National Defence Committee on Oct. 4th, 2006

[MGen Daniel Benjamin]

I have a dashboard, if you will, for looking at my personnel, and that is something I'm starting to track very closely. From my perspective, attrition could become a problem, so retention of our talent would be really fundamental.

It's not only from the logistics perspective, but also it's throughout the whole forces, especially with our demography. If you look at our current demography, we have a lot of people who are getting very close to retirement or one of the key gates to really take your liberation. If we lose those people and do not have new blood coming in to be able to take on those responsibilities fast, we have a gap there that has to be bridged. Retention of that key personnel is really fundamental from my perspective, and we must retain these for the next three to four years at least to bridge that gap, so that we can pass on the experience to those who have the talent to pick it up. It's very fundamental.

If we look at the former data on attrition, I think we've been doing very well, and chief military personnel could reinforce those points. But, on average, they were saying there is about 6.8% attrition, which is great for any industry in Canada, apparently. I'm not an expert on this, but that's what I've heard. But I would be afraid that with the current demography and having a lot of people close to those gates, it may go higher than that, so I am tracking it very closely and I'm trying to put pressure on my superiors to make sure we have proper retention tools for those people, especially in the next three to four years.

As I stated earlier, there's high demand for those people in operations. The personnel tempo is very high. At the same time, those same people are very often asked to be instructors at the school for the new people coming in, so that is putting a lot of strain on our people.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

In the next question I'm going to move off that a little bit. I'm glad to know you have some succession planning and so on going on. That's encouraging. Based on the current load that your department is facing with the continuing operations we have and the relative newness of the four different command structures that have taken place, obviously you would want to have your command structure in a position to be able to respond effectively to the wishes of the other three command structures that we talked about.

Given the fact that you've said basically we're strained right now from an expeditionary force or continued operations overseas, that also begs the question in my mind about our ability to respond domestically through Canada Command. Given your department's current workload in supporting the operations in Afghanistan, what testing have you done or have there been plans drawn up and tested so that, for example, if we had a major earthquake or a tsunami or something like that domestically, you can make sure you can support Canada Command with the remaining assets you have?

[MGen Daniel Benjamin]

I'm not only supporting the Expeditionary Force Command, but I'm also supporting Canada Command. We are reviewing all the different plans to respond to these types of crises and consequence-management types of operations. We are working with them and making sure that we can cater to all of those needs.

Personally, my biggest fear would be a terrible earthquake in the British Columbia area, especially if we lose the airfields. If that's the case, then how can we bring in the people on the ground to do the job? Force projection, which is very key to my job, and bringing all those people from across Canada to that potential theatre could be quite a challenge. This is why we are working with Canada Command and going through the scenarios, the war gaming, and so on to make sure that if this happens, we do that; if that happens, we do this; and so on, so that we're well tied in.

We're looking, for example, at the Olympics coming in 2010 and at balancing all the resources based on the demand overseas and the demand in Canada. We are balancing it out. Obviously all commands are only eight months old, especially mine. The others have a little more maturity. They were created a bit earlier, but no more than a year, so we are learning through that process and refining all of those plans all together. We have a great synergy and a great construct to especially respond to these, so that it would not be an ad hoc reaction as we may have seen in the past.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I'm sorry, Blaine, that's it. I know you just got started.

We're scheduled to go back to the official opposition.

Opposition, pass. Government, pass. Bloc, pass. The last spot is then for the New Democratic Party.

You get the last word, so make it good.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'll do my best, Mr. Chair; thanks.

I just wanted to pick up on the last question, because it dovetails closely to where I was earlier.

Here's what I'm curious about. I said that if we had another theatre that was international, you would have difficulty being able to open up your supply chain, mainly on the health side--being able, if I understand correctly, to provide the health services--and yet if it was B.C., you were okay. I'm assuming that would be because you'd then utilize, if necessary, the internal health care system we have in Canada; you can tap into that and make do.

[MGen Daniel Benjamin]

Right.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I still am left wondering what steps you would need to take if something happened in the world, assuming it was a motherhood kind of thing and that whatever it was, we needed to be there and wanted to be there; it wasn't something that was debated in the House, and everybody was cool with the idea that we had to do it. What steps would be necessary for you to immediately be able to respond? In other words, roughly what would you need to be able to buy, beg, borrow, lease, or steal to be able to respond, again assuming the entire nation wanted to be there and felt we had to be there? How would you do it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Before you respond, it is a little outside the parameters of our study. However, I'll allow you to answer, because it does relate to our being involved in Afghanistan. Whatever our limits are beyond that.... It is a little bit outside the scope of what we invited you to comment on. If you have something to say, go ahead.

[MGen Daniel Benjamin]

If government tells us to go and open a theatre at this place, then obviously there would have been planning within our department to tell us where the restrictions, limitations, and risks were and how the risks would be managed. If they say to go, then we would go into very great detail to make sure that we could mitigate the different risks.

Health services is one, for example, so we could find out if France would come and help us out by providing the medical support. I was a contingent commander in Africa. I had my health services provided by the French, and they were great, so there is one way of doing it. We could also do it by contract; I know our CANCAP has some capabilities. We would be going into mitigating strategies in great detail to make sure we could do it without undue risk.

Obviously it's not for me to decide. From a Canadian Forces perspective, the Chief of Defence Staff would have to assess this risk and bring it to the minister and Prime Minister. The government will have to take the risk based on the fact that maybe we don't have all the capabilities accordingly, but there are potential mitigating strategies, and that is what we would be focusing on.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Excellent. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I don't think it's a fair question for you. If it isn't, just tell me if I wrap up after my intervention with the member for the NDP.

As we've gone through this operation, it has changed a bit. I am more interested in what's happening on the ground and anything that's there today but wasn't there yesterday. How does that information get back to you? Do you get any kind of advance warning that we're going to need 14 tanks over here in a week, so brace yourself, or is it shorter than that? Is it a day-to-day communication that you have to get that supply over there?

[MGen Daniel Benjamin]

This is obviously an Expeditionary Force Command issue, and they are tracking this issue very rapidly. From a holistic perspective, we have a team for lessons learned in that theatre. They are monitoring every event, every incident, every happening there, consolidating from all perspectives, and bringing the information back here so that we can adjust accordingly.

This is why I'm saying we have the learning mechanism for that. I think we're doing quite well as a learning organization. We are getting there, but the events are probably changing much faster than anybody anticipated, and in some instances the changes did occur within the same week, changing very rapidly from conventional confrontation back to asymmetric with a remotely controlled improvised explosive device. So it does vary. The opponent has a voice, and we have to adapt to it. I'm sure General Gauthier will be able to expand much further on how we are adapting and learning out of this. What is key is that we do adapt to it.

This is the context we're living in. We've seen it develop and we're getting prepared for it as well as as we can. We're using, for example, the Marines' type of analogy; they call it the three-block war. Within the same area, in one end you can be in full combat operations, at the other end you can be in stability operations, and in the city you're doing humanitarian assistance--rebuilding and so on. Our leadership has to be agile enough to be able to operate in this environment during the same day, and that's what we are learning. We see great changes, and our leadership is changing rapidly to this environment--and we must, because that's the environment we're facing right now and probably for a little while.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you. Is there anything else you'd like to add before we close this portion?

[MGen Daniel Benjamin]

No, I'm finished.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

We'll take a short recess while our guests leave us, and then we'll move on to committee business and the notice of motion from Mr. Bachand.

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

We have two items of business to deal with. There's a notice of motion from Mr. Bachand, and then we'll go in camera to plan our future business.

The motion has been presented, the timelines have been met, and the wording is in front of you. I'd like to open it up by giving Mr. Bachand an opportunity to speak to his motion.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Canadian troops have been in theatre in Afghanistan for several years now. I have to say that the media have done great work. Some even went over there and reported on operations. However, I have been hearing for several months that we don't have enough information about Afghanistan. I hear it around this table and in Parliament, and also from ordinary people in the riding of Saint-Jean. I'm sure it's the same thing everywhere else.

I think the time has come to tell the public of what is going on in Afghanistan, and the people in the best position to do that are officials with the Department of National Defence, because you know exactly what is going on.

As a member of the Defence Committee, I've always been very much in favour of the idea of our Committee being better informed about what exactly is taking place in the different theatres of operation.

It has always been a little frustrating for me to realize that at certain times, the Department could be hiding information. In the case of Afghanistan, the problem is not that it is hiding information, but simply that there isn't any. The Committee has every right to ask to know what is going on on a weekly basis or, as I suggested to my colleagues, every two weeks.

What we need is for the Department to send us someone who is perfectly up-to-date on the operations being carried out in Afghanistan who can answer our questions on a variety of topics, including equipment, the fate of prisoners, how medical care is being provided, what happens when a soldier is wounded, as well as the legal aspect of this. Having visited a number of theatres, I know that there are now a lot of lawyers from the Judge Advocate General's office on site to deal with legal issues related to international law.

So, there are a lot of different areas where we really don't know much. I think the time has come for the Committee to get a much more accurate picture of what's going on in theatre.

I really have just repeated the comments that have been made in the last few months by a number of Committee members, on both sides of the table.

I hope my colleagues will see fit to support the motion we currently have before us.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you.

Mr. Cannis.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I listened very carefully to what our colleague from the Bloc said. I have had the opportunity to discuss it with my colleagues on the Liberal side of the committee, and as much as we appreciate what he's saying--I think we all agree that information is something that Canadians and our constituents are asking for--we felt that weekly would be a little bit too much.

After a discussion we came to the conclusion, to an agreement to amend the motion by recommending a biweekly, as opposed to a weekly, briefing. That is something we are suggesting and recommending, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Would that be a motion you are tabling? Are you going to move that as an amendment?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

We would move that amendment, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Okay.

I think we'll go over here.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I have a couple of comments.

First of all, I agree that information is important. He said the public needs to know and that we need to be briefed. What we are briefed on, I would hope, would perhaps be somewhat different from what the public gets to know, at times. So there's a difference between what the public gets and what we get.

The other question I would ask us all to think about is what we are going to do with the information. Are we going to use it to try to make decisions for the CF? Are we going to use it just to inform ourselves? What are we going to actually do with the information that's going to be of any value to the mission, our common mission?

The frequency I would have some difficulty with. Having been on the other side, and I can tell you that the workload to get it right at that frequency, from the military's point of view, would not be insignificant.

Those are the only cautionary points I would put out there. We haven't discussed this, and I would leave it to somebody else to propose an amendment, but frankly, I think monthly, for me, personally, would be more than enough.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

We have a motion on the floor for an amendment to make it biweekly.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I'm not putting it forward as an amendment. I'm just throwing it out there. Maybe someone down the table might want to--