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.
[English]
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 command.
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.
[Translation]
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 abroad.
[English]
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 the future.
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, when required.
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.
[Translation]
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.
[English]
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 increasingly unpredictable.
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 operational experiences.
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.
[Translation]
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.
[English]
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 government.
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 intimate relationship.
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.
[Translation]
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 with you.
[English]
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 command.
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 necessarily traditional.
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 new command.
Lt-Gen. Beare: Cyber command, yes, they are.
Senator Nolin: Do you have a relationship with the Americans on that front?
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 do 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 current missions.
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 service too.
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 jobs.
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 opportunity.
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 the emergency.
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 interception.
Lt-Gen. Beare: That would be the NORAD mission.
Senator Baker: Is that what you would coordinate in your position with the U.S.?
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 Atlantic Ocean.
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 permission.
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 piece.
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 it.
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 absolutely fascinating.
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 it?''
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 next.
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?
[Translation]
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.
[English]
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, Lieutenant-General Beare.
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.
[Translation]
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)
[English]
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 partners.
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 nations.
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 Hawaii.
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 partners.
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 this size.
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 force.
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 Canadians.
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 22 nations?
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 interoperability.
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 this exercise?
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 Ocean?
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 why RIMPAC.
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 well.
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 question.
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 forces?
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 information.
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.
[Translation]
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 invitations?
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?
[English]
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 face value.
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 American military?
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 countries.
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 amphibiosity.
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 RIMPAC.
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.
[Translation]
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 afterwards.
[English]
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 thing.
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 bit.
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 it.
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 system?
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 matters.
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.
[Translation]
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.
[English]
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 executives.
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 public has.
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 very quickly.
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 becomes law.
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.
[Translation]
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 member's dismissal''.
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.
[English]
That shocks the reasonably minded Canadian as outrageous, in the common use of the word ``outrageous.''
[Translation]
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 option.
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.
[English]
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 recent.
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 accountable.
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 more.
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 not correct.
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 detachments —
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 disciplinary procedures.
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 the force?
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 makes sense.
I think the way we have applied it, particularly in the RCMP, has been somewhat holus-bolus, and we have been disclosing informal disciplinary proceedings.
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 question.
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 while?
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 initiatives there.
Mr. Paulson: Thank you, senator. I would be happy to talk about those things.
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 year.
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 that.
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 program.
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 happening.
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 results, frankly.
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 one another?
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.
[Translation]
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.
[English]
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 exercise it.
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 generally.
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 significant threat.
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.)