National Defence Committee on Oct. 20th, 2011

[MGen Steve Bowes]

Absolutely. In a sense I would offer that we are. Although we express ourselves as saying that 1 Battle Group is the cornerstone, the brigade, which is the nucleus of a task force, is the only piece. We are a formation army, not a battle group army. We are a formation army because that's the piece that brings all of these enablers together.

In Afghanistan you had a brigade. It may have had a provincial reconstruction team. It had soldiers that were out on the operational mentor and liaison team. But with all of those other assets that were in theatre, the formation brings that all together. Without that you can't coordinate all of the elements that go toward the whole-of-government team, which, from a military perspective, we are just one layer of that team working up through our senior representatives.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Before we start the third round I have a couple of questions.

When we were at Wainwright, one thing that stood out for me in one of the presentations that was made, I think, by Colonel Thomas, was the whole paradigm shift in how you train. Now you're looking at being able to deal with a near peer in battle readiness, rather than dealing with insurgencies, which we've been concentrating on for the last five or ten years.

Can you talk about how that changes the training right through? We got to see the end result, of the troops working together as an entire brigade, as a battle group, but how does that near-peer training start right off at the basic level as you go up through the different regiments?

[MGen Steve Bowes]

Soldiers need to train in offensive and defensive operations. The counter-insurgency operations we did in the past were very different. The threats they were exposed to, although regrettably so lethal, were different in nature. When you're now out in an environment where you're concerned about the presence of a near peer, you're not only looking on the side of the road for an IED and the presence, perhaps, of a suicide bomber, but you're also looking for other weapon systems to be there that could have a negative effect.

The one scenario you saw that included the school bus, as an example, also had the presence of other military forces in the area. So when they reacted to that, they reacted in a way that told them there were other people there with weapon systems that could hurt them from a distance. It imposed another level of tactical problem solving that the commander had to go through in his estimate. Recognizing that it was very early on in his training, that's a very good thing to push him through because they're able to work that through in their head.

The issues of time and space are very different when you're going into near-peer situations. An enemy has a stand-off capability and you need to be thinking beyond only the immediate environment, but about what is out there behind the next hill. And that's the piece they're trying to work through.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We could see in the training at Wainwright that you guys are incorporating the lessons learned, but how do you now set up an example or exercise knowing what's happening in the world? How do you use internal intelligence, I guess, on what's happening from the standpoint of global affairs to determine what type of exercises you should incorporate into training?

[MGen Steve Bowes]

We'll do that this weekend, in the sense that the scenario that you saw was evolving. Each day it's escalating to where soldiers in uniforms from opposing forces are going to cross the border inside the manoeuvre training centre at Wainwright, and it's going to cause our commander to have to go through a deliberate tactical estimate. There will be other armoured forces and other infantry—regular soldiers, not irregulars—who are going to be there and that he's going to have to deal with at the same time as a possible threat of insurgent activity along his lines of communication. So we're moving through that now.

That's what we talk about when we talk about full spectrum operations. That's where we're injecting a near peer. He would, in theory, have sufficient forces to deal with the problem, but if he doesn't solve it the right way, he's going to learn some hard lessons.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

As our committee continues with its work on this study of readiness, we're going to be talking to other segments of the armed forces, with the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force. How do you, in your role as commander of land doctrine with the army, interact with those other two components?

[MGen Steve Bowes]

Because the operations at Kandahar were land-centric ones, the relationships have developed more on the air side. Obviously, our pilots were flying Chinooks and Griffons and were resupplying the airfield, which has built up a level teamwork that has been replicated in the collective training environment.

The doctrine exists for us to conduct thorough operations working with the Royal Canadian Navy. The issue for us is simply that it's a platform and a training opportunity. We do work within the context of other exercise scenarios, whether on the Pacific or on the Atlantic coasts, so I would link with them.

At my recent army training council, I had representatives from the air force, from Canada Command, etc., and we were talking through future training opportunities. In my job it's very difficult to actually track what we do on a daily basis in the army. I'm actually trying to look out 12 to 24 months to set up the training opportunities to help prepare us, and then align the resources so we can work together.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

We'll start off our third round. We do have time for a third round.

Who, from the NDP, wants to start the questions?

Madam Moore.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Many analysts believe that we should take advantage of the post-Afghanistan period to start a complete overhaul of the Canadian Forces. In his report on the transformation of government, lieutenant-general Leslie recommended the reassignment of 3,500 public servants to more important tasks, the reduction of headquarters staff as well as the reduction of the funding of the Canadian Forces.

Do you believe that the readiness of the Canadian Forces could be maintained despite those proposals or that it would be jeopardized?

[MGen Steve Bowes]

That is an hypothetical question, madam, and it is very far removed from my responsibilities.

There are a lot of initiatives discussed on a daily basis. And it's important that the senior leadership of the Canadian Forces, the civilian members of the department and our political leaders, discuss them in a full and honest way. But within the context of General Leslie's report or some of the other initiatives, there's a level that is well beyond me. I literally deal with guidance from Lieutenant-General Devlin, the commander of the army, and I work within the resource envelope that he's given. But there's a level between him and higher people in the department that as a trainer I don't work with.

There are many discussions of which I'm not aware; I'm not in on those debates. There are things that even General Leslie himself throws out. He might say there's a panoply, a smorgasbord of ideas out there, things we ought to consider. Right now, that's being digested and analyzed at the departmental level. It is a long way from getting down to me. I really can't answer it any other way.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Do you believe that there have been some recruitment difficulties in some army occupations and that it is difficult for those occupations to be fully operational because they do not have enough members, or that some are in a more critical situation than others?

[MGen Steve Bowes]

The way that we're set up in the Canadian Forces, the Medical Branch works for the Surgeon General. You saw medics on Tuesday that performed well, particularly at the hospital. They work with us, but they're not actually in the army chain of command. I am completely unaware of their recruiting issues. Recruiting comes under the Chief Military Personnel and the Canadian Forces Recruiting Group.

But I would say that recruiting is an ongoing issue. It's one of those issues that, from time to time in the past, we have done well at, and then we backed off. We'd made some assumptions, and then we found ourselves realizing that we needed to put more resources into recruiting. Across the board in the Canadian Forces, and for the army in particular, we need to apply constant effort to recruiting.

But within the medical chain, I'm unaware of any of the various occupations and where they're at in terms of their status. The Surgeon General would be the one to address that question to, along with the Chief Military Personnel.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

At the present time, if I am not mistaken, all occupations under your chain of command are operational and do not face any shortages.

[MGen Steve Bowes]

There are shortages. You break officers out and you break soldiers out, the non-commissioned members. There are specific occupations.... We're short of armour officers, as an example. We are flush with infantry at the moment. It wasn't the case three to four years ago. So these things come up and down within the spectrum.

From an overall standpoint, the manning level of the army at the moment is pretty good, but that's because we're doing really well in some occupations and less well in others. We're trying to balance that on a consistent basis, but that's always a challenge. We have problems with vehicle technicians. We're working that through, recruiting and qualifying the individuals and getting them into the army.

We have our challenges, absolutely. But beyond just recruiting, there are rank gaps. There are shortages at certain rank levels where we need to run more courses, where over the last four or five years our soldiers weren't available because they were continuously going back into operations. That's part of the reset. We will bring individuals back and try to get them onto their career courses so that we can take a master corporal and make him a sergeant, or take a sergeant and make her a warrant officer.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I'll allow you one quick question, because we don't have a Liberal.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Earlier, you answered a question from my colleague, Mr. Strahl, on training and on the way it is adapted to circumstances. I would like to know the more about the training of officers. How has it been adjusted over time to take account of the new reality of our Canadian Forces?

[MGen Steve Bowes]

That's an excellent question.

As an example, a number of years ago the Granatstein report highlighted that the officer corps didn't have degrees and needed more formal education, which would be beneficial to the officer corps. The army—the Canadian Forces—embarked on a deliberate process.

If you move it forward, even in the 2003-05 time period before Afghanistan kicked in, we embarked on a renewed emphasis on professional military education. The old OPMEs, as they’re called, are an example. On various subjects, such as the impact of science and technology on modern warfare, or the procurement system, or whatever, we would train those officers up. We called it the army junior officer staff qualification, which would link into various courses. We constantly renew our courses and our professional military education.

When I was commander of the combat training centre at Gagetown, I coined the term that many now use, that there is no such thing as a steady state. Every course we run is a pilot. What that means is that we have to be honest and reflect on what we have just done and make sure that the next serial is ready to go. So we have evolved education and training.

We have taken a really good look at our army operations course, which is the most important course in the officer corps. It's taught at the staff college in Kingston. It used to be entirely done in residency. It now has a significant piece, about seven weeks long, that's done by distributed learning. It keeps the officers at home and allows us to align the training of the reserves with the regular forces in the same way, along similar subjects, although they're taught by different members of the directing staff. It allows us to focus what we do on the residency piece more towards operational training. So we've evolved.

We're trying to introduce more and more simulation, and more and more technology into training. But we still want to make sure that it's grounded. So every day we try to make sure that the balance between education and individual training is within the experience set.

So I would like to think that we've responded in a way. We spend a lot more time on those subjects—on law of armed conflict, etc.—than, say, 10 to 15 years ago.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Opitz.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

General, Madame Fry did ask you—and I think it bears a little bit of elaboration—about Canadian values applied overseas on missions, and things like that. I think we would all agree that we do have a foundation and it's called the army ethos. Could you elaborate on the way we train towards that and help reinforce those values through this particular program?

[MGen Steve Bowes]

Absolutely. There is a piece of doctrine, a book called Canada's Army, that underlines the values. Without describing the entire book, it is mandatory reading for all. We use it as the cornerstone of what we expect. We expect Canadian soldiers, wherever they go, to represent that ethos and to reflect the values that Canadians want us to represent. So we can never forget that. We must ensure, day in and day out, as our soldiers train and get ready for operations that they understand they are Canadians first, and are representative of Canadians. That ethos underlines that.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Is that a component taught within the army education system?

[MGen Steve Bowes]

Yes, it is.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Perfect.

Now, regarding training to excite, I'm going to shift to reserves right now. As many know, we have had different periods between regular force and reserve interaction. The seventies were positively droll, quite frankly, and so were the eighties until we got into the early nineties through Bosnia. And then the next thing you know, missions were being topped up, as they were very much in Afghanistan—with 20% to 25% reservists, depending on mission—and that's now carried through. So we've had almost two decades of that kind of integration, which is great.

However, as you have suggested, we do want to prevent skill fade as much as we can. We're not going to have a 100% solution on that. That's never possible. But in terms of the reserve training system, what are some of the measures being taken now? We do have the DP system, but is there flexibility or are there other things being looked at, like putting reservists on regular force serials on courses—say, the AOC course—having a number of reserve officers, if they are available, attend the whole seven- or eight-week course, and that sort of thing? Do you follow what I'm saying?

[MGen Steve Bowes]

Yes, sir, absolutely.

We do that now and, in fact, if a reservist is available for the AOC, that reservist is welcome to be loaded on the course. And we do that on a number of other fronts. We also cater to it in that way I mentioned, doing regular and reserve training to the same standard, but not necessarily on every task. So we try to align the system in a modular format to allow reservists to be able to take that. That provides a cornerstone, and if a reservist comes out into operations, they will go through a deliberate road to high readiness. We will address the delta that they may have had in their training and top them up so they're ready to go.

With the way that the army has reinvigorated the collective training regime, we now have reserve units that train alongside regular units inside a context or scenario to their benefit. But we'll also apply collective training standards more formally to reserve units.

As an example, in my past job we deployed the reserve territorial battle group, the 36th brigade out of Halifax, to Prince Edward Island to conduct an exercise in the Summerside area. We had air support from the Royal Canadian Air Force. We had two maritime coastal defence vessels, and one was used to transport troops. So we had the army, navy, and air force working together in the reserve. That's an awesome statement. The scenario, although it was a weekend training event, was set up so that they went right into the scenario. So, from a company level, the young soldiers got to do some pretty neat stuff. And at the same time at a higher level, I had a domestic response situation where I was exercising the command and control of that reserve brigade and the territorial battle group to verify that they could respond and organize in a time of crisis, just as they had done in Newfoundland, which was another brigade at the time.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

At times it's very difficult for a reserve to make it to all of the training courses all week, because many have full-time jobs, as you know, and sometimes it may take an officer, for example, several years before he gets through the proper sequence of courses. Is there an ability, or is any thought given, to maybe writing off COs and EOs on an OJT basis if you are deployed or augmenting, say, 3 RCR for six months plugged into a position...?