THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, April 19, 2021
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met by videoconference this day at 2 p.m. [ET] to study matters relating to national defence and security generally, including veterans affairs, as stated in rule 12-7(15); and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Gwen Boniface (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I am Gwen Boniface, a senator from Ontario and I have the pleasure of chairing this committee. Today we are conducting a public meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence via video conference.
Thank you in advance, senators, for your patience as we adapt to this new way of holding our meetings. Before we begin, I’d like to remind senators to keep their microphones muted at all times, unless recognized by name by the chair, and please avoid switching from one language to the other in the same intervention. Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to the chair or the clerk, and we will work to resolve the issue. Please note that we may need to suspend during these times as we need to ensure that all members are able to participate fully.
Finally, I would like to remind all participants that Zoom screens should not be copied, recorded or photographed. You may use and share official proceedings posted on the SenVu website for that purpose. I would now like to introduce the members of the committee participating in this meeting: Senator Boisvenu, deputy chair of the committee; Senator Dagenais, deputy chair of the committee; Senator Dalphond, fourth member of the steering committee; Senator Busson; Senator Cotter; Senator Duffy; Senator Martin; Senator Oh; and Senator Simons.
Honourable senators, we are pleased to have appearing before us today Lieutenant-General Wayne Eyre, Acting Chief of the Defence Staff, to provide us with an update and overview of his mandate. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank Lieutenant-General Eyre for appearing on short notice and for agreeing to extend his appearance to 90 minutes.
To ease the flow of this virtual meeting, I prepared a list of questioners, starting with members of the steering committee, followed by the rest of the committee members on a weekly rotation. If senators do not have a question, they are asked to signal this to the clerk via the Zoom chat. Lieutenant-General Eyre has been given up to 10 minutes for his opening remarks, and then senators will be given 4 minutes for each question. If you have no questions, the floor is yours, Lieutenant-General Eyre.
Lieutenant-General Wayne Eyre, Acting Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: Madam Chair and committee members, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the state of the Canadian Armed Forces and my priorities for the institution as the Acting Chief of the Defence Staff.
Although unexpected, it is a great honour and privilege to be tasked with leading our Armed Forces.
[Translation]
It is with humility and great determination that I take this responsibility to maintain the Canadian Armed Forces as an organization that demonstrates operational excellence, while reflecting the values Canadians cherish, and making Canadians proud.
[English]
I have taken this role on at a time when our military faces immense challenges, both externally and from within. At home, the Canadian Armed Forces continue to play a role in the whole-of-government response to COVID-19, while safeguarding Arctic sovereignty and continental security, and standing by ready to assist Canadians affected by natural disaster. Abroad, we continue to stand alongside our allies and partners in the defence of the rules-based international order that has ensured our peace and prosperity since the end of the Second World War. In this high-tempo evolving context, I have identified four areas of focus for our Armed Forces, and I would like to briefly outline those for the committee today. They are our people, our operations, our readiness and the development of future capabilities.
First and most importantly is our people. As you know, the Canadian Armed Forces are at an inflection point with regard to our culture. We have been shaken from top to bottom by disturbing allegations and revelations about sexual misconduct.
This has clearly demonstrated that our efforts to date to address it, while well-intentioned, have not delivered the results we need and that our people deserve. We must move forward with humility. As well, we continue to see evidence that the CAF is no more immune to the problems of racism and hateful conduct than any other aspect of our society, and these too must be rooted out.
[Translation]
Let me be clear: There is no room in the Canadian Armed Forces for sexism, misogyny, racism, anti-Semitism, discrimination, harassment or any other conduct that prevents us from being a truly welcoming and inclusive organization.
[English]
We must be relentless in correcting this and in building a Canadian Armed Forces where every person is respected, valued and can feel safe to contribute to the best of their ability. We have a grave need for the talent that is resident in all segments of Canadian society. To that end, we will embrace and support an external review of our institution, its culture and its practices, including establishing a system for reporting wrongdoing that is independent from the chain of command.
However, we’re not going to wait for this review to be completed. Following an approach of “listen, learn, act,” we are conducting a deliberate effort to understand why we have not succeeded and what measures are required to achieve success.
[Translation]
We are committed to listening to our members, learning from our experiences, and acting to create a culture of dignity and respect.
[English]
With regard to the CAF’s operations, we continue to stand with our allies and partners working to maintain international peace and stability. Our personnel are deployed worldwide in the Caribbean, Africa, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific region.
However, in the context of COVID-19 our primary focus right now is here at home. We’re supporting our whole-of-government partners in vaccination programs in many remote, Northern and Indigenous communities. We stand ready for requests for assistance that may come.
As well, we are in the process of vaccinating our own members to ensure the health and well-being of our people, as well as our ongoing operational effectiveness.
[Translation]
Beyond our role in the response to COVID-19, spring and summer bring heightened risks of flooding and fires. We remain ready to assist in safeguarding Canadians and their communities from these dangers.
As well, our search and rescue teams stand ready to assist those in need, and we continue to meet our commitments to NORAD and the shared defence of North America.
[English]
In terms of readiness, the pandemic has created challenges for the CAF that we are working hard to mitigate. While we have lost fewer members through attrition year-over-year than usual, we have also seen recruitment decline dramatically, and the pandemic has greatly reduced our throughput, resulting in fewer recruits being brought in to train. The size of the CAF has shrunk at a time when we should be growing.
We continue to adapt to the realities of the pandemic, while also seeking to increase the diversity of those we bring into our ranks.
Our training has likewise suffered. In the mid-term, we are prioritizing individual training over collective training, with our members taking the opportunity to develop leadership and technical skills and qualifications.
[Translation]
We still need to maintain our collective proficiency, but in the overall balance we will be taking some risk here.
Our training continues, as it must, and we have taken great measures to adapt to the realities of the pandemic.
[English]
My assessment is still developing, but in my view, it will take a number of years to regain lost ground. Thus, we must train to ensure our readiness, but train safely, respecting the continued threat of COVID.
Finally, with regard to developing our future capabilities, we continue to pursue the capital investment plan laid out in our defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged,” or SSE. These programs include the purchase of advanced fighter aircraft and the development of the Canadian Surface Combatant, with construction expected to begin in 2023 or 2024.
We are already seeing the benefits from other SSE investments. The first Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship underwent highly successful ice trials north of 60 this spring, and our first new Armoured Combat Support Vehicles are coming off the production line.
[Translation]
The Canadian Armed Forces is also making substantial investments in technology that enables us to operate effectively in non-traditional domains, including cyberspace.
And we are working with our American partners to improve continental defence, including modernizing NORAD to meet our needs in a world that is greatly changed from the Cold War era in which it was created.
[English]
Madam Chair, even as we in the Canadian Armed Forces confront significant difficulties within our institution, we continue to face a widening range of threats and provocations from a roster of state and non-state competitors and adversaries. We face them in an operating environment that is more complex and volatile than ever and includes new domains — such as space and cyber — that are becoming increasingly central to the character of conflict. These are challenging times, but we are committed to succeeding on every front. I am personally committed to making the CAF a stronger, more inclusive and more resilient organization that will serve Canadians and make them proud long into the future. We have to, as the world is not getting any safer, and the threats to our nation are manifestly on the rise. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions and the discussion.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation, Lieutenant-General Eyre. We will open the floor to questions, starting with Senator Boisvenu, deputy chair of the committee. I remind all senators that you have four minutes.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Madam Chair, thank you very much for clarifying the time we have, it is much appreciated.
First, Lieutenant-General, I want to give you my respects and tell you how I feel for the Canadian Armed Forces, especially during these difficult times that you are going through since the disclosures of inappropriate behaviour.
I know that you have been in the Canadian Armed Forces for a long time, I think you have served in a lot of missions, you have risen through the ranks and so on.
How long, for how many years, have you personally been aware of what is happening in the Canadian Armed Forces right now, in terms of the disclosure by victims?
[English]
LGen. Eyre: Thank you for the question. We have known that sexual misconduct has been a challenge for some time, but what is absolutely clear as a result of the most recent allegations is that the actions we have taken to address it have not been effective, have not achieved the desired effect. What we have to do now is understand why. Why have the measures we put in place not been effective at sufficiently reducing the incidence of sexual misconduct and not effective in changing our culture at all levels —
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Excuse me, Lieutenant-General, that is not my question. I do not want to know what you have done, I am well aware that the Canadian Armed Forces have taken the bull by the horns.
My question is this: As a senior officer, how long have you been aware of this type of behaviour, especially since Operation HONOUR seems to have been put on hold for some time? I’m trying to understand the logic in it all.
How long have you, as a senior officer, been aware of this behaviour?
[English]
LGen. Eyre: When we become aware of allegations of sexual misconduct, it is incumbent upon us to act. As a leader in the Canadian Armed Forces — as the leader at the top of the Canadian Armed Forces — I expect all leaders to take decisive action when they become aware of allegations of misconduct. However, it is not just the far end of the spectrum, the most grievous allegations of sexual assault, that we must address. It is all the conduct, all of the harassment and the spectrum of behaviour that leads to sexual misconduct that we absolutely have to better understand and address.
As we go forward, what we’re hearing from our people, and it’s not one voice we’re hearing —
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Lieutenant-General, that is not my question. I understand that you are having difficulty answering, so I will ask you another question.
Two years ago, we adopted the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights in the military. I was the critic for the Senate and I had the Victims Bill of Rights passed in 2015. I was shocked to learn last fall that this charter, which the Senate passed two years ago, has not yet been implemented by the Minister of Defence to provide the necessary information and protection to victims who want to come forward in the Canadian Armed Forces.
How do you explain that this charter, which was passed by the Senate two years ago, has not yet been implemented by the Canadian Armed Forces and the minister?
[English]
LGen. Eyre: The implementation continues now as a priority effort. Teams have been formed to put it together, to put the necessary directives in place. Consultations have been done as an effort to address overall culture change in the Canadian Armed Forces, to look after victims and to provide them the requisite support —
The Chair: Senator Boisvenu, your time is up.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Once again, Madam Chair, when we ask a question, people should give us a clear answer. Otherwise, we will never get an answer in the time we have.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Boisvenu, we will come to second round.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I would like to welcome the Lieutenant-General and thank him for accepting our invitation.
You know, Lieutenant-General, I have been on this committee for almost 10 years. I would say that, when it comes to sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour, the government has clearly turned a blind eye to the facts it had.
I would like to know, among other things, what measures you are going to be able to implement in order to do better than Operation HONOUR and to ensure that all members of the Canadian Armed Forces — at the highest level as well — can be treated equally in the same investigations.
I would also like to ask you, following the startling resignation of Lieutenant-Colonel Eleanor Taylor, whether you believe — like your predecessors — that the solution to harassment cases must still come from within or whether it would be better for the military to turn to the outside, as advocated by Colonel Drapeau, who has often come to testify before the Defence Committee? Could you comment on that?
[English]
LGen. Eyre: I understand there are two parts to the question. The first is what actions we are taking to address the concerns. First, we have to understand why the measures we have taken to date have not worked. We need to be in a rush to listen, not necessarily in a rush to act. We need to find out from the grassroots level, from our people, what their perspectives and ideas are for the solution to the challenges we face.
Regarding the second part of your question, we also have to embrace outside expertise, embrace those who are experts in culture change and experts in this type of challenge. I, for one, welcome an external review. It gives an outside set of eyes to our organization that will give us recommendations as to how to proceed, and then we need to embrace those recommendations.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: With your permission, Madam Chair, I have another question.
Justice Deschamps came to testify before the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence and we talked about the plans to create an independent committee. I think even Justice Deschamps mentioned that this committee has become a shadow of its former self, that it has difficulty getting off the ground. Can we hope from your side that, if there is a committee — and I strongly suggest that it be independent — that sexual misconduct will be denounced? I can tell you that, at the moment, despite the testimony of General Vance, who has often appeared before this committee, we feel that it is not possible to deal with this problem internally.
[English]
LGen. Eyre: I would welcome the review of an external committee and recommendations that would come from it allowing us to better see ourselves and better understand ourselves. As we go forward, we need to take a look at all the recommendations that came out of Madam Deschamps’ report and understand exactly why the implementation has not been as effective as we hoped.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I would like to come back to the equipment; we presented a report some time ago — Senator Lang was the chair at the time — on the equipment that the army did not get because of the endless discussions. The Auditor General and the Parliamentary Budget Officer have also mentioned unnecessary costs in repeated studies, but can we —
[English]
The Chair: Senator Dagenais, I’m sorry; we can hold that question for the second round.
Before we move to Senator Busson, I want to welcome Senator McPhedran, who has joined the committee. I have you on the list.
Senator Busson: Lieutenant-General Eyre, thank you for your service to this country. We, as Canadians, have seen the issues unfold around the issues of misconduct within the CAF and the focus has been, rightfully so, accountability, but I would like to adjust the lens a little bit.
Internationally, the reputation of our Armed Forces has been described in positive terms; words like brave, effective, just and reliable have been used and they are essentially, I would suggest to you, a model for international peacekeeping.
Beyond accountability, which seems to be the focus of today and certainly of the meetings lately around your leadership and the leadership of others, what measures are you and the leadership taking to recognize the courage and dedication, and to encourage the morale of those of your troops and employees who are not involved in this misconduct and whose dedication seems to be getting lost in the midst of all this negativity?
LGen. Eyre: That is a fantastic question and one that concerns me greatly. Despite the allegations and the narrative out there, the Armed Forces are composed of some great Canadians who go forth and do great things around the world. We have to continually remind ourselves that despite the bad stories that come up — and often I have to remind myself because bad news often floats to the top — we have thousands of great members of the Canadian Forces who even today are in harm’s way around the world doing great things for Canadians. More importantly, back here in Canada, in the midst of the pandemic, they are putting themselves at risk, leaving their families in this high-stress environment to go and look after Canadians.
The troops we have in northern Manitoba helping with the vaccine rollout in the northern Indigenous communities are a case in point. Our rangers in northern communities helping with COVID pandemic response are another case in point. We cannot lose sight of the great work these men and women in uniform are doing around the world and here at home.
Senator Martin: Thank you, Lieutenant-General Eyre, for your incredible service. As a grand patron of the Korea Veterans Association of Canada, I know the regard with which our veterans view Lieutenant-General Eyre and the work you are undertaking now as the Acting Chief of the Defence Staff.
It’s the seventieth anniversary of the Battle of Kapyong coming up. My question is to tap into your expertise. You were Deputy Commander of the UN Command in Korea, the first non-American to do so. This is a question concerning the Chinese capability expansion in the Pacific. While you’re with us, I’m hoping I can ask for your expertise about what is happening in this relentless military modernization and expansion effort in the Pacific, and there is a lot going on in the South China Sea, East China Sea and vis-à-vis Taiwan. Our closest allies are taking this seriously, as you are fully aware. How concerned are you about the expanding Chinese capabilities in the Pacific? Are you concerned that we are not keeping pace? Have these concerns been expressed to you or to National Defence by our closest of allies, the Americans?
LGen. Eyre: Thank you for the question, and for the senator’s kind comments. [Korean language spoken.]
This is something of grave concern to me. China is making massive investments into its military capabilities, including new technologies such as hypersonic, artificial intelligence and quantum computing. I would say for the first time since the early 1940s, we, the Western alliance, face a military capability overmatch both in terms of quality and quantity of the types of military capabilities that China is investing in.
China is imposing its will on neighbours. We see that constantly. The threat to the rules-based international order is significant. I gained a fairly unique perspective during my time in Korea, having a front row seat to the challenges in that part of the world. The challenges of developing a sense of superiority, of overconfidence, coupled with a lack of communication could lead to miscalculation and unintended escalation. I am gravely concerned about this rising threat.
Senator Martin: What about in our own North, in the Arctic with the Russians and their activities? I can't go into the details, but you know that very well. Would you also comment on your concerns about what’s happening in Canada’s North?
LGen. Eyre: This is another significant area of concern and one of the reasons we need to put much more focus on continental defence and NORAD modernization.
With climate change and the opening of the North, many are interested, including the Chinese who have declared themselves a near-Arctic nation, whatever that means.
The Russians are putting tremendous amount of focus on their military capabilities in the North, including significant exercises, projection capabilities, resurrecting Cold War-era bases for their use. So it’s something we definitely need to be concerned about.
Senator Martin: Thank you. I will wait for round two.
The Chair: The clerk has kindly reminded me that I skipped Senator Dalphond. I apologize and you can go next.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Thank you for joining us today.
[English]
In your speech, you refer to attrition and the size of the Armed Forces. Can you comment about the recruitment and retention rates now in the Canadian Forces and how the current issues are affecting hiring and retention in the Armed Forces?
LGen. Eyre: Thank you for the question. This, again, is an area of grave concern for me.
We haven’t seen the impact of the reputational issues yet. What we have seen is the impact of the pandemic on restricting our production pipeline for recruiting. For example, over the course of the last fiscal year, our recruit intake was one third that of normal, just because of the lack of ability to get recruits through the process in our recruiting system and then the reduction of our training capacity because of health protection measures.
At the same time, even though our retention is up, our attrition levels are down. Normally we hover around 8%, sometimes approaching 9% attrition, which I have to say is the best amongst our closest allies. This last year has seen that drop to about 6%. Overall, we have shrunk by almost 2,300 personnel in the Regular Force and about the same in the reserves. That is going to take some time to make up, thus the prioritization of individual training, recruiting and getting more young Canadians through the door to be able to serve their country.
Senator Dalphond: Is there kind of an exit interview for those who are leaving, like with Lieutenant-Colonel Taylor? I know she is very vocal and it was public, but many people may be leaving without saying anything. Is there some kind of exit interview to find out the reason?
LGen. Eyre: Yes, there is, and we expect all commanding officers to conduct exit interviews with their members as they leave so we have a better understanding as to why people are deciding to move on.
Some attrition is normal, and we’re going to see a certain percentage of the force move on for retirement or other opportunities. That is healthy, to continue to have fresh people come in, but especially at the commander levels on the officer side — such as lieutenant-colonel and major — and the sergeant and petty officer levels on the Navy side, that mid-level leadership is where I am most concerned and believe we need to focus our retention efforts.
Senator Dalphond: I’ll go on the next round.
Senator Cotter: Thank you very much, Lieutenant-General Eyre, for joining us today and for the good work you’ve done for decades on behalf of all of us.
My question builds on or is connected to the question asked by Senator Dalphond and others on the people side of the equation. The fact of the matter appears to be that in the world of national security and defence, it’s becoming a much more sophisticated environment with the talent you need in order to do those jobs exceedingly well in more and more challenging times — the best and the brightest, so to speak.
One of the worries I have — and I expect you do too — is that these challenges with respect to the reputation of the military discourage some of those folks from even considering joining the military. Many of us have taken an enormous amount of pride in the Canadian military extending over a century. In fact, I think it’s quietly embedded in our bones, but to the extent that gets eroded, people lose some confidence and have less interest in serving in our Armed Forces.
I’m interested in not just the challenges of dealing with the misconduct context but its significant effect on hiring, and hiring the kinds of people that you need going forward. I’m also worried that these questions — in fact, as Justice Deschamps identified — are deeply cultural, and some of the hardest cultures to change are paramilitary organizations. Could you comment on that package of concerns?
LGen. Eyre: That package of concerns is one that’s at the top of my list as well. It’s a bit of a paradox that as the population of our country increases, our traditional recruiting pool is actually shrinking. As Canada’s Armed Forces, we need to be able to draw talent wherever that may be and in whatever segment of Canadian society it is. We have to be an attractive organization for all talent. If we aren’t, it’s going to be an existential threat down the road for us. We will wither and die if we can’t attract that talent inherent in all Canadians.
That means we have to have a much more inclusive view of leadership. If we have the premise that operational effectiveness is based on cohesion and cohesion is based on team work, as the face of Canada changes, the faces of our teams are going to change. Our leaders have to have a much more individualized and personalized approach to each and every one of their subordinates. That means there is not a cookie-cutter solution. It means understanding their unique backgrounds and developmental needs, their strengths and their weaknesses, and treat them as individuals as you build that team.
Not all individuals are going to come from that same background. Becoming much more astute with human skills is going to become an increasingly important requirement of leaders at all levels.
Senator Cotter: Can the CAF make that cultural change? Is that achievable, in your view? And what’s necessary to achieve it?
LGen. Eyre: It is achievable because it has to be achievable. If we don’t achieve it, as I said, we are not going to be able to function as an institution down the road.
So as we go forward, we need to understand what is required to be put into our training system. What training and education methodologies do we need to change so that type of leadership is internalized by leaders at all levels? I don’t have all of the answers right now. That is why we’re going through this phase of listening and learning so that we know what to fix and how to fix it.
The Chair: Senator Cotter, your time is up. Let me welcome Senator Moodie, who has joined the committee.
Senator Oh: Thank you, Lieutenant-General Eyre, for your presentation and your long service to Canada.
My question for you today is about the most serious current and emerging threats to Canada’s national security. What is DND and CAF doing to address that?
LGen. Eyre: If I understood the question correctly, what are the most pressing threats to our national security? Is that correct?
Senator Oh: Yes.
LGen. Eyre: I see what we’re facing as a confluence of threats that could combine in various forms to produce multi-faceted threats. Grosso modo, those threats I see are a global reordering, so the rise of authoritarian states imposing their will on liberal democracies, on nations that haven’t quite decided which way they want to go, coupled with climate change, which is opening up different areas such as the Arctic. But it is also precipitating such things as human migration flows, the continued phenomenon of global extremism, including domestic extremism here at home, coupled with accelerations in technological change, which are presenting many new capabilities all at the same time, all that we haven’t figured out how they work together. All of those combined, coupled with demographic and societal changes back here at home, produce a future that is very uncertain.
Going back to the technological piece, we see the rise of new domains, such as space, cyber, the information environment and just how important that is in shaping national will to achieve national objectives.
So all of these in combination produce a very wide range of threats, and it means the world is not getting any safer. Canada is not as safe as it once was and it is going to continue to face these challenges.
Senator Oh: Thank you.
Senator Duffy: Lieutenant-General, thank you very much for coming and sharing your expertise with us today. I think we all share a sense of pride in the Canadian Forces and a sense of relief, perhaps, as we hear your testimony about your commitment to embrace the future.
I have two quick questions that you’ve alluded to. What measures are you taking to make the Canadian Forces more appealing or more transparent to some of the new groups who have entered Canadian society, who have moved here from other countries where the military wasn’t on “their” side, where the military, in fact, was to be feared? That’s my first question.
My second question flows out of that, in a way, and it is about your outreach in high schools and universities. Some of us remember army cadets operating alongside Boy Scouts, operating alongside the Canadian Forces reserves, and that built a continuum of understanding in small communities from coast to coast about what the military was and the great contributions the military made in our past and will in the future. It seems to me that as you embark on this new phase, reinvigorating some of those tried and true outreach measures could be very important.
LGen. Eyre: Those are two excellent points. Outreach is incredibly important. Unfortunately, the pandemic has greatly stymied our outreach efforts because of the physical distancing and the gathering aspects of it. Prior to the pandemic, we were working on exactly that, reaching out to different groups of new Canadians, reaching out to schools. I started off as an army cadet myself and joined at the age of 12. So I’m a firm believer in the cadet program. My own daughter did the same thing. It’s not necessarily a recruiting tool. It’s more of a tool to develop citizenship in young Canadians.
Outreach at the grassroots level, from my perspective, is even more important than recruiting ads, ad campaigns and the like. It’s face-to-face, human-to-human contact that talks about the organization, that dispels some of the myths, that educates on what the possibilities are. I think this is a very important part of our recruiting and attraction efforts as we go forward.
Senator McPhedran: I want to acknowledge, Lieutenant-General Eyre, that this is a very challenging time to be the Acting Chief of the Defence Staff and to thank you for your service.
I have had many positive experiences with the Canadian Armed Forces in a number of different countries as well as in the Arctic here in Canada. I want to express appreciation for their service. I also would like to frame my questions on employees that perhaps don’t receive quite as much attention, and those are your civilian employees.
I have been following a particular case that originates in Edmonton. I won’t mention names. I won’t make identifying details, but as a lawyer who handled many different aspects of harassment cases in a whole range of employment situations before I came to the Senate, I have been really shocked by this particular case. There are two civilian employees. It’s a harassment case. By my count, we’re now at 690 days, and there has been no resolution. The commanding officer to whom these civilian employees report has remained in place. I actually have, with the help of my team in my office, assembled a very detailed chronology, and I would be happy to share that if anyone is looking at what at this point I would tentatively conclude is a pretty clear double standard.
So here we are in a very challenging situation, preoccupied appropriately with cases that are coming up through the Armed Forces, and I really wanted to ask you for your thoughts on civilian employees, and to note that when one of the employees — I’ve been tracking her attempts to get some kind of remedy — first asked about Operation HONOUR, she was told clearly that it did not apply to civilian employees.
LGen. Eyre: Madam Chair, that is definitely one of the areas we need to further expand into. Absolutely right, Operation HONOUR was focused solely on CAF members, but as we go forward we need to recognize that our defence team partners, our civilian employees, need to have a similar type of support. When we have these intersections of military and civilian encounters or complaints — because we have many civilians who work for military members. We have many military members who work for civilian supervisors. To isolate the two into two separate stove pipes as we go forward does not make sense.
We’ve heard this requirement, as we do our listen and learn, and as we go forward, we have to embrace the need to have a better-integrated complaint mechanism.
Senator McPhedran: I have one more quick question, if I may.
Lieutenant-General Eyre, when we hear you talk about “listen and learn,” could you clarify, where does women’s leadership fit into this current process?
LGen. Eyre: If I understand the question correctly, where do women leaders in terms of listening to their concerns fit into the process, or where do they fit in, in terms of them listening to other women?
Senator McPhedran: My question is really in response to the response panel or the model that you’re using to —
The Chair: Senator McPhedran, I’m sorry, you’ve run out. Will you put that on second round?
Senator McPhedran: Absolutely. Thank you.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much, Lieutenant-General, not just for your lifetime of service to the Canadian military but for stepping up at this really critical juncture. I have two questions, one foreign and one domestic. I come from Edmonton, home of CFB Edmonton. This entire city was deeply touched by the experience of the Canadian military in Afghanistan. A lot of people in my community are still bearing the scars, the PTSD, from those experiences. We’re seeing now the new American government moving to extricate the United States from its role in Afghanistan. I wondered, given your own experiences there, what you can tell us may be some of the vulnerabilities as the Americans pull out? How stable do you think that area will be? And do you foresee that there may need to be a return of peacekeeping to that area at some point?
LGen. Eyre: This is an issue I’ve been thinking about for some time, having spent a good chunk of the middle part of my career in that part of the world, including being based out of Edmonton and deploying from there. After 20 years in that country, the American government has made a decision to pull out. What are some of the risks going forward? I actually had a good chat with my American counterpart on Saturday about this as they withdraw their forces. This was a deliberate decision on the part of the U.S. There are, of course, risks. We don’t know what the future for that country is going to bring in terms of what form of government they’re going to have, will there be a negotiated settlement to governance in that part of the world. I don’t know at this point.
I think back to our own contribution to that country, and it’s something I’ve been thinking about for a few years, the was-it-worth-it question, which every one of us who served in that part of the world will be asking at this point: Was my service worth it? Well, it’s too early to tell. It’s too early to tell if the two decades we’ve given that country of education, of being exposed to the outside, of seeing a different future, if that will make a difference down the road. We just don’t know.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much. My second question is a very different one and perhaps a more sensitive one. In this time when we have seen a rise in White nationalism and neo-fascist violence, there have been concerns raised in some quarters about the degree to which members of our police forces and our military may be involved with some of those White supremacist movements. I wondered if you could tell me not just what you’re doing to address issues of racial inequity within the Canadian Armed Forces, but what you’re doing to get to the bottom of these concerns about the military being a breeding ground for White supremacist radicalization.
LGen. Eyre: Madam Chair, this is another one of my concerns. It seems like we’re going through a shopping list of my concerns, and as you can tell, I have many of them. This is a toxicity that exists in our culture. We have to ensure this toxicity does not seep into our ranks because we have no place for it — so better screening, better understanding of the threat.
We also have to understand that this threat of extremist organizations continues to morph. As we’ve put measures in place, they change their symbology, their names and their ways of acting. They become more mainstreamed into society. This is something we need to have constant vigilance to be on the lookout for, and to educate our leaders about the same things, to know what indicators to look for and what behaviours to identify, including online behaviours when that comes to our attention. It is something we absolutely cannot let our guard down on, as every military in the West is facing the same sort of threat from within.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
Senator Moodie: Thank you, Lieutenant-General Eyre, for stepping up and for your service in this difficult time here in Canada. My question is related to Senator Simons’ question around radicalization in the Armed Forces, and it relates to the level of understanding that you currently have within the military.
Last fall, you signed orders to crack down on hatred and extremism in the Armed Forces. At that time, you warned that discrimination and hatred within the ranks amounts to a direct threat to our ability to fulfill our security and defence missions. Can you provide us with an update? I’m looking for an update primarily around the scope of the threat within the Armed Forces. I’m looking for data and reporting, if you have any, that has been produced to assess and evaluate the scope and depth of the problem that you just spoke to and Senator Simons asked her question around, as well as anything that’s beyond that 2019 internal investigation that perhaps led you to your decision to put in place those orders.
LGen. Eyre: Thank you for the question. The important thing that order did — and it did stem from an Armed Forces order several months before — was to put a definition to what is hateful conduct. If you can define something, you can identify it. First and foremost, with lots of external consultation to ensure we got it right, it did that. Then it explained a spectrum of behaviours, right from unacceptable comments to membership in violent extremist organizations.
It’s important to understand that spectrum because that is one of the factors when we deal with individuals who are found to have committed actions along the spectrum. We need to take a look at how long they have been with us. It’s something I call the “where is the threshold of redeemability.” If someone just joined our ranks, spent 18 or 20 years living in the rest of society and comes into our ranks and makes a racist or extremist comment, can we redeem that individual or is that individual beyond that threshold? It’s a good decision tool to help our commanders as they determine what to do with these individuals. Now, there are some actions that are clearly beyond that threshold, like membership in these organizations. That is important as well.
We’ve got to understand that those orders are only the first step. There is continuing understanding as the threat evolves, so we can identify it and continue to take action.
The other piece that I’m very keen to continue to pursue is to accelerate the release of individuals who we found have gone beyond that threshold of redeemability, to get them out of the Armed Forces as quickly as possible while still following the due process which we are legally obligated to follow.
Senator Moodie: I have a second question if I could, chair.
The Chair: Yes, quickly please.
Senator Moodie: It’s a change of focus. To the immense credit of the Armed Forces, military intelligence issued early warnings on COVID-19 in January 2020, months before the government began to react. Would you be able to go into greater detail about these warnings, what they included, who they went to, who drafted them and the follow-up processes once they went to PHAC?
LGen. Eyre: I don’t have the exact details that you’re asking for, but I can say that from an intelligence perspective, we continue to scan the horizon looking for emerging threats around the world. We are very well tied in with our international partners, most importantly the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing arrangement, which is extremely important for our national security. We’re also well tied in with our partners in other government departments and agencies here in the government. Information intelligence is shared on a frequent basis for that. But at this point, I don’t have the specifics of the sharing of the early warning of the pandemic.
The Chair: We’ll move to second round, but first I would like to ask a question. First of all, thank you again for being here and thank you for your service to Canada. I’m interested in Operation REASSURANCE in Latvia. The Canadian Press reported that some members tested positive for COVID-19. I ask that in the context of wondering how that has affected the ongoing training. Second, has there been increased aggression in the area because of the pandemic and its effect on the troops from our NATO nations involved?
LGen. Eyre: Madam Chair, Operation REASSURANCE has had small clusters of COVID-positive cases that have appeared, not only amongst our own contingent but amongst the other allied nations who contribute to our enhanced Forward Presence battle group. That battle group has taken exceptional measures to contain those clusters, while continuing to be ready to reassure the populations of our NATO allies and to deter Russian aggression. We have seen no additional Russian aggression in that part of the world or in that theatre.
I can also say that, very shortly, we are starting our immunization campaign for that mission. We’ve already started in our mission in the Middle East. We started on Saturday, I believe, plus or minus a day. So the vaccination of our overseas missions is starting in earnest this week.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Senators, we’ll move to second round.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you very much, Lieutenant-General. I want to reiterate my admiration for the Canadian Armed Forces, and for you too. I have some very important questions for you.
According to the current information, the number of women who have left the Armed Forces is disproportionate to the number of men. This is primarily due to the fact that women no longer feel that they are protected in the military when they report abuse. I am trying to understand this because the military has said for years that their priority is recruiting and protecting women. If the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights is meant to protect the rights of the women who are leaving the military today, how will we recruit more women if, two years after it was passed by Parliament, the Victims Bill of Rights is still not implemented in the Canadian Armed Forces? How do you explain this?
[English]
LGen. Eyre: Madam Chair, the retention of all Canadian Forces members who we want to keep in is a priority. Now, I can’t speak to the specifics of the attrition rate of males versus females. I tend to remember a briefing where I was briefed that it was actually lower for women than it was for men. But I’ll take that question away and get the exact data on attrition rates for women versus men.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: You are right that the overall number is lower, but in terms of the numbers of women, we know that there are very few in the Armed Forces. That’s not the point.
What is the work plan in the minister’s office — and in my opinion, what is happening in the military is not a priority for them — to ensure that the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights in the military is implemented? What is your work plan?
[English]
LGen. Eyre: If I understand your concern correctly, it’s the timeline that it has taken to implement this bill. I can tell you that going forward it is a priority to get the work completed. To get that in place is a key aspect of going forward and changing our culture to make sure our victims continue to be looked after.
Senator Boisvenu: When?
LGen. Eyre: Madam Chair, I do not have the timeline in front of me.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you again for accepting our invitation, Lieutenant-General. I would like to talk to you about equipment.
Our committee, the Auditor General of Canada and the Parliamentary Budget Officer have issued damning findings on the unnecessary costs of the various equipment renewal processes and how slow they are. I would say that this situation could be considered, pardon the expression, “foot-dragging.” But in your opinion, is this a military responsibility or a political responsibility?
A lot of studies have been conducted and have cost millions of dollars, but right now, we don’t see any changes in equipment within the military, just talking about aircraft alone . . .
Could you comment on that?
[English]
LGen. Eyre: From my perspective, the issue of equipment acquisition is not within my realm of responsibility. However, I can say the sooner we get modern equipment into the hands of our men and women in uniform, the better we will be as Armed Forces. Defining capabilities, training on capabilities, and getting them into the hands of the people who need them absolutely have to be priorities.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Let me remind you, Lieutenant-General, because I am sure you are aware that the government even agreed to purchase spare parts to repair the army’s old planes.
So when will we be able to acquire F-35s instead of repairing our old planes with spare parts? I understand that this is not your responsibility, but it still affects the military. Actually, it may jeopardize the agreements we have with our allies, correct?
[English]
LGen. Eyre: It’s my understanding that the competition for the new fighter is ongoing. We’ve ensured that the current fleet of CF-18s will be serviceable and ready until that new fleet comes in.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you for your answer, Lieutenant-General.
[English]
Senator Dalphond: Lieutenant-General, during the questions from Senator Martin and Senator Oh, you referred to emerging new threats, and I agree with those descriptions. What do you believe is the best response? Is it through NORAD, NATO or a mixture of both? Of course, NORAD defends home because it’s in North America; NATO is European. NATO used to focus mostly on Russia, but now the emerging threat of totalitarianism is China. How do you see that, keeping in mind that space is being militarized as well?
Amongst the many challenges you have, how do you see our strategic partnership with both NORAD and NATO? Should there be room for us in space with the North American Aerospace Defense Command?
LGen. Eyre: I firmly believe Canada’s competitive advantage is being part of a group of like-minded allies and partners. As a relatively small country, it’s in our best interests to maintain relationships with our key allies, whether they be in NATO, here on the continent or in the Indo-Pacific theatre. Maintaining those partnerships is absolutely critical.
I like to use the analogy of a school yard. The way the small kids stand up to a bully is to get together, so we have to stand shoulder to shoulder with the rest of the small kids to be able to stand up to the bully.
Senator Dalphond: And be friendly with the bigger one, which is to the south of us. Thank you.
Senator Busson: I have a question. Lieutenant-General Eyre, thank you again for your presentation. It reminded me of the unprecedented complexity of national security these days. In your presentation and in the other questions that you answered — at least twice and maybe more times than that — you made the comment that the world is not getting any safer; it really made me pay attention, and hopefully a lot of other people as well. Truer words were probably never said.
My question is around military intelligence. It has been said that the Canadian Armed Forces punch above their weight in much of the work they do and that ability to meet huge challenges comes from our networks with military and other intelligence agencies.
Given that in your experience, Minister Sajjan and your people have to work closely with Minister Blair and his responsibilities through CSIS, CSE the RCMP, as well as Global Affairs in the work they do on a national and international basis, what’s your level of comfort with Canada’s ability to share intelligence between organizations to ensure the country has a seamless network vis-à-vis the intelligence that each of these groups gather that, in essence, has to be shared and coordinated to maximize its effectiveness?
LGen. Eyre: Madam Chair, my experience at this level is still developing, but what I have seen so far are good relationships amongst the various partners here within Canada.
The reports I get from our Chief of Defence Intelligence indicate the same thing: very solid relationships. Our relationships with Five Eyes and other partners, which are just as important, continue to be very strong and something that we have to continue to protect as we go forward.
Senator Busson: Thank you very much.
Senator Martin: Again, thank you, Lieutenant-General Eyre, for the leadership that you’re bringing to our country at this time in the midst of all the security concerns in this complex world and with the pandemic on top of that. Your leadership is quite necessary.
I’m going back to a question that Senator Moodie asked about the fact that the military had warned the government about the pandemic as early as January 2020. I’m wondering whether you might be able to table a report on what the government was told and why there was such a delay in the government response. Thank you.
LGen. Eyre: Madam Chair, I’ll have to take that question on notice.
Senator Martin: Thank you. Kamsahamnida.
Senator Cotter: Thank you very much. My question is about the tensions that are arising on the Ukraine-Russian border, and within the limits of what you can share with us, on Canada’s interests and the way Canada is being engaged on this question.
LGen. Eyre: This is another hot spot that we’re watching closely and is of concern.
Over the course of the last number of weeks, we’ve seen an unprecedented buildup of Russian forces in the Crimean theatre, so we’re watching it closely to determine their intent. We’ve also seen a rise in Russian propaganda claiming ceasefire violations, Ukrainian aggression and the like in that theatre. We have to commend our Ukrainian friends for their stance and their efforts of keeping escalations low and not overreacting.
Our task force with Operation UNIFIER, which is focused on capacity building with Ukrainian forces, is all focused on the western part of the country away from the threat areas. That being said, they are also closely monitoring the situation and continue to provide us with updates.
The Chair: Senator Oh, do you have a question on second round?
Senator Oh: Madam Chair, no question from me.
Senator Duffy: Lieutenant-General, you talk about the shortage of staff or the decrease in the complement, the strength of the military. Do you have a number? How much has this meant in terms of savings for the Canadian Forces? Has the Treasury Board allowed you to keep the money that was unspent from those salaries so that you can put it towards the many good places I’m sure need that kind of cash?
LGen. Eyre: I do not have an answer to that question. I’ll have to take it on notice and get back to you.
Senator Duffy: I assume you won’t turn it down.
LGen. Eyre: Absolutely not.
Senator Duffy: Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much. I will try to clarify my earlier question.
I was very struck by a recent predecessor of yours posting on social media a high-level meeting of his closest colleagues, who presumably were in shared command, talking about diversity. But there was one woman around the table, and it was very hard to see much diversity other than that.
So my question is about not only the listening, but who is listening? Who is going to be making decisions? And where does women’s leadership fit within your model?
LGen. Eyre: We have to increase the diversity of our leadership cadre. One of the challenges is our system. How long does it take to build a general officer with 30 years of experience? It takes 30 years.
Over the course of the last six years, we’ve tripled the number of female general officers we have and we’ve doubled the mid-level cohort of lieutenant-colonel and commander levels, women leaders. So in the course of the next half decade or so, that cohort will be coming up into the general officer ranks. It’s taking time but we are making progress.
That being said, we are ensuring that we are putting women leaders into key positions to be able to ensure that we have all the views necessary to make the changes that we need to going forward. I also have to add that those women we select for positions are absolutely qualified for the jobs.
Senator McPhedran: Yes, I fully appreciate that. The time around discussions about tokenism is long past.
I had a second question about the budget, but I will stay with this because I’m sharing some of the frustrations that my colleagues Senator Boisvenu and Senator Dagenais expressed about the specificity of the answer.
As much as time allows, sir, could you please be more clear about what you see as the balance in terms of numbers? This is within your power. You decide who will work with you on addressing these very key issues. Could you also address if and how inclusion of former military members — for example, organizations like It’s Just 700 — fits into your decision making and your action model going forward?
LGen. Eyre: As we do the listen, learn and act model, listening to these organizations is front and centre. I was at a briefing, a round table, several weeks ago where It’s Just 700 was represented and gave very strong points on what we need to improve upon. As we continue to listen, it’s these organizations — listening to victims, outside experts, academics and our people at the grassroots level who have ideas, suggestions and experiences of what needs to occur. As we listen and learn, we continue to gather their ideas.
In the process of listening to them, there are four areas involved: responding, preventing, supporting and including. As we gather these ideas, we combine them with observations and recommendations from any external review, and that will form the basis of a deliberate plan to go forward.
Senator McPhedran: How many women will be involved in that plan to go forward? Who will be taking action?
The Chair: I’m sorry, Senator McPhedran, your time is up.
Senator Simons: Lieutenant-General, when I asked my first round of questions, I made an allusion to PTSD numbers amongst people who have returned from Afghanistan. As I’m certain I do not need to tell you, the consequences of that engagement for the people who were there were long-lasting, including horrific numbers of suicides of people who had served.
I’m wondering, 20 years out from the beginning of that engagement, what you feel the Canadian Armed Forces have learned about PTSD. What mistakes will not be made again? What guarantees do we have that future combatants won’t face the kinds of issues they did when the Afghanistan vets returned?
LGen. Eyre: This is something that we continue to learn every day. I think it’s important to note that PTSD is not binary. It’s a scale, and we have members who continue to fully function while still having PTSD to a certain degree or not.
I don’t have the full stats because over 20 years, many of those members have moved on. Veterans Affairs may be tracking some of those numbers.
In terms of suicides, it’s something we monitor very closely within the Canadian Armed Forces. I’m happy to report, over the course of the last five years, our suicide numbers have stayed stable, including last year in the midst of the pandemic, with increased stressors on our mental health.
That being said, we need to continue to apply what we have learned. The suicide prevention strategy that we put out three years ago had a layered risk mitigation approach to it to address all of the various stressors that would lead to suicide, such as failed relationships, alcoholism, drugs, indebtedness, physical injuries leading to mental injuries. We need to continue to educate our leaders on what those warning signs are and the mitigation measures to put in place.
In terms of preparing our people for future operations, we need to take what we’ve learned from the coping and resiliency tools that we have developed and ensure that they are fully equipped. The Road to Mental Readiness is just one aspect of those tools that allows an individual to better cope with the stressors of not just operational wartime experience but daily military life as well, which at times can be quite stressful.
I will finalize by saying that our Surgeon General’s team has come out with the road to mental readiness for the pandemic and circulated that to our members because of the additional stressors imposed with things like physical distancing leading to social distancing and social disconnectedness.
Senator Simons: We have talked about China, Russia and Afghanistan, but are there other global theatres that you are monitoring? I’m thinking about times we might be called up to serve as peacekeepers. I’m thinking about the news I’m seeing from Yemen, Cameroon and Eritrea. With the understanding those are not places that pose a direct threat to us, what preparedness do we have in place to be monitoring places where we may be called upon to serve as peacekeepers at some future date?
LGen. Eyre: We maintain a global watch to identify and understand these types of hot spots around the world, whether it be in the Middle East as you discussed, in Africa, Indo-Asia-Pacific. There are many hot spots around the world, as you alluded to, and no shortage of potential future job opportunities for the CAF.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
Senator Moodie: Lieutenant-General, can you confirm whether the Armed Forces have been included in the review of Canada’s early pandemic response ordered by Minister Hajdu last year?
LGen. Eyre: Madam Chair, I do not know. I will have to take this question on notice.
The Chair: I have a final question for you, but let me give context because I’m picking up from the question that Senator McPhedran raised in reference to a picture that we saw of a senior command talking about diversity and clearly a lack of diversity.
As Canadians, we would expect some commitment not only to those discussions taking place, but those discussions being inclusive of various groups that are represented within the Canadian context. So I think what Senator McPhedran rightly was trying to point out is if we can expect a commitment from you, as the new leader, that not only what we hear but what we see will start to look different.
LGen. Eyre: Yes. First of all, those decisions and discussions we take cannot be taken in isolation. They absolutely have to be informed by expert opinion and by those with the experiences to ensure they’re actually going to work.
As we go forward, we need to look at things through a victim’s perspective because we could say we’ve made progress over “X” number of years, but looking at it through the lens of a victim or somebody who has had a different experience or who comes from a different background, that may not necessarily be the case, so we have to change our frame of reference. We absolutely have to and will get more diversity into our leadership decision-making ranks.
The Chair: Thank you very much. As an added point, without that, I think you’ll have a hard time recruiting people when they don’t see people who look like themselves. I think many organizations have found that.
Let me say a very sincere thank you to you for being here. It’s not very often that we’ve had a witness for 90 minutes on his or her own, so we’re very grateful on the short notice and your willingness to come and the candour with which you answer the questions that you can. We wish you well in your leadership going forward and, as always, we wish the members of the Armed Forces well in their various theatres but we are also very grateful for their service to our country.
Senator Duffy: Hear, hear.
(1530 follows, The Chair: Honourable senators, we are back in session...)
(The committee continued in camera.)