrates a point on operations. In the centre of that slide
there is a word called ``strategic'' understanding with the initials CDS. The
Chief of the Defence Staff commands the Canadian Forces and its operations, and
I work for him or her. The CDS is served by the CJOC, not just in the execution
of the operations but with us being one of his systems for understanding the
strategic and operational environment. He is able to see the world through our
lens, as he does through the lens of others in the defence and security agenda.
With that understanding, he is able to formulate and provide military advice to
Likewise, when the Chief of the Defence Staff provides that advice to
government and receives directions from government, he issues strategic
direction to the Canadian Forces, which includes its operational command and
those who provide the forces to it. I receive my direction from the Chief of the
Defence Staff, and it is complemented by his direction to other parts of the
forces, which provide us the capability to conduct our missions. It is a very
The last slides I will share with you are an illustration of our footprint at
home and away. In the home game you are very familiar with this. Walter Semianiw
briefed you on this very chart. It has been updated since he saw you last in the
springtime. This persists. We have a search and rescue framework that remains
extant. The regional joint task force footprint across the country remains
extant, and we are present from our southern tip to our northern tip in Canada.
The next chart is on CJOC in North America. We have operational activities,
whether they are sovereignty, safety and security or support to other government
departments, on and around the continent routinely. Some of these are
persistent; most of them start up and stop through the year. Some of them are
annual, like Operation Nanook, which is a sovereignty operation in the North
that takes place once a year — thankfully in the summertime.
The last chart I have is CJOC in the rest of the world. I presented you with
a version of this chart many months ago when I was here last. As I pointed out
before, we may not be deployed in as many numbers, but we are certainly in as
many places. If one thing characterizes those places, it is that they are not
more stable than they were in years past — they are less; and they are not more
predictable — they are less. If we were required to adapt these missions to new
places, we would be prepared to do so.
I would like to assure you that the command of the men and women of the
Canadian Forces, in the context of our operations in Canada or abroad, is always
carried out by a chief and an HQ capable of managing our actions in Canada and
abroad, as well as to provide the support, the command and the control of
communications around the world.
I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to share this reconnaissance
The Chair: Thank you. That was very clear. You are convinced that, in
addition to saving money and being more streamlined, this allows you to be
operational in a more effective way?
Lt.-Gen. Beare: Yes. I am convinced that I now have capacity for
military agility in one command to enable me to move logistics, communications
and all the other resources that enable our operations without having to ask
permission. I can rebalance operational efforts, not in one headquarters here in
Ottawa, but by operationalizing all those pieces that I demonstrated are in the
Senator Dallaire: Thank you, General Beare. You have an extensive span
of command and control. To what scale do you have the capability to conduct
command and control in various theatres of operation? In the planning process,
to what extent do you believe you will be able to handle significant operations
like Afghanistan, Congo and something significant in Canada?
With the way you are now structured will you be able to handle extensive
operations in different theatres?
Lt.-Gen. Beare: Thank you, senator. The CF has a few capacity
limitations. One is how much force we have to send to different locations. In
the last five years we have seen the full limits of that capacity in combat
operations, in predictable security events at home such as the G8, the G20 and
the Olympics, as well as in response to unforeseen contingencies such as Haiti
and floods. We used the entirety of our force to do that. We fully used our
capacity for command and control to execute both cases, so there is a known
limit in those.
I believe we can handle it. We are now five years smarter than we were
pre-transformation. In the world of a former DCDS model, with which you would be
familiar, where it was all buried in one headquarters and a matrix staff, that
was not possible. Now we are five years smarter.
In addition, the command includes these command and control nodes, JFACC
Winnipeg, MCC Halifax and 1 Division in Kingston, which is capacity I can now
use virtually immediately that was not available before. While the regional
joint task forces at home have a day job of force generating on the one hand and
being prepared to operate on the other, I can use them to maximum advantage in
the home game at virtually any time and strip resources to make that happen.
If we were to see it coming, the answer is yes, we would be able to
reposition ourselves to manage an increased load. In a time of crisis, I could
now reallocate resources, which I did not have the authority to do before, to
help mitigate the limitation.
Senator Dallaire: I agree entirely with this restructuring. Aside from
the savings of headquarters staff, I believe that the whole concept is much more
effective and resilient.
I am interested in the development of your general and flag officers to be
able to handle the spectrum of operations that you are describing and their
ability to provide that level of advice to government, which is more than just
advising the minister, who advises cabinet. We now have whole-of-government
concepts committed to operations.
What is the depth of the development and education of the whole general
officer and flag officer corps to handle this near revolutionary era that we
have stumbled into? Are there any concerns about their limitations in having the
capacity to provide the best advice?
Lt.-Gen. Beare: Thank you, senator. In the last five or six years,
through a combination of being deployed at the general officer rank in big
numbers in many missions — Libya, Afghanistan, Haiti — and being present on
exchange with partners in military systems at the strategic operational level,
the United States in particular, as well as through what we are doing in our
Canadian Forces College in Toronto, we have a commendable amount of school of
life, school of partner, school of school depth in our internal officer ranks.
We are a sought-after commodity by our partners, which speaks to the quality of
our officer corps today.
Now that we are no longer as present in exterior missions at senior ranks, in
a world where we want to economize on overhead, we have to be deliberate on
sustaining that, both in operational experiences, in our exchange and exposure
to other militaries at the strategic operational level, and by continuously
adapting what we are doing at our Canadian Forces College in Toronto.
That college and I are developing an intimate relationship. A good chunk of
what it is producing in terms of senior staff officers and general officer level
will be directly informing not just what we are doing in the command but what
the CF does in operations in this new world, including in domains that are not
Senator Lang: I would like to follow up on Senator Dallaire's question
with respect to the overall consolidation that has taken place, the
implementation of which you will oversee.
Is it correct that with the transformation that is taking place you will have
130 fewer positions for organizing and directing the force?
Lt.-Gen. Beare: Yes. There will be 25 per cent fewer full-time
military staff in the three headquarters.
Senator Lang: How much taxpayer money will be saved through this
reorganization and reallocation?
Lt.-Gen. Beare: I cannot speak to a dollar value because the military
positions that we have removed are not being taken from the CF; they are being
reallocated to other employment opportunities where there is a greater need in
the Canadian Forces. A major who was in my headquarters and is now a major in a
schoolhouse is a transition of a human resource without a savings tied to it per
se. The efficiency is the ability to reallocate the precious resource of
experienced leadership to other demands across the Canadian Forces.
Senator Lang: You talked about some new domains into which we have now
entered because of the change in technology and changes in the world. I refer
specifically to cyberspace and the implications that brings in respect of how we
conduct ourselves in any future conflicts.
Lt.-Gen. Beare: There is no question that DND has a responsibility to
protect its own networks. The Canadian Forces plays a key role in defence of the
cyber environment as it affects our networks. Ultimately, we do that so we can
use our networks at home and in operations. I am plugged in to the Canadian
Forces Network Operations Centre, and it is a part of my responsibility to
monitor what is going on in that cyber domain and to make sure we are accounting
for it as we guarantee our capacity to operate at home and if and when we
project our operational capabilities abroad. You cannot assume that cyberspace
will be there. You have to secure it. We are fully connected to the CF Network
Operations Centre that does that today, and I get daily updates on how it is
going. We are conscious of and fully accounting for that cyberspace in our
operations planning and in our conduct of operations.
The Chair: Just to be clear, you are talking about dealing with cyber
internally in DND and what it means to the CF rather than responding to some
particular hack attack.
Lt-Gen. Beare: Other authorities have that responsibility.
The Chair: Thank you for clearing that up.
Senator Nolin: I will follow up on that. It is not your command that
is taking care globally of cyber defence?
Lt-Gen. Beare: My command is working with the Canadian Forces Network
Operations Centre in the defence of our networks.
Senator Nolin: In the U.S., they are moving into creating an entirely
Lt-Gen. Beare: Cyber command, yes, they are.
Senator Nolin: Do you have a relationship with the Americans on that
Lt-Gen. Beare: The Canadian Forces has a strategic liaison officer who
is working with our strategic organizations, including our strategic joint
staff, defence intelligence and information management groups, to make sure we
are tracking where the U.S. is trending in the cyber business as well. We are
present in that and, in the future, we hope in cyber command.
Senator Nolin: I want to move into another field of cooperation
between you and your command and NORAD. Is there any link in how it operates
every day? How does it work?
Lt-Gen. Beare: Senator, General Jacoby, who is commander of U.S.
Northern Command and is the Canadian-U.S. commander for NORAD, exercises the
NORAD command from that integrated command of NORTHCOM and NORAD in Colorado.
Two weeks ago, actually, just before we created CJOC, I was sitting in his
command council, if you will, in Colorado, listening to him plan his NOTHCOM
missions with his U.S. commanders and the NORAD mission with his NORAD
commanders. We are completely integrated in understanding where he is as the
NORTHCOM commander. NORTHCOM and CJOC are partners in the intercontinental
defence mission. I was able to see what he was doing for both Canada and the
U.S. as the NORAD commander delivering the aerospace mission. At the end of the
day, he commands for both the chief of our defence staff as well as the U.S.
authority, euro space defence mission. He has a Canadian and a U.S. staff that
Canadian Joint Operations Command is responsible to enable them in the NORAD
mission. Day to day, that does not mean anything because they execute their
mission, but if they deploy in four operating locations or if they go to a
higher alert status, then domestically we provide him more support. I am
monitoring what they are seeing and doing every day. If there ever is an
aerospace defence event, it could have the potential to terminate in our
maritime waters or on our land space. Were that to occur, we own it and we take
it from there.
Senator Mitchell: I have a question not unlike that, and it concerns
Canada's relationship with NATO versus the UN for future expeditionary kinds of
events. Do you have any thoughts about that? Are you debating that internally?
How does that fit into the process, given that we do not have a white paper on
defence that would answer many of those questions?
Lt-Gen. Beare: The policy position vis-à-vis NATO is certainly well
understood as it relates to the operations we are doing today with NATO. In
Afghanistan, we are fully plugged in from Afghanistan proper into its superior
headquarters in Brunssum. I have a liaison officer there, and we have our
military and political staff in NATO headquarters as well. We are well connected
to what NATO is doing and what NATO is anticipating. If NATO were to contemplate
doing new things, then clearly that is a strategic deliberation that would
require government and strategic military direction before I do anything with
that. We are tracking current operations, and we are fully plugged into the
As well, we are well represented by Lieutenant-General Hainse, the joint
commander of JFC Naples. Naples provides the NATO overhead, if you will, for the
maritime air and land security in the southern half of the NATO AO. Right now,
with the Middle East and North Africa being incredibly challenged, he is a busy
man, trying to understand what is going on and anticipating what might happen in
that region. By virtue of having that senior leader in that leadership position,
we enjoy a privileged position in appreciating the security and defence
condition in that region. He will tell you, and I will tell you, that he does
not work for me, but we have each other on speed dial.
Senator Mitchell: My second question is very specific. It is unlikely
that you would have been prepared for this, and there was no reason why you
should be at this point. With these changes to public sector pensions, there is
evidence that at least in some sectors the reduction in actual take-home pay as
a result of that could be as much as 40 per cent. That, I understand, will
affect military pensions. Have you had a chance to look at how much these
changes will mean for reduction in military's take-home pay and what you might
need to anticipate the effect on morale in your organization?
Lt-Gen. Beare: Senator, I really do not have the background to
understand what you proposed as what is coming, let alone understand where it
might lead. I will tell you that we are incredibly grateful for the way we are
compensated today, and we are proud to serve and proud to be recognized for that
Senator Manning: Welcome, Lieutenant. Search and rescue is an
important issue in my province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We had an
opportunity last week to visit CFB Halifax and tour the new centre. As always,
there will always be questions. Last week was a fact-finding mission. Could you
give us the command schedule of how that works in the centre, not just the
station itself in Halifax but overall from the Atlantic Canada point of view?
Lt-Gen. Beare: Certainly. We have subject matter experts who could
drill into this if you wanted it, but in simple terms, our search and rescue
responsibilities of the Canadian Forces are in the aerospace and maritime
domain, and we support the provincial authority in the land search and rescue
missions. We have three search and rescue regions to do that from. You met the
commander of the Atlantic region in Halifax. They are all supported by a joint
rescue coordination centre that brings together all of the agencies of
government and the provincial authorities who coordinate search and rescue
activities — Coast Guard, Transport, NavCan, Canadian Forces, as well as
emergency management organizations and law enforcement. Those JRCCs are the
vehicle that provides those regional commanders the capacity to understand what
is going on and the ability to direct and coordinate search and rescue efforts.
Our contribution to the search and rescue effort and execution is by any
plane in the air, by any ship at sea, and the SAR forces, search and rescue
forces, that are specifically designed to respond immediately to a call. The
fixed and rotary-wing helicopters and airplanes of our SAR forces from Goose Bay
right through to Vancouver Island are postured to respond to those calls every
day. We have the forces in the field that are ready to respond. You have forces
that are maybe doing other things that we can re-task. We have the regional
joint rescue coordination centres, three search and rescue regional commanders,
and they have every authority to commit Canadian Forces to conducting search and
rescue when required.
Back here, my job would be to reallocate resources to them if what they had
was not enough or to do more than search and rescue if there is more to it
beyond a search and rescue event itself. They are fully empowered to do their
Senator Manning: Not only in our discussions last week but certainly
in discussions around the Atlantic provinces, it seems that, to the general
public, the face of search and rescue is that yellow Cormorant helicopter. When
you mention search and rescue to the fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador, it
is that yellow helicopter.
From a strategic point of view, is any thought being given to some
educational tools in relation to how people understand? Because there seems to
be a difference in ground search and rescue versus on the water. People do not
seem to understand exactly where one meets the other or where one stops and the
other begins. It certainly creates a lot of confusion, especially for families
of people lost at sea or needing assistance. It creates a lot of confusion. I
think it is our role to clear up some of that confusion. I will give you an
Lt-Gen. Beare: Thank you, senator. In the first instance, people turn
to their communities first. When there is something on the land, the communities
respond. Law enforcement takes charge. Law enforcement rallies local
communities; they go.
We have learned some lessons based on recent experiences. When we hear one of
those is going on, instead of waiting for a call, we now call in. We are
proactive questioning versus responding. If a call comes, we are much more tuned
in to what is going on to be more effective in a response in a ground scenario.
The fact you are asking the question means that we need to do more education.
It occurred to me that there is nothing like YouTube to help tell a story. I
have got notes to myself that we do need to help tell a search and rescue story
to Canadians so they do not have necessarily one view on what search and rescue
is, but a comprehensive view on what that includes, to include law enforcement
and regional and local authorities as well as rotary and fixed-wing and to make
the point again that a ship sailing by can be re-tasked to search and rescue in
a heartbeat. That airplane in the sky going on a completely different mission
can be re-tasked in a heartbeat.
Ultimately, we will be proactive in asking provincial and municipal
authorities if they need help if a real event is playing out. I thank you for
the question, and, yes, we do need to improve our communications.
Senator Baker: Thank you for your excellent presentation. I noticed on
the slide you presented, CJOC in Canada, Immediate and High Readiness Assets,
that you have under Valcartier ``Immediate Response Unit.''
It looks to me that Valcartier would be in New Brunswick, according to that
line. Obviously, it is further north than that.
What immediate response unit are you talking about there?
Lt-Gen. Beare: Every land area in the country, in the West through to
the Atlantic, has a battalion-sized force that is prepared for a domestic
response in a non-combat condition. In other words, it is a safety and security
response capability of general purpose troops. They can come from any land force
unit, infantry, artillery, engineer, logistics — you name it — and they are the
immediate response that the regional joint task force commander has to a
domestic event. On eight hours' notice, you can have a company level — 100
troops — rolling down the highway, and within 24 hours the rest of the battalion
could be on their heels, up to 400 troops. We predisposed ourselves to have a
package ready to roll that can be called and adapted as required, depending on
In the case of Valcartier, one and or a number of units of that brigade have
been identified to provide that immediate response capability. You would have
seen those rolling in the floods in 1997. You saw all of them and then
everything else we had in the ice storm of 1998. You certainly saw them in the
floods in the Richelieu River in recent months. They were the first to roll, but
they do not represent the end of our commitment if more is required. More can
follow, as it has in the past.
Senator Baker: They do a terrific job.
Your interceptor jets are not covered. We are not talking here about the
Lt-Gen. Beare: That would be the NORAD mission.
Senator Baker: Is that what you would coordinate in your position with
Lt-Gen. Beare: The North American aerospace defence has authority to
act immediately for detection and interception of aerospace events. I would know
that they are going on. My job is to support them on the ground if they need new
logistics or protection of airfields and locations from which they are operating
if they project into new locations, like in the North.
Senator Baker: Historically, we have needed these interceptions
because other nations test our defence perimeter, and sometimes the foreign
bombers, Russian Bears, in particular, would cross over that line in the
Do you work with the American interceptors in Bangor, Maine, and your
interceptors in Canada to carry out those interceptions off Labrador, or are you
just assigned that yourself?
Lt-Gen. Beare: Any approach to the air defence identification zone
around the continent of North America is a NORAD responsibility to detect and
then intercept. Canadian or U.S. aircraft can perform those missions. Typically,
U.S. respond to the U.S. and Canadian to the Canadian identification zone. Most
of those are in the high North, versus the long route, which is over the oceans.
It is over the top.
Senator Baker: Where the American jets would be based would be in
Bangor, Maine. There is not much further north than that.
Lt-Gen. Beare: Alaska is a busy place.
Senator Baker: Alaska is over there. It is over that way, but I am
talking about where we are, over the East Coast, where interceptions take place.
Lt-Gen. Beare: There is a high amount of U.S. air defence capability
in the continental U.S. that is prepared to deal with non-state actors in events
like 9/11 as well. They are responsive to their own.
The Chair: I think, as you answered earlier, this is under NORAD
command. It is the joint command.
Lt-Gen. Beare: It is, yes.
Senator Baker: The Russian Bears usually cross on the East Coast; is
that not right?
Lt-Gen. Beare: They are flexible aircraft, senator.
The Chair: I want to broaden this. I completely get and like the
approach you have laid out today; it makes you more agile and able to respond.
One of your difficult jobs, as I look at one of the pages here, is to
anticipate, understand, prepare and then conduct. I guess the ``anticipate'' is
the really tough nut to crack at this point. As you say, there are any number of
trouble spots anywhere in the world. You not only have to anticipate that; you
have to anticipate what your government might then ask you to do.
Where is that interaction? How does that happen? I know it comes formally
through the CDS, et cetera, but you have to have some sense of what our hot
spots are, what our priorities are.
Lt-Gen. Beare: It is important for me to share the idea that
``anticipate'' is not just foreign. It is also home.
The Chair: Right.
Lt-Gen. Beare: In the home game, in the maritime, aerospace, land,
Arctic, space and cyber domains, those ``international domains,'' as we call
them, we have a high level of preparedness already existing in the form of MOUs,
interdepartmental agreements, Canada-U.S. relationships, NORAD. We do not need a
lot of permission to operate at home if there is an event, for example, a
terrorist or a natural disaster event or an incursion in our territories. We
have the authority to act quickly. I can do as much as I can to anticipate what
may come to be postured to deal with it without having to ask for a lot of
In some cases, it is not permission now; it is an order. We have to respond.
It is more challenging in an international context where the strategy and the
policy of Canada and its partners still needs to be deliberated on before you
commit men and women of the Canadian Forces to a specific action. The best we
can do in that context is not just anticipate what we are seeing, but what our
partners are seeing — how they see the world. Not only is it what they are
seeing; it is also what they are expecting and might be intending. It is not
just international partners. It is inter-agencies, for example, law enforcement,
CIDA, DFAIT and others. Having their read on what is going on, where it may go
and what interests might be at play is an important part of what we do. None of
that gets ahead of government policy or government direction. Ultimately, the
use of military presence and military forces beyond Canada's territorial domain
belongs to them to decide and direct.
The Chair: That strategic readiness, I guess, is the tough part of the
Lt-Gen. Beare: Yes.
The Chair: You have the men and women. You may or may not have all the
equipment, but you have got the equipment you have and you know how to deploy
Literally, it seems to me you are sitting there watching and listening to
everything that is not only said in this country, but as you say, with our
partners, and really trying to figure out whether Iran is the next move, whether
Syria is the next move, and what would bring that.
Lt.-Gen. Beare: The anticipation or that tireless curiosity, for lack
of a better term, we can translate into what I call preparedness. Those are the
things we can do to be postured to understand better and to respond better and
more quickly with the right forces and be more tailored to a specific problem
type. Again, we cannot do that as an indication of government policy or
commitment to action before either of those things come.
Militaries plan, and they do not plan to get ahead of decision makers; they
plan to be postured to provide options and capabilities to respond should they
be required. I would say the ultimate preparedness that the CF does is its
training. We train to be ready. Ultimately, training in its generic context is
part of our preparedness, but orienting that training to a type of problem or
type of possibility that we anticipate is also part of that process.
I would invite you to come see an exercise in the spring of 2013 called
JOINTEX, which will be a combined land, maritime, air and special forces series
of exercises centred on Cold Lake, Wainwright and the West Coast, where we will
demonstrate readiness of a tactical force but preparedness of the CF to deal
with wicked problems.
The Chair: Some of us have done a little bit of that, and it is
Senator Dallaire: I want to touch on the interface with the
intelligence milieu and your capacity there, as well as more on the detailed
roles of your component commanders and how that interfaces.
I am most concerned that you have a veteran Armed Forces out there, regular
and reserve. We are going through significant cutbacks, and DND is taking a huge
impact on budget reductions out in the field, mostly on O and M, so that means
training, ammunition, fuel, et cetera.
What impact have you had on the capacity of the force generators to meet what
you need? Are you the one who says what you need and they are to generate that
and thus absorb the cuts in order to do that? Or have they been doing the cuts
and simply telling you, ``This is what I have to offer and you have to work with
Lt.-Gen. Beare: Ultimately, the authority of what capability and
readiness we will have is the chiefs of defence. I will be one of the many
leaders who will provide to him what we think the world or the government will
need of us, both in the missions we know we are doing and the potential
missions. We are constrained by size, capability and other obvious factors.
I will be one of those voices, and I will also influence the journey of that
commitment for readiness, using that language, into the various range of
contingencies we might want to be prepared to do. Again, the JOINTEX is probably
the best illustration of how we are capitalizing on a decade of credible
experiences, plural, to ensure we have the capacities to succeed in the
airspace, at sea, on land, and to package it, get it somewhere and sustain it.
That is basically what we have done for the last 10 years.
I will be an informer and influencer of the need — I do not decide it — and I
will be part of shaping how that need becomes prepared and ready once the chief
has declared how much readiness he is prepared to invest in. Again, readiness is
not everyone all the time.
Senator Mitchell: Speaking of readiness, there is certainly
controversy surrounding the F-35s in that there has been some suggestion they
might just not be ready by the time the F-18s run out. In the spring, the
government said they would consider alternatives in response to the concerns
raised by the Auditor General. Are you considering alternatives to that jet, or
are you considering what you might do if you do not have jets?
Lt.-Gen. Beare: No. I am not participating in that dialogue at all. My
assumption as a force employer is that we will have an aerospace defence
capability and we will sustain it. If someone tells me its capabilities will be
incredibly different from what we are requiring, then we will have to adapt.
However, ideally it is met, because it is certainly a requirement we still have.
Senator Lang: I would like to get into another area. You mentioned
aerospace earlier in your remarks. Perhaps you could give us an overview of how
important the Canadian Space Agency is and what they can do as far as your
missions are concerned.
Lt.-Gen. Beare: Space is vital for just about every component of our
national interest, and it is a vital component of our capacity to do our job.
The fellow who champions the space agenda for the Canadian Forces is — I will
put him right up front now — Rear-Admiral Ron Lloyd, who will be talking to you
The CSA is a key component of the Government of Canada's capacity to exploit
space, surveil space and control the use of space as we are a consumer of all
that brings. I am pleased to see that we are improving our global SAT
communications posture and our surveillance in space, what is going on. If we
deliver on the RADARSAT Constellation mission, we will have an incredibly
powerful, space-based ISR capability for a whole suite of Canadian national
interests, not just defence.
The Chair: That is a great point. We will be looking at that in more
depth at another point as well.
Senator Nolin: General, I have one short question about your
operational support. How many staff are there? Are they CFB? How important is it
for your operations?
Lt.-Gen. Beare: There are a large number of them because these days,
the Canadian Forces have the approval to use a community abroad, which enables
them to support their deployed forces.
An agreement for a country to host a support hub is an incredibly powerful
tool that pre-exists us actually having to use it. For example, today in
Cologne, Germany, we have six Canadian Forces members working on the support
hub. Three of them are working with the regional medical support team in
Landstuhl. It is a very small number of people, but we can grow them quickly if
we need to surge. It is a 24-7 available capability.
There are 20-some-odd — I think 24 or 25 — members in Kuwait today enabling
the sustainment of our mission in Afghanistan. We will be opening a support in
Jamaica, which may have one or two people full-time. The minute another Haiti
happens, you can turn that on in a heartbeat, knowing you already have the
approval, the relationships and the contracts in place. That accelerates our
deployment and employment, and it makes us effect faster.
The Chair: Thank you, general. I know you have been in this job
literally for two weeks. The preparation was a lot longer than that, but I think
you can hear from this room that people think this is definitely the right
direction to be going in. We look forward to talking to you regularly. I hope we
can make this a regular date so that we can talk about issues as they come up
and look at them through the lens of this new command and whether it really is
operating as efficiently as we all hope it will. Thank you for your insights,
for your time and for setting up our next guest for us. Thank you very much,
We are pleased to now welcome Rear-Admiral Ron Lloyd. Last summer — some of
you will remember this from the television screens and the newspapers — the
Canadian submarine HMCS Victoria torpedoed and sank a former U.S. navy
ship near Hawaii. This was not an act of war. This was part of an exercise
called RIMPAC, and it was a ship that had already been sunk and decommissioned,
so it was okay and everyone was in agreement. There was no attack on our
important ally, but it was a very key part of this RIMPAC operation, the largest
maritime training exercise in the world ever. Canada was the second-largest
player of the 22 nations taking part, and the deputy commander of RIMPAC's
combined task force was a Canadian.
Rear-Admiral Ron Lloyd in his day job is Chief of Force Development for the
Canadian Forces and last served as Commander Canadian Fleet Pacific. He is with
us today to talk about this and some of the larger questions. Your friend
General Beare said you would talk to us about many other things. Welcome. I
gather you have a video presentation to start. We will then quickly go through
your PowerPoint presentation. We will keep questions for the end, otherwise we
may get off track and you will not get through your presentation at all. Welcome
and please begin.
Rear-Admiral Ron Lloyd, Chief, Force Development, National Defence: It
is truly an honour and a privilege to be able to meet with you this afternoon. I
am also very lucky to have had the honour of being second in command for the
RIMPAC exercise. The best thing we can do for our young officers and members of
the Canadian Forces is to speak with them, which was possible last summer.
If I may, I would like to show you a video that is about five minutes long
and talks about the RIMPAC exercise. The film was made for the naval force and
shows the work of our joint armed forces, as well. Here it is.
(Viewing of the video)
The Chair: A very nice hit for our sometimes-troubled submarine
program. They are so happy to be back in the water. That hit was a successful
one, but we saw lots of activities in the refuelling in the air, which we are
pretty good at too and I know was very important in Libya.
As you go through your document here, what we are looking for in part is that
this is a big operation and takes a lot of our resources, a lot of our person
power. Please explain to us as you go along the importance of using that number
of people in those resources in this RIMPAC operation.
Rear-Admiral Lloyd: The important point that we want to try to drive
home with that video was the fact that this is more than just a navy exercise.
It is actually a joint force exercise. One of the things that the Chief of the
Defence Staff has reiterated on a number of occasions is the fact that we need
to do a better job at joint operations. As you can see, in terms of the air
force, the army and the navy, that was there; and as you indicated, senator, a
significant amount of energy and resource went into that exercise in terms of
bringing that all together in order to learn the valuable lessons that will make
us that much better as a joint force should we have to deploy in harm's way.
I will take you to the second slide in terms of exponential interest. As are
you aware, Canada is a founding member of RIMPAC, this exercise. As you can see,
from 1998 up to 2006 there was fairly steady state attendance by Australia,
South Korea, Japan, the United States, Canada and Chile. As you can see, in
2008, 10 nations participated; in 2010, 14; and then last year was unprecedented
in the sense that 22 nations were there.
This is an excellent opportunity for countries all the way to the right of
the spectrum in terms of sophistication and how well they are able to operate,
all the way to the left of the spectrum in terms of being able to demonstrate
commitment to safety, security and peace in the large Pacific theatre. This is
very much an exercise that will hopefully leverage the partnership and trust
from all of those various partners. RIMPAC 2012 speaks about capable, adaptive
On the next slide, for the 22 participating nations — and recognizing that
some of the participating nations would provide a platoon of infantry — would
have participated in that big amphibious assault you would have seen. From their
perspective this is a significant return on their investment, all the way to the
larger nations where you have seen the South Korean submarines and the Russian
participants. It was an excellent opportunity to hone and refine those tactics
and training procedures that you are all so familiar with.
In some instances, as an example, Mexico, it was their very first time, and
then you would have seen India participate only at a staff officer level.
However, there was very strong participation across the Rim of the Pacific
On the next slide, the twenty-third RIMPAC was the largest ever. What you see
in that photo is each ship's captain that participated. As you can imagine,
getting all those ships together in that confined body of water is no small
undertaking. In many respects it probably represents the largest strategic risk
of the exercise. This was about a three- hour affair of bringing all of those
ships' captains on the same page.
As you can imagine, communicating in English amongst English-speaking nations
is one thing. Representing Spanish, South Korean, in terms of those languages,
adds another complexity in and of itself.
In order to mitigate that risk as best we could, each ship's captain was
given a ship and they walked through every phase of that exercise to make sure
there were not any accidents, or what would happen in the event there was a
propulsion failure. If you were a middle ship in the column, as an example, how
we would mitigate that risk.
There is no document that we have been able to find that indicates that this
is the largest in terms of number of people participating, but it is clearly the
largest exercise in terms of nations that have participated. In terms of whether
it is the largest that Canada has ever provided to RIMPAC, once again I am
unable to categorically indicate that. I can say it is the most robust
participation Canada has ever had in a Rim of the Pacific exercise. You see
there are five ships, one submarine, the fleet diving unit from Victoria, seven
fighter F-18s from Bagotville, two tankers, four patrol aircraft from the East
Coast and West Coast, two Sea King helicopters, an infantry company from Second
Battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, and then we had
staff officers at every level in the chain of command participating in RIMPAC.
Why Hawaii? You saw the Governor General and the Chief of the Defence Staff
in that video. In addition to the Governor General and the Chief of the Defence
Staff, we had the Minister of National Defence, the deputy minister, the
commanders of the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Canadian Army come to Hawaii
to see their soldiers, sailors, airmen and women in action.
It was important that we reinforce at every turn that Hawaii is ideal for a
number of reasons. The first is it is a central location, obviously, in terms of
the great distances that nations have to travel to participate in this exercise.
It has, by and large, the best range facilities in the world, so that a
submarine or torpedo shot was on an instrumented range. The Australians, the
South Koreans, the Japanese will participate in some of the most advanced
missile exercises possible in those facilities. It is just not possible in other
places in the world.
Take into account also that there are about 120,000 square miles of water
space and airspace that you can divvy up so you can make sure you have
de-conflicted all the various exercises for all the various nations in terms
what it is they are doing. You can imagine, with 15,000 personnel, 40 ships and
6 submarines, you would need a whole bunch of accommodation facilities. As well,
as you saw the ships leaving the berthing facility. There are very few places
that would provide you that logistical support. That was also available at
The Pacific Warfighting Center represents a state-of-the-art operations
complex that allows you to command and control an operation of that size. That
is why we go to Hawaii.
Some would say why would you do it in July? It is more than just about doing
it in Hawaii; it is about all the things I have just articulated.
In order to bring an exercise of this complexity together, it does not happen
overnight. If you go to the next slide on significant planning effort, we will
start the planning for RIMPAC 2014 in January. In three and a half short months
we will already be back at articulating what it is that Canada would like to
gain as an exercise participant in RIMPAC 2014. In some respects the staff that
plan this in Commander Third Fleet down in San Diego probably have about a 72-
hour turnaround before they start planning and getting ready to understand the
framework for RIMPAC 2014.
You can see the planning conferences that took place in June 2011, December
2011 and April 2012. At the final planning conference, 550 personnel came
together to make sure that every T is crossed and I is dotted in order to ensure
that exercise goes without a hitch.
You can see there the senior leaders' conference, which is the flag officers
getting together to make sure we are on the same page. As a matter of fact,
there is planning across every institution for essentially that last 18 months
in preparation for the exercise.
There is Vice-Admiral Beaman, who is commander of Third Fleet and was the
commander of the exercise. You can see his priorities there. Safety of personnel
and platforms was reiterated at every stage of the exercise, ensuring that
nothing we were going to do would jeopardize people or platforms.
In the integration of new and old partners, it had to be about war fighting
and then meeting changing demands. At the end of the day, as you senators well
know, the plan is nothing more than a point of departure when you are actually
conducting operations. That was the motto at the end: capable, adaptive
The senior leadership, as you can see from that page, I think Canada was
extraordinarily well served. That speaks very highly of the men and women that
we have in uniform. In particular, you can see Major-General Mike Hood, now
deputy commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force, was the component commander
for over 200 aircraft. This was an extraordinary appointment, and RIMPAC 2012
was the first opportunity where the component commanders, from the start, were
represented by nations other than the United States. It was a real feather in
General Hood's cap.
On the next slide you see we have the Coalition Forces Maritime Component
Commander task organization. In there, the Canadian flag on the third row down
represents then-Commodore now Rear-Admiral Peter Ellis, the deputy commander
expeditionary for General Beare, who just spoke to you. You saw those big
helicopters taking off from that landing helicopter assault ship, and Commodore
Ellis was in command of all those forces. This is another extraordinary command
opportunity for Canada to have during this exercise.
In the next slide you can see the three stars at the top, all the way down to
HMCS Algonquin at the bottom. This slide represents the fact that you go
from a Canadian to a South Korean to a Chilean to Americans, Australian,
Canadian and an American. It reinforces the complexity of the exercise and some
of the challenges that we will deal with, just from a language perspective. I
often ask people where do you think the biggest communications challenges
occurred: between the American, the Canadian or the Australian; or between the
Canadian, the South Korean and the Chilean? Quite often it is at the top where
we are using the same language but it means different things in our different
navies and air forces. It is interesting, the different challenges there are
from a communications perspective, command and control of a force of that size.
The slide you have here is exercise progression. Essentially, this slide
indicates that it is very much crawl, walk and run. In the bottom left-hand
corner you bring 25,000 participants to Hawaii, you start the relationship
building, reinforce the protocols from a safety, environmental and war-fighting
perspective, confirm the connectivity between all these IMIT systems and then
just work out the command and control. You will then go to a more robust
training regimen where the exercises are scripted. You then get into war
fighting, whether it is air, surface or subsurface warfare. You go into the
rehearsals for the free play, and then there is a five-day humanitarian
assistance disaster relief exercise, which was essential to understanding some
of the challenges and the complexity of humanitarian assistance and disaster
response. Finally, you get to a free play exercise, which is very much about
understanding those tactics and training procedures across a large coalition of
What has changed in RIMPAC? I think it is important for everyone to
understand that RIMPAC has continually evolved in the last decade. The first
RIMPAC that I participated in, which was in 1990, was completely different from
the RIMPAC that I had the opportunity to be the deputy commander of in 2012.
Back then it was very much a tactical exercise, based on ships deploying over
the horizon and conducting their training. Now, it is very much about the
emphasis at the operational level in terms of commands and control, how we can
do that better, and building that trust and those relationships across the
The battle space is far more complex than ever. One thing that was added to
this exercise was an SRSG, which stands for the Special Representative to the
Secretary-General. That was an ambassador who had experience in the Pacific and
who was participating at that level. Senators, you can well imagine the
complexity that adds in terms of the political- military interface and just
ensuring that we understand that so when it comes time to deploy in that type of
operation, we will understand that type of complexity and dynamic. There is
multinational leadership at all levels of the CCTF, not just for Canada but for
our partners such as Chile — they were the sea combat commander. It was an
outstanding opportunity for them and they did an exceptional job across the
force in leveraging that leadership position to effect. As I indicated, it is
more than just warfare — humanitarian assistance, disaster response, evacuation
operations, piracy and cyber.
On Canada, this was an excellent use of our resources because we got to do a
lot of things for the first time. We deployed a national command element, which
we had never done in the past. I was not only the deputy commander of the
exercise but also the senior Canadian commander in Hawaii, and we learned a
number of invaluable lessons. Commodore Ellis was not only the commander of the
amphibious task group but also the commander of the maritime component;
Major-General Hood was commander of our air component; and Lieutenant-Colonel
Mason Stalker was commander of the land component. My operations officer for the
exercise was also the chief of staff for the national command element. One
lesson we learned there was never to do that again because he was a very busy
individual trying to look after all the operations for that exercise, let alone
all the national command items that needed to be addressed.
You have heard a lot of RADARSAT and that tremendous technology that is
available from space. We actually operationalized that in Hawaii. We were able
to look at targets and provide that information into the recognized maritime
picture. Taking advantage of the space assets, being able to show our American
partners what a huge capability that is and being able to have it in operations
I think really reinforced what that tremendous capability is for Canada and for
The national joint support component was commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel
Julia Atherley, another operational level support that we had not done in the
past. Typically the army, the navy and the air force would have their own
support enablers. For the first time, we brought those all together and then a
couple of other things that we deployed there. What has not changed was the best
training in the world from private to rear admiral.
This is the last slide now on relationship building. There is an excellent
quote there by Admiral Mike Mullen at the bottom that ``Developing a
relationship on the battlefield in the midst of a crisis with someone I've never
met before can be very challenging . . . Trust has to be built up over time. You
can't surge trust.'' I think RIMPAC does an extraordinary job of developing
those relationships so that they can be surged in the event of a crisis.
With that, I would be happy to take any questions you might have.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I want to start right on that point
that this, I think we all agree, builds trust and familiarity. How would you
assess, however, the actual state of interoperability amongst and between these
Rear-Admiral Lloyd: That is a great question, senator. In terms of the
nations that we routinely operate with, the United States and some of our other
allies, the Australians as an example, we do this quite regularly. From an
interoperability perspective, I am very comfortable with that level.
As can you well imagine, when you start working with nations for the first
time quite clearly it is a learning curve, but that is the whole raison d'être
for this exercise. I referred briefly to the Chileans. As a matter of fact, we
are working with them more and more often. They did an extraordinary job as a
sea combat commander and I look forward to those nations taking on bigger
leadership roles as we move forward in terms of reinforcing that
The Chair: Thank you. Again, we have lots of people interested in
questions; short and sharp. We start with Senator Dallaire.
Senator Dallaire: As a result of your potentially hot proposed wash-up
exercise, knowing CPFs are going through the upgrades and knowing we are getting
a new Sea King replacement; what is your assessed most significant operational
deficiency that came out from the Canadian Forces in meeting the objectives of
Rear-Admiral Lloyd: The key areas that we addressed in our final
report dealt with those areas that I basically spoke on, which we deployed for
the first time. In terms of operational support, the doctrine is not finalized
for that. There are a number of lessons I think we learned during the exercise
that we will need to improve on in 2014. In terms of the national command
element and ensuring that the army would probably be far more familiar with that
than the navy, I think that national command element and how we will do that,
senator, is something we will need to improve on.
In terms of the actual capabilities that take place during the exercise, it
is important to understand that the army, the navy and the air force put forward
those objectives for going to RIMPAC in order to operationalize and leverage
those, so I would not have had feedback on my level on the tactical lessons
learned that the navy and air force would have been pulling out of that. The
operational level is where I would have been focused.
Senator Dallaire: We have strategic level and national level;
operational level is the theatre of operations where people operate; and then
the tactical level is down to the ships and the task force. The second point is
that in both the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, we use NATO extensively and a
lot of the interoperability that comes out of the STANAGs and all the different
instruments that NATO uses for interoperability and standardization. However, on
the West Coast there is no such animal. What is the constant structure that is
out there versus the exercise one or the spontaneous one that is out there doing
contingency planning and preparing for deployment of capabilities in the Pacific
Rear-Admiral Lloyd: That is a great question. I think that strikes to
the importance of RIMPAC because there is nothing out there in the Pacific.
Every two years you have an opportunity to come together and start refining
those standard operating procedures. There is a product, combat SAG 5, that we
use, a framework in order to be able to ensure all the tactics and that can you
start having that level of tactical interaction.
To answer your question specifically, there is nothing out there in terms of
standard operating procedures that reinforces RIMPAC. One of the challenges, as
you well know, is the rules of engagement. How do you take the rules of
engagement across 22 participating nations, recognizing the differences in the
way you even teach and instruct rules of engagement? That is an ideal venue to
educate all the various nations on some of the challenges, issues and complexity
of bringing a coalition together in the Pacific, which, once again, reinforces
Senator Lang: I would like to welcome our guests here this evening. I
want to say that as a committee we did get the opportunity to tour the naval
bases on the West Coast and on the East Coast. I believe we all came away very
impressed with how your operations are being conducted and what the Canadian
Forces are doing on our behalf.
For the record, according to our notes, it is important to point out that on
RIMPAC there were 1,400 Canadian Forces members deployed. The area Canada can
take some pride in is the number of ships involved compared to other countries.
We were second to the United States, apparently, and acquitted ourselves very
This leads me into my first question, which has to do with the submarine that
took part there. Did it meet all the aspirations that the navy had for the
retrofitted submarine? Perhaps you could comment on that.
Rear-Admiral Lloyd: Once again, in terms of everything that the navy
wanted to get out of it, I will defer to Admiral Maddison in terms of the
specific details at the tactical level. From my perspective of sitting in the
ops centre watching that take place and the actual ship get hit with a torpedo,
it had a significant strategic effect. In terms of the training that it provided
the ship, I have heard nothing but positive comments across the board in terms
of what HMCS
Victoria was able to provide our U.S. colleagues during that exercise,
which was a significant capability.
Senator Lang: I want to talk about the Pacific and the fact that it is
becoming more and more of a priority. The United States has said they will take
more emphasis as far as their armed forces are concerned as it relates to the
Pacific and their responsibilities there, as well as us. During our tour again,
to the West and East Coasts, it was made clear to us, and really came home to
me, that Canada is a naval country. We are surrounded by ocean on three sides,
although people in Alberta or Saskatchewan may not really know it, but the fact
is we do need this navy from the point of view of peace and security. Perhaps
you could elaborate in respect of the activity that is actually taking place in
the Pacific when it comes to the submarines and various other ships that are
going up and down our coastline? Most Canadians are really unaware.
Rear-Admiral Lloyd: Coming from Alberta, it is great to have the
opportunity to inform everyone of the important role that our navy has from sea
to sea to sea.
The Chair: Why did all the Prairie boys join the navy? That is the
Rear-Admiral Lloyd: There is a significant amount of activity taking
place in our waters, and it is a system of systems in terms of what is taking
place in our maritime approaches. It involves space-based systems, as I have
already indicated, and gets down to tactical in terms of a ship or an aircraft
going out there and doing the intelligence surveillance or reconnaissance, ISR,
the important aspect of what it is we do, and then ensuring that information
gets back to our MSOC, maritime security operation centres, and ensuring there
is that understanding.
Was your question specifically about the exercises we have?
Senator Lang: Yes, and the traffic between the other countries,
including submarines and other ships out there on any given day.
Rear-Admiral Lloyd: It is in the thousands.
Senator Lang: I was very surprised to hear the number. Go ahead.
Rear-Admiral Lloyd: I do not have the exact number, but it is in the
tens of thousands of ships that are currently operating out there, and there are
a number of ways we can ensure we are able to identify who is operating. As you
know, they have to be willing participants. If you do not have that automatic
identification system, then you actually have to have the mechanism to be able
to identify who is not participating and actually deploy an asset to make that
identification. That is why I refer to that system of systems in order to be
able to identify which ship is not cooperating and then send that platform out
there to identify, to see if it represents a threat or not. It is a very capable
process and that is what I was speaking to about RADARSAT and why our American
colleagues are so interested in that space-based capability.
Senator Mitchell: I wish to follow up on the senator's question
regarding deployment of ships. Historically, or at least for a good deal of
time, we have kept our fleets balanced in the East and in the West, as I
understand it. Is there a suggestion we will be moving more and more of our
fleet disproportionately, if you will, to the West Coast?
Rear-Admiral Lloyd: Once again, I will let Admiral Maddison speak to
that. What I can say is that I do not think it is important to take a look at
where the ships are located to understand where our commitments and priorities
lie. When I was the director general of maritime force development, for example,
the key thing to look at was response time, whether from Halifax or Victoria. If
you are in Victoria it does not mean your response time is necessarily quicker,
depending on the location of that crisis spot. When you take a look at speed
times distance, you will find it is probably not as big a difference as people
would like to try to make of it.
Senator Mitchell: I am interested in my next question particularly. I
notice that Russia was included, which suggests something about how we view that
nation now versus how we used to. I also notice that China is not included,
suggesting that we continue to be suspicious of China even as we consider
selling it Nexen. Is there something to that? Would you have China involved in
this? Do we feel that much better about Russia that we are happy to be
exchanging some pretty critical information about how we operate as military
Rear-Admiral Lloyd: Once again, it is not our exercise; it is an
American exercise. In terms of the nations that are invited, it is very much at
the request of the U.S.
For 2014, as I understand it, the Chinese have been invited. Regarding your
actual question with respect to the sharing of information, I can assure you
that there are systems that will facilitate the exchange of information in terms
of our classified information. Quite clearly, there are mechanisms to protect
that. The Americans do not share everything with Canadians that they would share
between themselves, as an example. The stratification of such information is
still facilitated in an exercise as complex as RIMPAC.
Senator Mitchell: It is quite remarkable that they are inviting China.
The Chair: I would like to speak to that, if I may, because we really
are trying to focus on RIMPAC with you, and that is your expertise here today.
There is lots of cheering and we are proud that the submarines were working. On
the other hand, do you really want people to know the level of our readiness and
sophistication? It is kind of a two-edged sword in terms of sharing this
Rear-Admiral Lloyd: It is a great question, senator. One of the
advantages is the amount of battle space we are talking about. There are
procedures that are put in place to ensure that some sophisticated tactics and
training procedures are not shared across the force. There are steps, which are
included in the exercise design, to make sure that that does not take place
because it is a concern, obviously.
The Chair: We could sometimes use that to actually send a message if
we wanted to as well.
Rear-Admiral Lloyd: Exactly; all those nations sailing in formation is
a significant strategic message that it is a team, and there are partnerships
being developed and built.
Senator Nolin: Am I to understand that the Americans made the
invitations for this exercise? Was the increase in the number of participants
the result of an increase in the number of invitations made by the Americans, or
have there always been a large number of invitations, but most of the
participants did not accept this kind of invitation? How is it that there are 22
and that, in the last five or six years, that number has at least doubled?
I find this intriguing, especially since you just said that the Americans
extended the invitations. Why did the Americans increase the number of
Rear-Admiral Lloyd: They probably want to show that the Pacific is
their priority. I imagine that it is much easier for countries to work together
to increase the trust for the countries.
With respect to 2014, we need to determine whether more countries will take
part in the exercise. That is why a meeting of admirals and generals will be
held in January to discuss this matter in particular, meaning, whether there
will be 22 countries or more.
I think there will be room to increase the number of countries, but that is
something we will have to discuss in January.
Senator Nolin: The Netherlands, Great Britain and France took part in
the exercise. So there are NATO countries that are naturally concerned with the
Atlantic that are participating in a military exercise in the Pacific.
I presume that countries like Germany, Italy and Spain would certainly be
interested in taking part if invited. Maybe people will come knocking at your
door. But what is the limit? Is having 22 participants practical? Would it be
effective to have 22 participants and maybe more?
Rear-Admiral Lloyd: I think there is still room for more countries to
participate, but we must be careful about the number of platforms, for example,
because we are probably close to the limit on ramp space for aircraft as well as
for port facilities.
If there are countries in the Pacific that would like to demonstrate their
commitment to peace, security and stability and make a contribution to the
humanitarian assistance disaster response exercise, there is probably room for
additional countries to participate in that type of exercise.
You mentioned our NATO colleagues who might like to participate in an
exercise. It is a long way to travel for six weeks. That is why I keep coming
back to the speed times distance. If you look at where our NATO colleagues are
operating in terms of the demands on their force for conducting operations
around the world, it is a significant undertaking to free up those resources for
six weeks and to do all the necessary planning and pre-exercise. I do not think
they would be as keen to participate as some might believe just looking at it at
The Chair: That does raise a larger question. We are seeing reductions
right around the world, in the crisis spots in Europe and even in the U.S., if
they do end up facing the sequestration process which could potentially mean up
to a trillion dollars in cuts at some point over the next decade.
How big a priority is this in the face of expenditure reduction or restraint
and doing more with less?
Rear-Admiral Lloyd: It comes down to ensuring that the precious few
resources that we have are spent where we can get value for money. Any time you
have an opportunity to have your army, navy and air force participate in an
exercise together, from the lowest end to the highest end of the war fighting
spectrum, to learn all the lessons we previously discussed in an area where you
can participate, I believe that is money well spent.
I believe that the importance of RIMPAC would only increase based on limited
resources and ensuring that you get value for money. That is probably reflected
by the number of VVIPs that came to RIMPAC this year. I have already given the
list. You saw first-hand the quality of the training for the army, for example,
and what can be accomplished there. I believe that reduced funding envelopes
increase the priority for RIMPAC.
The Chair: Whether it is a NATO operation, a coalition of the willing
or some other group, are we using these exercises to figure out who does what
best, because we are not all going to have militaries of the size of the
Rear-Admiral Lloyd: I do not think it is explicit in terms of going
there with a framework. However, as a result of having done the exercise I have
a very good comfort level regarding what capabilities we bring to the table and
where Canada would fit on that list. I also have a pretty good sense of where
the other nations that contribute forces would be on that list as well.
Senator Dallaire: Chair, could we ask the admiral whether we can all
have a copy of that DVD?
Rear-Admiral Lloyd: Yes, by all means.
Senator Dallaire: There was a great revelation of looking at the
security of our country from the North Pole going south, an angle we do not
often look at. Now we are looking at security from the West Coast, the Pacific
angle. Do you not see the possibility that this exercise could be handled closer
to the Philippines, for example? Would it be our or the American plan to move it
closer to the Asian rim in the future?
Rear-Admiral Lloyd: That would be problematic for the list of reasons
I gave earlier. Nations such as Australia, Japan and South Korea come to Hawaii
to fire their weapons systems and take advantage of those instrumented ranges.
That is a significant draw for Hawaii, as is all the available airspace. You can
imagine how much havoc 200 fighters would create in the airways of some
Senator Dallaire: In NATO exercises we had that many flying in
Germany. I am wondering whether you want to make another statement with this
exercise about the capacity to move closer to a potential area of operations.
Rear-Admiral Lloyd: In the current construct I do not see it. We had
that conversation. I think there is an opportunity to distribute some of the
activities, though. For example, in this last exercise we had maritime coastal
defence vessels conducting minesweeping operations off San Diego. We used those
activities to inform what is taking place off the coast of Hawaii. There might
be opportunities to distribute some of those activities for nations that find
Hawaii too far away to attend. They could use their training to augment and
enhance what we are doing. There may be opportunities for that, but I would be
hard pressed to that believe in the current construct we would be looking at
doing that, in the short term anyway.
Senator Dallaire: There is discussion about an amphibious capability,
albeit not an across-the-beach type of amphibious capability, for the Canadian
Forces. Were there any lessons acquired from that by the army side through what
they embarked upon and what missions they were given?
Rear-Admiral Lloyd: The army did have a number of lessons learned as a
result of the non-combatant evacuation operation, which would have helped inform
Senator Dallaire: That is a verb?
Rear-Admiral Lloyd: It has become one over my career thus far, I
guess. I hope I have not used too many acronyms. Every nation, senator, that had
the opportunity to participate in a non-combatant evacuation operation from sea
learned a number of valuable lessons in terms of the challenges and issues of
operating in that environment, which is one of the advantages once again of
Senator Dallaire: We wanted to determine, as Canadians, our capability
of doing that?
Rear-Admiral Lloyd: At the high level in terms of amphibiosity in
terms of platform and the like, I do not think there were specific objectives
written into the exercise at that level.
Senator Mitchell: I am interested in knowing, now that the military is
facing quite significant budgetary cuts, whether that will begin to have an
impact on the rigour and robustness with which Canada will be able to
participate in this RIMPAC operation.
Rear-Admiral Lloyd: Once again, in January we will have a conversation
about where RIMPAC is going to take place. In terms of the budget reductions, I
think everything we have done to date has been very clear. That will protect
readiness and ensure that there are opportunities to conduct that training. My
assessment at this stage, recognizing I am not a force generator, is that there
would probably be minimal impact on RIMPAC moving forward.
Before we would even get down to the resources conversation, we need to have
a conversation on what we as a nation want to get out of RIMPAC 2014. There are
some excellent strategic objectives that we should incorporate in that right up
front because, if we do not, as you can see from the significant planning effort
required, you would be hard pressed to try to fit those in once the planning
gets too far downstream. The bigger question is how to leverage this tremendous
training opportunity in 2014.
Senator Lang: Moving on to another area, I want to make an observation
regarding the commitment that the Canadian taxpayer is making for the military.
Canada is doing very well with the commitments they have made. I know there is a
consolidation taking place. Obviously we are leaving Afghanistan, and
subsequently there will be a whole new phase to our Armed Forces as we look
further ahead in the future.
Perhaps you can comment on the national shipbuilding strategy and the
commitments Canada is making for the next 20 years as far as the replacement of
some of the vessels and what effect it will have on the navy. Looking at
participating in such exercises as RIMPAC with the new fleet that is going to
come on, where will that put us in comparison to other navies that you are
obviously seeing in exercise and being able to compare what we can do compared
to their capabilities, looking ahead?
Rear-Admiral Lloyd: Senator, if I may, just to be precise, you are
asking, in terms of the navy, so the Halifax class modernization, once it is
upgraded, where it would fit relative to the navies I have seen?
Senator Lang: Yes.
Rear-Admiral Lloyd: I would begin to answer that question by stating
that it is not so much the equipment but the quality of the young men and women
who go to sea in those platforms. If there was one thing that was reinforced for
me time and again during exercise and throughout my whole career, it was the
quality of the people that we have going to sea in those platforms. Their
capabilities, leadership, dedication and commitment are remarkable.
The next thing I would say is that when you look at the complexity of the
exercises for our equipment and what we are testing them to, it is probably to a
higher standard than you would see across our colleagues. When they do a missile
exercise, as an example, you can have an exercise where the target is benign and
comes in, and that is not the way we train. You would be happy to know that our
force is trained to a very high level of complexity.
The good news is that the ships and the platforms they have are world-class,
is how I would finish that, in terms of the capabilities of the platforms as we
go through the Halifax class modernization and into the new fleet. It is very
much world-class, from my perspective.
Senator Nolin: Canada developed and tested the use of drones on the
Charlottetown, and we now know that frigate
Regina is also equipped for drones. Have you decided to share this
experience with the 21 other nations that participated in the RIMPAC?
Rear-Admiral Lloyd: We have not shared this experience with our
colleagues because the technology was not developed during RIMPAC, but
The lessons that we learn we will share particularly with our allies. Some of
the more sophisticated and classified lessons that we learn we will share in
those forums where it makes sense. Once again, I would defer to Admiral
Maddison. In my role as Chief of Force Development, one of the things we need to
do better is ensure that the lessons we learned, where we can leverage our
current capabilities, are shared with our allies to once again get the best
value for dollars spent across our force, just like we would expect our
Australian colleagues to share some of their lessons with us, as well as some of
our Five Eyes. We would be keen to share those lessons where it made sense.
The Chair: As a note to Senator Dallaire's request: When you forward
those videos to us, could you give us the rules and regulations as to where they
can and should be used? That would be helpful to us.
Rear-Admiral Lloyd: They are on YouTube. They are unclassified. You
would be able to share that.
The Chair: It does not need to be sourced or any of that sort of
Rear-Admiral Lloyd: No, senator, not that I am aware.
The Chair: Thank you. We truly appreciate your being here today to
share this, but also for what you have done there. We have seen this from a
couple of different vantage points, as Senator Lang said, with our trips west
and east over the summer and into the fall. It is a very impressive
organization, and I think you would have the support of this committee. We
appreciate fully how important this is. As the quote says, you cannot surge
trust, nor understanding. I think that is important. Thank you for what you do
and for this explanation today, Admiral Lloyd.
Ladies and gentlemen, we will continue today's session of the meeting of the
Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence here at the Senate.
Twice now, and as recently as last June, RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson has
been with us, coming here to update us on reforms, issues and concerns inside
the RCMP. He also testified to us about the Shiprider maritime cross- border
program. Just on that point, we learned about 10 days ago that the regularized
operations of that program, which has been an experiment we have looked at many
times in this committee, are about to begin. That is good news.
When you were here last time, we were talking about Bill C-42, legislation
that would change the way you manage or can manage and deal with problems inside
the RCMP, so we are very appreciative that you are here. We know Bill C-42 is
being considered by the House of Commons. It will subsequently come to the
Senate for final consideration, as everything must, but we are interested to
hear from you on whether there has been any effect and impact yet.
Do you have any opening remarks that you would like to make?
Bob Paulson, Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Not really,
Madam Chair. Thank you for the invitation and the opportunity to brief you and
answer questions you have about the reforms ongoing in the RCMP.
The Chair: Let us start with that. I did want to drill down a little
You said very explicitly to us that it is your purpose and intent to get the
sense of responsibility and the ability to impose discipline down as far into
the system as you can, so that a problem is dealt with on Day 1 and does not end
up in crisis mode and on the front page of newspapers before anyone knows about
With this legislation pending, with you now being in the chair for a while,
are you starting to sense that that message is filtering down and through the
Mr. Paulson: Yes, I am. I am seeing marked changes in my commanding
officers, and in the attentiveness that my commanding officers, also known as
``appropriate officers'' for the purpose of discipline, are giving to discipline
I will say, though, that the proposed legislation that is with the house
right now will require, as we move to pushing down the management of members'
conduct to the lowest possible level, some training and some preparation for
those officers who have not been as accustomed to documenting and thinking in
the conduct and discipline regime, the corporals and sergeants. I am seeing a
palpable sense of change in the organization right now with respect to that. I
am getting lots of feedback from my members and my supervisors about the resolve
with which we are going about this.
The Chair: Thank you for that opening statement. We will begin our
questioning. You know the system. We will just go around the table, and we will
begin with Senator Dallaire.
Senator Dallaire: Thank you, Madam Chair. If I may, I would like to
outline what we are talking about. First, Bill C-42. The minister mentioned the
possibility of an independent review of the bill, of imposing statutory
obligations on criminal investigations and of modernizing human resources
management with respect to discipline, grievances or other things. That makes
good sense. These are essential components. However, you often use the word
``reform'', which implies nothing but change.
So here is my question: with respect to the development of the leadership of
your executives, do they see any need for significant realignment or redirection
in their education and professional development, which would lead to a reform
within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or should re-education only be done at
the lower levels?
Mr. Paulson: Thank you, senator. No, it is clear that there are
changes, a reform. The behaviour of the officers needs to be changed, but also
the behaviour of the sub-principals and the executive.
I talk about professionalizing the officer corps and seeking opportunities to
ensure that the sort of paramilitary structure we have, which has commissioned
officers as executives in the RCMP, begins to reacquire that sense of
professionalism through training, internal professional development and
education. I think that is an essential component of reform. In fact, you and I
have spoken specifically of that, so in that regard we have undertaken, with the
assistance of the Canadian Forces — in fact, I got an email today again for next
year's selections for the command and staff college in Toronto — to find
officers to develop, and we select officers for development inside and outside
the organization, with universities and other areas. I think that is an area
that needs attention, namely, professionalizing the officer corps, and I think
it is an essential ingredient to success in reform.
Senator Dallaire: In the early 1990s, the military had the problem of
Somalia, which brought forth significant deficiencies in leadership development
and in comprehending the leadership philosophy that the forces should have,
linking it to the values and the references that Canadians expected of it. A
number of actions were taken, and the forces implemented a change in its code of
conduct in service discipline, which I gather you will be working on, but then
there was a whole other raft of changes including one, for example, changing and
creating a leadership institute — which they did not have — to articulate the
ethos of the officer corps, of the NCO corps, and to create a capability that
had been forgotten since post-World War II to actually be articulated. It was
all experiential, but nothing of an intellect base to handle the new era. I was
in fact mandated to write the reform of the Canadian officer corps in 1999 as a
result of the creation of the institute.
Do you feel that maybe there is a requirement to be that? I must say at some
points we were quite ruthless with regard to senior officers maybe not even
having the right attitude to be able to pursue a career in this new area. Do you
see that you are now in that sort of Somalia scenario and that you need that
level of reform?
Mr. Paulson: I do find a parallel. When I was first appointed, I spoke
of my priorities as being accountability and leadership. I would not
characterize our challenges and problems as being catastrophic failures in
leadership, but I certainly believe that leadership at all levels, including the
executive level, was lacking in some areas.
I can tell you that some recent correspondence — which became public — that I
had with some senior NCOs talked about trust between the executive branch and
the worker level. It is a complicated area, but I absolutely agree with you. I
think we need to modernize and professionalize our executive cadre to recognize
the realities of modern policing, which are a little different from the
realities of, say, modern warfare or military service.
There are a number of parallels, and those are not lost on me or my senior
Senator Dallaire: Thank you very much for that.
Senator Lang: I would like to pursue a line of questioning that has to
do with the new legislation that has been presented to the House of Commons and
will eventually come over to the Senate.
When you first came here, commissioner, you pointed out very clearly that you
felt one of your priorities was to bring accountability, as you mentioned
earlier, into the rank and file of the RCMP. We have talked about
professionalism and we have talked about education, but I think — I will be very
blunt here — we have to talk about what is right and what is wrong and your
ability as the commissioner and other officers as you go up the chain of command
to make a decision that those that have authority and have appeared to abuse
that authority can be dealt with expeditiously. I think that is the concern the
Over the last number of years, we have seen charges of sexual harassment; we
have seen the question of the taser tragedy in Vancouver; we have seen the
question of an affair, I believe it was in Alberta, between two officers there.
With this new legislation, will you be able to deal with situations when they
arise and deal with them quickly so that the public has some comfort and
confidence that where there have been those few situations where abuses have
arisen, they are dealt with and dealt with accordingly?
Mr. Paulson: I would say this: ``Yes'' is the short answer, but that
answer needs to be tempered with the requirement to similarly uphold the
Canadian value of due process and fairness. ``Yes'' is the short answer, and
there are a number of mechanisms that will do that. For example, when the boards
are constituted for dismissal cases, they will not be constituted as they were
previously, which is to say adversarial in their systems so that they are almost
recreating criminal court-like settings. It will be much more board-directed,
bringing the information quickly and rapidly to the decision makers, and we will
be able to bring a reasonable and fair approach to administrative discipline
Also recognizing that cases that do not attract the requirement to distance
the organization from officers, rather conduct-related cases, similarly have to
be treated and addressed rapidly at the lowest possible level. We will empower
our front-line leaders to do that, but there again, we need to have recourses
and appeal processes available for members. Those processes have also been
streamlined to be a lot more efficient and reasonable.
I am very optimistic about the framework that is being proposed. It will turn
to us to be able to implement that quickly and appropriately once and if it
Senator Lang: I would like to move to a different subject, and that is
the question of Shiprider and the fact that it is now being implemented across
the country. Perhaps you could tell us where we are with it and how you see it.
Mr. Paulson: Okay. Shiprider, you will know, is the — I have to get
the right name of the act — Integrated Cross- border Law Enforcement Operations
Act. That has become law. Actually, I have been busy in the last couple of weeks
designating Coast Guard officers and RCMP officers to occupy some of our initial
sites, to go forward and to give life to this solution, which was almost six or
seven years in its preparation.
I think it provides a very thoughtful and common-sense solution to the
challenge of cross-border enforcement scenarios on the water where, with
cross-designated U.S. Coast Guard officers, we are able to continue
investigations in Canada under the supervision of an RCMP officer and in the
United States under the supervision of a Coast Guard officer, giving strength to
a joint operation, leveraging resources in both of our respective countries and
respecting both of our distinct approaches to law enforcement. It is a very
innovative and thoughtful piece of work, and I am excited to give life to it.
Senator Nolin: Good evening, Commissioner. It is a pleasure to see you
again. In early October, before a House of Commons committee, you said:
Those behaviours that attract the requirement to have people removed from
the force will have all of the checks and balances that I think we can
reasonably expect to have in the administrative disciplinary system.
You were referring to a contrario in the policy statement you sent to your
supervisors at the beginning of the year. When I say ``a contrario'', it is
because you are using the phrase ``if the breach of conduct does not justify the
If you want to check your text, go ahead. Do you know which document I am
referring to? At the start of the year, when you wrote to all the division
commanders, you listed a series of principles that were supposed to lead
supervisors to take action.
Mr. Paulson: Yes.
Senator Nolin: My question is fairly simple: when you say ``behaviours
that attract the requirement to have people removed'', can you give me some
examples of behaviours that would require a member to be dismissed?
Mr. Paulson: It is difficult to define exactly, meaning, a behaviour
such as lying, cheating, stealing or many other behaviours that are shocking.
That shocks the reasonably minded Canadian as outrageous, in the common use
of the word ``outrageous.''
Senator Nolin: In Montreal, we are all currently a bit shocked by the
attitude of a City of Montreal police officer who just lied and committed
assault. Fortunately, all of it was filmed, and she admitted to lying. But she
was not dismissed, and there is no dismissal process under way.
I am not asking you to judge the work of your colleagues in the City of
Montreal, but nonetheless, you just practically described what that woman did.
I would be surprised if she were dismissed, to be honest. That is why my
question is this: what does it take? What does a member of the RCMP have to do
to face dismissal?
With everything we know from the past several years, I have the impression
that there are not a lot of examples that could guide us toward the dismissal
Mr. Paulson: The work of a police officer is fairly stressful.
Senator Nolin: It is not easy.
Mr. Paulson: It is difficult. We are seeing behaviours from a police
officer who is showing the effects of a stressful job.
We have to be very a careful in assessing behaviours that probably are the
organization's fault in the first place — that we are not looking after our
members, right? There is alcoholism, there are drug dependencies, there are
relationship problems. Those things manifest themselves.
Back to Bill C-42, if I could, for a second, if we can devise a structure and
system and process that will effectively act on those at their first
manifestation, then we are pushing those down. No matter whose fault it is, I
think there are behaviours that strike the reasonably minded person as being
behaviours that are incongruous with being a police officer in any force in
Canada. Then we need a process in getting to that in a fair and balanced way. It
is very difficult to predict. I describe them as lying cheating and stealing,
but there are a number of variations there.
People give evidence in court on complicated issues and are found to be not
credible. The judge makes a finding against an officer's testimony. Does that
mean the officer is a liar, or does that mean the testimony is complicated?
There is quite a scale there, but the most outrageous behaviours are the ones
that require organizations to have a means by which we can demonstrate to
Canadians that their trust is well placed.
Senator Mitchell: Thanks, commissioner, for being here. There is no
doubt that you are engaged in this, but I get the sense of perhaps a disconnect
between how serious it really is and the level at which you are dealing with it,
but I have no way really of knowing.
A report was done, to the credit of B.C., on harassment. It was done only in
B.C. It probably should be done across the country, and it really focuses on a
leadership trust issue. For example, there was an overwhelming perception based
on personal observations that there are no consequences for the harasser other
than having to transfer or be promoted. This is in April of this year; this is
There was also a general consensus that harassment frequently stems from the
misuse of power by some supervisors. There was a belief in some cases that if
you are a friend of your supervisor you never have to worry about being held
You talk about training. This person is quoted as saying, ``I was told [by my
supervisor] what I learned in Depot was a social experiment and has nothing to
do with real police work.''
It is not everyone by any means, and I am not suggesting that, but it needs a
very serious focus. We have heard you are sending people to military staff
college. I do not know how many out of all the officers you have. You talk about
the need to train for Bill C-42. I could not agree more because that gives more
power to the harassers to fire their accusers, actually, potentially. You are
saying the lower echelon sergeants and corporals would be able to fire people
Mr. Paulson: No, no. I did not say that.
Senator Mitchell: That is what you said last time you were here. I can
go back and check it.
Mr. Paulson: You will have to.
Senator Mitchell: The fact is it gives power — not to you because you
said you will not be able to fire — to certain levels to fire.
Mr. Paulson: With respect, sir, that is not fair.
The Chair: Let us go through some of these.
Senator Mitchell: I will go back and check it.
The Chair: I do not think we should put things on the record that are
Senator Mitchell: What I want to know is what are the steps
specifically, hard, concrete steps — other than putting a few people in staff
college, which is a step — to really permeate your organization with the
fundamental change in culture. To Senator Nolin's point — I do not think this is
funny — what does it take to fire a Sergeant Ray who exposes himself and then is
shipped to B.C.? When will it get serious action?
The Chair: This is not a court of law. This is a committee, and I know
some things should be dealt with in that way, where evidence will be presented
and considered. This is not that forum.
Senator Mitchell: With Sergeant Ray the evidence was presented. It is
on the record.
The Chair: Please, you can provide your answer in that context.
Mr. Paulson: Let us take a second and recap. You are reading from a
study that we, the management of the RCMP, launched in response to a number of
harassment-related issues. Hundreds and hundreds of women were interviewed in
British Columbia, and their observations and their sense of what is going on
were recorded. Some of them are quite noteworthy.
That represents, I think, a sense of distancing from processes and systems
that are in place, so the people are saying, look, this is not working for me.
Let us park that for a second.
Then you are suggesting that I sent a couple of people to staff college and
that Staff Sergeant Ray did not get fired. Your question is, ``Really, so that
is what you are doing about it, commissioner?'' Is that a fair characterization
of what you are saying?
Senator Mitchell: I said you are doing some things, but I am not sure
it is good enough.
Mr. Paulson: I think I have to explain to people this systematic
approach that I am taking to try to bring reform to the RCMP, and that starts
with a number of things. Let us just talk about harassment.
Harassment has been on my plate since I was asked to do this job. We have
done a number of things about harassment. One thing we have done is produce the
document you just read, to get the conversation in the organization going,
trying to get employees engaged in the solution, trying to out the sense that
there is no recourse, because there is recourse in the RCMP for people who want
to complain about bad behaviours.
Part of the challenge in harassment is the idea that harassers often occupy
positions of authority with respect to the victims, and so victims feel like
they cannot get an honest break, so we have done a number of things about that
on top of re-emphasizing the existing processes and centralizing the oversight
of how those systems and processes are being managed so that there is no chance
and persuading people that there is an honest path to raising your complaint.
I think that the work we have done in the last year to make the best out of
the existing challenge that is our harassment framework is very good, and we are
making significant headway there.
In terms of these other issues around professionalizing the officer corps, as
your colleague asked me about before, it is not just that we are sending a few
people to staff college. There is a renewed effort in professionalizing the
officer corps, which includes an internal training system at the supervisory
level, at the management level and the executive level; and there is a renewed
officer selection process for positions within the executive corps and within
the senior executive corps. We are bringing transparency to that. We are
professionalizing the requirements for appointments to senior positions.
With respect to your last thing, which was your reference to Sergeant Ray, I
think I spoke to that the last time I was here. That was not a very good
outcome. That is one of the reasons why I think the government has brought
forward this legislation, to help me bring a system that will allow for and
prevent similar circumstances.
Senator Mitchell: When you were here last time you mentioned — I think
just as it was starting — that you were going to have a visit from Senator
Wallin to the Depot. We, as a matter of course, have just come back from the
East Coast and we were on the West Coast with the military and visiting
facilities, military bases and so on. We do that quite a bit.
Could we arrange a series of meetings to Depot and to a variety of different
The Chair: Let us —
Senator Mitchell: I am not finished.
The Chair: Let us deal with this in the steering committee of this
committee. We are not asking and making requests at this point.
Senator Mitchell: I have every right to ask. It would not be a problem
for us to tour the facilities?
Mr. Paulson: I think I have indicated to the chair that I would take
the chair's direction on that. If the chair would like to have a meeting at
Depot, I will move heaven and earth.
Senator Mitchell: Perhaps different kinds of detachments as well.
You will follow that up?
The Chair: We will raise that at the steering committee. We will carry
on now with our committee meeting today, and Senator Baker is next.
Senator Baker: Commissioner Paulson is used to being cross-examined,
madam chair. He has appeared before many court judges as an RCMP officer and
interrogator, a successful interrogator. In fact, one Supreme Court judge from
British Columbia spent five pages describing how good he was in the matter of
the conviction of some murderers, as the case was.
I think the RCMP is happy you are in the position you are in, in these very
difficult times, dealing with these very difficult questions — as one of them
who worked his way up through the ranks and who knows the law and has been
successful in many of these various convictions in the past.
Since you became commissioner, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that
disciplinary proceedings involving RCMP officers must be disclosed in court:
complaints, disciplinary proceedings and investigations. It is leading, in
Canada, to the dropping of a great many criminal charges. I know you are not
going to admit this, but I will tell you I know it to be a fact, because the
officers were involved in disciplinary proceedings, and therefore their
credibility is in question when it comes to prosecuting the case.
Bill C-42, according to the minister, will improve transparency and public
accountability of those investigations and it will modernize the RCMP
I do not know if you can answer this question. Do you see a problem today in
this decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that imposes upon you, on your
force, to make all kinds of disclosures about the behaviours of police officers
in the RCMP that you were not confronted with when you were a working officer in
Mr. Paulson: Thank you, senator, for the preamble, and thank you for
the question. You are a very good judge of horse flesh, I might say.
I am certainly not going to take issue with the Supreme Court's decision
there. I think where the problem comes is our inability to have applied a
sensible and ruling-specific response. In other words, if someone was engaged in
conduct that may be relevant to the examination of credibility, that kind of
I think the way we have applied it, particularly in the RCMP, has been
somewhat holus-bolus, and we have been disclosing informal disciplinary
Senator Baker: Yes, you have.
Mr. Paulson: Doing all sorts of stuff which is not the practice across
Canada with other police forces. I have undertaken, to my minister and to our
staff relations representatives — and I think Bill C-42 gives us a means of
putting some sense around what it is we disclose and how long we would hang on
to informal disciplinary records and so on. I think this holds some promise for
that practice, the MacNeil decision, as it is called.
Senator Baker: Yes, R. v. MacNeil, in case people are
wondering. I notice, commissioner, that it is not being equally applied, as you
mentioned, across this country.
Mr. Paulson: Right.
Senator Baker: It appears to me as if the RCMP are, in some cases,
over applying it.
Mr. Paulson: I think you are right.
Senator Baker: Something has to be done about it. That was my main
Mr. Paulson: I will do something about it, senator.
Senator Baker: I just wanted to congratulate you on the great job you
are doing. Thank you.
Senator Manning: Welcome, commissioner, once again. I know from my
experience here at the table that any time you have been here you have been very
open and frank with us about not only your position but the concerns and the
issues of the RCMP. I, as a member, certainly welcome that. I am sure all
members do. I just wanted to make that point.
I will ask you my three issues in one question, and you can see how you can
answer them for me.
When you were here before we talked about the contract with the provinces in
relation to the provision of RCMP services. My understanding is that last year
we renewed a contract from Newfoundland and Labrador for 20 years, I believe.
Maybe you can give us an update across the country with regard to the different
provinces and the contracts. Are they all taken care of now? Are we set for a
Recruitment — I am wondering where you are on that. I know in Newfoundland
and Labrador — I keep referring to my home province — we have had a great number
of recruitments in the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. The police force is
doing exceptionally well there, and a lot of young people are getting involved
with new ideas and vision. Maybe you can give us an update on recruitment.
In community policing, as I said before, when I was growing up in a small
rural community in Newfoundland, when we saw the RCMP coming we ran as far as we
could as fast as we could.
Senator Baker: For good reason.
Senator Manning: Maybe with good reason some days. Certainly I know
now from my daughter, who is in grade 5 at our local school, the police visit on
a regular basis; they are involved in the D.A.R.E. program, which is a great
program. They are involved in educating young people on what policing is all
about, not necessarily to be scared of it but to be part of it.
Maybe you can touch base with us on the community policing effort and any new
Mr. Paulson: Thank you, senator. I would be happy to talk about those
The contracts, as you may know, have all been signed and they are signed for
20 years. However, they are different this time in the sense that the
contracting jurisdictions have all sought different levels and basically have
been given assurances that the accountability levels to the contracting
jurisdictions will be raised. That means in respect of policing services, and
the cost of policing more particularly.
In that regard, a contract advisory committee has been struck, which is
co-chaired between one of the provincial representatives and one of the
assistant deputy ministers here at Public Safety. In fact, they are just about
to have their second meeting. I attended their inaugural meeting. There is a
full agenda there of costing and accountabilities that I think will serve those
who are being served by those contracts much better.
Recruitment is always a challenge for us. I was just at Depot recently, and I
think we have a steady state. We are aiming for a steady state of about 18
troops, and it had been 32 cadets per troop. I think we lowered the number to
about 24 cadets per troop now, but that will change because we are having some
reference level updates from some of the contracting jurisdictions.
Depot is a jewel in the crown of the RCMP. I should not put words in other
people's mouths, but I had some other people have their travel plans changed.
They had to go to Regina. They wanted a quick tour of the RCMP Depot. The cadets
are fantastic; that is, the young people we are getting in there. It is
attracting the best and brightest. People have complained about quotas, and so
on, in the past. I have upped the requirement that we have 35 per cent intake of
women. My HR people are telling me that we will meet that in the short term, but
that it is not sustainable because the labour market does not provide for that.
So far, we are getting close to that. We do need to check that every once in a
while, and we may be making an adjustment to our recruiting levels in the new
Regarding your question on community policing, it has always been sort of the
backbone of the RCMP in the contract setting, even in the federal setting. We
are a frontier police force, and now our frontier is modern life in Canada. One
of the things I am most proud of — and I wish I had details; maybe next time I
come to see you I can bring those details — is our crime reduction initiatives.
They are quite something. I spoke at the North American forum on the weekend
about how in some of our communities we are able to marshal of the seemingly
disparate social groups at the mutual, provincial and federal level, get
together, strategize, and take on the crime problem in a given community. We
have seen striking numbers of 45 per cent reductions in crime. To the simple
country cop, there are only two performance measures in policing: the crime rate
going down and the clearance rate going up. I think we are all seeing crime
rates generally going down. As long as clearance rates, which are the successful
resolution of investigations and prosecutions, continue to go up, it is
community policing really digging in. The challenges there are consistency
across the board. We are doing that in the new commanding officer of B Division,
Newfoundland and Labrador. It is actively engaged in those crime reduction
initiatives. Sometimes they manifest as targeting prolific offenders. The
statistics are rough, and do not hold me to this, but essentially, 20 per cent
of our crooks are doing 80 or 90 per cent of our crime. If you give them a
couple of opportunities to smarten up and if they do not put them in jail, and
you can be effective at that, then you have a crime reduction system right
there. I am pleased.
One of the things I have to guard against in these discussions is the idea
that we get all of our members painted with the same brush. I have been in the
job almost a year now and our members are giving me what for. They say, ``Hey,
commissioner, stop talking like that,'' because 99 per cent of our members are
doing impressive work on behalf of Canadians.
Senator Johnson: It is a pleasure to meet you. I was not on this
committee when you were first here, but I am very impressed with your comments
today. In terms of community policing, would you comment, please, on how things
are going in the reserves? I am from Manitoba, and we have a lot of issues
there, both urban and rural. Would you make a comment on that for me? You do not
have to focus just on Manitoba. I know it is a challenge and I am wondering how
it is going.
My community, one of them, is Gimli, which is the home of a detachment, and
they have a lot of work. I think there is progress, but I am not sure.
Mr. Paulson: There is progress. One of the challenges for us, for
example in the RCMP, where we police many remote communities and territories all
in the remote communities, is trying to build a police force that is at the same
time sort of enlightened about crime reduction, crime prevention and community
policing, but also credible with the local communities — that is, being able to
hire people from within those communities, bring them in and give them
assurances that they can go back to the community and form the basis for some
momentum in staying there. We had a pilot called the Aboriginal community
constable. We were bringing Aboriginal members into the RCMP, training them to
the standards of law enforcement officers and then moving them back into their
communities to have them stay there. We found that challenging in terms of both
attracting numbers of people who want to do that and having them supported in
the field. That is a work in progress and it is one of our strategies to address
There are some definite challenges in Aboriginal, Metis and Inuit communities
in remote areas. Some of them are cultural challenges, but some of them are just
distance, remoteness and isolation challenges. There are a lot of challenges to
policing our communities. Where we have jurisdiction in those areas, we try to
work with communities and where there are tribal police or other arrangements,
but we do have some challenges there.
Senator Johnson: Thank you for commenting on it. I was hoping there
might be more Aboriginal people in the force. Do you have any in training now?
Mr. Paulson: Yes. In fact, I have just authorized the creation of
another troop. However, I do not know how many candidates we have coming to the
troop. There are lots of considerations in this idea of having people come from
a community, particularly a remote, isolated community, and having them go back
to be the national police force. Sadly, we had a suicide up in Iqaluit some time
ago of one of our candidates from the first troop of Aboriginal community
constables. It is an enormous pressure that you are putting on some of these
people. We are trying to balance the proper recruitment, training and
monitoring, but we do have another troop and we are not giving up on that
Senator Johnson: Do not feel too bad. It is the same with doctors.
They train them and try to send them back to the community and it is posing a
problem, too. Thank you so much. Good luck.
The Chair: I have a couple of questions, one related to this and some
other areas we did not have a chance to touch on. I know it is almost old hat,
but it has to do with your resources and also your philosophy, the whole broken
windows thing, when you talk about community policing and that ability to be
present and when you clean up the little stuff it prevents the big stuff from
Can you do it?
Mr. Paulson: Yes; I think we can. I think we are doing it, frankly. I
think in many communities we are, as I have said, demonstrating staggering
numbers where we are able to apply these things and attract our colleagues
within communities. Let us be frank: People in communities do not always want to
be led by the police. I am not suggesting that we have to be in charge of
everything, but in some things, where we are able to marshal all of these other
sorts of resources and get together in how we deploy our strategies, there is an
enormous upside to that. Yes, I think we are capable.
In terms of resources, in the contract setting, times are tough. There is a
big wave of discussion going on now in the police community called the economics
of policing. It is talking about the strain on many communities now and how much
of their budget goes into policing, how much policing costs these days. That is
a broader sort of policy discussion that sometimes exceeds my pay rate.
The Chair: I would ask, because even though the next couple of
questions are not quite related, they are in terms of the load that is
increasingly being imposed, for example, Iran and Syria being identified as
sponsors of terrorism. What impact has that on you to try to deal with that as
part of your policing activities? A lot of emphasis is on illegal criminal
activity, organized crime — that versus terrorism versus your community policing
efforts. This is a lot right now. Do you prioritize? Have you? Where would it
fall on a list?
Mr. Paulson: We have been talking mostly, if I may, chair, in respect
of the contracts. Let us take a second and talk about national security and
organized crime. Our national security criminal investigative capacity is just
right. It is just right because we are one small piece of the overall Government
of Canada response to the threat of terrorism. CSIS is our good partner in
taking on some of these threats. We have the relationship at a point where it
has never been better. We are working together. We are de-conflicting issues as
need be. To the extent that anyone would be foolish enough to say we are on top
of it, we are on top of it.
In the organized crime context, which is primarily our federal mandate,
Deputy Commissioner Mike Cabana, who leads the federal policing area, has
basically reformed and is re-engineering how we prioritize our cases within
federal policing to target the most prolific and intense threat from organized
crime. It is a significant threat.
We have heard a lot of things coming out of the Charbonneau commission in
Montreal. There is, and has been, and continues to be, a significant organized
crime threat that we are responding to and actively working on, and getting
Working with our partners in the broader police community, we have a national
threat assessment that I think thoughtfully and carefully and scientifically
quantifies the nature of the threat, pieces it off to individual groups,
categorizes them along international, transnational lines versus national
threats, versus regional and provincial threats. It not only does that in the
intelligence work, but also brings some accountability by having individual
police forces or individual divisions of the RCMP take responsibility for
individual identified groups of organized crime targets and is held to account
within the community for what they have done with respect to that threat.
Fundamentally, that is intelligence-led policing in the sense of going after the
greatest threat with the greatest likelihood of being able to intervene and
being able to assess impact on the organized crime group you are going after.
We have advanced our game considerably there. We are undergoing what we are
referring to as the federal re- engineering. Historically, we have had silos of
federal resources to say that because one works in immigration and passports
they cannot go and work on these mafia guys over here because that is not what
they do. We have changed all that so we are able to go after the highest
priority target and go after them for something consistent with community
policing, which is to say their threat level is validated so how we get them
does not really matter, as long as we get them, because we are going after them.
We are targeting them and we will keep targeting them until we get them. That is
the idea behind the federal organized crime approach.
The Chair: Are you seeing an increased level of interoperability or
connection between organized crime and terrorist activities? Are they supporting
Mr. Paulson: I cannot say that I am seeing an increase there. I think
this is public, but our work last year, when I was the deputy of federal
policing, Hezbollah was an enforcement priority for us within federal policing.
That was by virtue of the threat that they pose with respect to terrorism and
also because there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate and validate the
criminality behind Hezbollah and the money coming out of organized crime
activities, such as car exportation, massive car theft rings and other
activities. I have not seen an increase in that. For example, in respect of
drugs coming out of Afghanistan, we took off 43 tonnes of hash a little while
ago. I wonder where that money might have gone. That is more hash than Canadians
could smoke in quite a while.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
Senator Dallaire: Mr. Paulson, I recently spoke to someone in
Newfoundland and Labrador from the International Association of Women Police.
The discussion had two components. The first concerned the increased demand for
women police in overseas missions where Muslim countries are involved in order
to help those countries set up their police forces and where we are trying to
bring peace by attempting to instil police principles.
Do you think we could increase the police force, which is about 160 to 180
police officers — be it the RCMP or any other police force — to meet these
increased needs and to provide more opportunities to women who want to go there?
Mr. Paulson: We could always do better, but I must say that our women,
in Haiti or in Afghanistan, are doing very impressive work. I was there two
years ago, and I saw our officers from Montreal, from the RCMP and from the
Sûreté du Québec, who were training Afghans on the sly. One of the challenges we
are encountering is not putting women in danger during training. But in my
opinion, we could always do better.
Senator Dallaire: When I was in Juba, South Sudan, last April, I spoke
with one of your female RCMP police officers, who confirmed that a lot of work
was being done, but that increased numbers would be very helpful.
The second part concerns the fact that some police officers return injured,
while others come back with extraordinary experiences to relay, experiences that
may help you.
In community policing there is cultural awareness and so on in those foreign
opportunities that help with the diaspora back here. You are taking casualties
also, including your casualties back here on operational stress injuries.
Have you rebuilt a system of peer support and professional help that would be
more robust than we are hearing from the past, to be both preventive, reduce the
scale and also care for those who are injured, as well as their families?
Mr. Paulson: That is an area of concern. In the context of our
international deployments, we have very strong and active care mechanisms for
men and women who are returning from missions for that very reason, for the
things they see and the things that they experience over there. We have recently
initiated an operational stress training course, which does not solve
everything, but we are changing our health care approaches in a number of
dimensions, including the availability of 24-7 on-call professionals. The peer
support mechanism is changing in the sense that it will become an organized,
volunteer peer support mechanism. We are alive to operational stress injuries
and the health care concerns. I know it is a bone of significant concern for our
members and their representatives.
The Chair: We are over time here, but Senator Lang has been waiting to
ask a quick question.
Senator Lang: I want to wish the commissioner all the best with Bill
C-42 and the responsibilities he has. I, like Senator Manning, realize how
important the RCMP is to our small communities and how they are viewed by the
public they serve. It is important that you get that responsibility so you can
I want to go back to organized crime. Could you briefly tell us whether the
infiltration of organized crime in our communities is getting larger, or are you
able to contain it or is it getting smaller? I would like your observations
Mr. Paulson: It is too bad we do not have more time, because I would
love to talk about organized crime. One of the insidious and dangerous
characteristics of organized crime is its ability to infiltrate our institutions
and so on. We have seen some evidence of that recently and it continues to be a
The Chair: We will leave it at that and thank you very much. You have
covered a wide range today. As I said to you earlier, we appreciate your
willingness to return repeatedly to this committee to answer a wide range of
questions. We look forward to your next visit, Commissioner Paulson.
(The committee adjourned.)