National Defence Committee on Oct. 20th, 2011

[MGen Steve Bowes]

Yes. As part of the healthy review process, we're going through another level of review right now to make sure that our awarding of equivalencies, if you will, is fair and based on an individual's level of service and the skill sets they bring in. That's a constant thing.

There are always checks and balances. We want to be cautious that we don't create two groups, in the sense of allowing that foot in the door to grow apart the two components of the army, because it really is one army at the moment. So it's a fine balance, but we do look at that. We look at the experiential skill set whenever a soldier transfers in and does a component transfer. We use a format, a methodology, that allows us to look at all the skill sets, the courses they've taken, and to figure out what they need to do to top that up. And it's a risk assessment in terms of your institution. We can accept more risk at more junior levels. As you get into higher leadership levels, you have to accept a little less risk because then you don't necessarily have the time to catch up on all they've missed.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

On training systems, we mentioned that earlier we're using CATS in Wainwright essentially, but 2 RCR you mentioned is training the next rotation that is going out to Kabul. So they are still training for COIN.

[MGen Steve Bowes]

They're not training for COIN in the Afghan sense of what you had assumed in Kandahar. They're training to trainers, mentors, and advisers and capacity-builders. It is a training missions, so we are preparing them with those skill sets.

They're going into an environment where there are still threats and there is still an enemy that would like to inflict harm and casualties, so it's a combat environment in Afghanistan, even if we're not prosecuting offensive combat operations. So we do teach them the skill sets necessary to be able to defend themselves, and we'll go through to make sure that the appropriate number of soldiers are qualified in tactical combat and casualty care, to be able to provide first aid, and those kinds of things. Those are the kinds of things that are part of the package.

And then there's a cultural awareness piece, because, as an example, we've been focused down in Kandahar where the overwhelming majority of the population is Pashtun. Although they were working with Afghan National Army and police from time to time who weren't Pashtun, up in the Kabul area they may be dealing with a lot of people who are from different ethnic backgrounds, and there are things to address in that context.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Do I have time for one more?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You can ask one more.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I know this is more of a CMP thing, but what would you estimate the attrition is right now, post-mission--

[MGen Steve Bowes]

Sincerely?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Yes.

[MGen Steve Bowes]

I don't know. My job is that of a coach. I use this analogy out on the field, that I train what's on the bench. That which is within the context of the army, that's my focus. I train those people.

The general manager and the director of player recruitment, they've got that part. They get a little edgy with me when I venture into that area. So I want to keep my job.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

I have a couple of quick questions for you, General. When we were out at Wainwright, one of the comments you made was the need to have more cooperation and more training with other departments from the Government of Canada. Can you talk about that for a little bit?

[MGen Steve Bowes]

We know that if we're going to go to the door, in any environment you pick, we're going to work with other government departments.

The challenge we now have is that without the real-time operation, the same way we had in Afghanistan, everybody is extremely busy. We don't have all of the personnel, so we are using actors and other military personnel with skill sets. As an example, if I weren't in this job, as a former provincial reconstruction team commander, I could play several different roles within the context of the exercise.

We use those people to simulate those roles. We still play the whole-of-government team within the context of the exercise, but we don't have the full representation of other government departments.

We understand their challenges. That is in no way a criticism. It's simply the reality that we want to be prepared because we learned some hard lessons in 2005-06. It took a while to build up the team and you don't want to lose that.

We are ending the mission on a level such that as I sat in Kabul and listened to the many other nations pulling out, they were saying that what Canada was doing was an example, how all of the members of the team—not just the military but the military and civilians—were working together. I would not want to see us have to relearn hard lessons.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

I have a final question. I know it will be useful to our studies.

The Government of Canada has implemented United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. I'm wondering if you've made any changes to training to implement it, or has that impacted in any way, shape or form on how the army is trained?

[MGen Steve Bowes]

I can't pull out the numbers specifically. I profess that I'm not certain. This is about--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

It's United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 that the Government of Canada has implemented. It's being applied across all relevant federal government departments. It's about women, peace and security, and I wonder whether or not that has changed--

[MGen Steve Bowes]

I didn't hear that. I'm sorry.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

It's about the role of women in peace building.

[MGen Steve Bowes]

Absolutely.

In terms of what we do, we train soldiers, which is a wonderful way of being gender neutral.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Yes.

[MGen Steve Bowes]

We respect the diversity. We're at a stage in the army now that is truly something to be proud of, in the sense of the debates that occurred in the nineties are a thing long past. In fact, if you were to hear somebody talk in a way...we would invite them to leave, because we are so far down the track.

But we train soldiers. Regardless of gender, you need to be able to operate a weapon to defend yourself, to be able to support others within the team. So it's within that context. Also, within the context of going into operations, as an example, Afghanistan would only be one. But to take the other extreme, we would be addressing cultural sensitivities, the various cultural aspects of that area of operation, how men and women interact in that environment, so as not to give offence. To use the example, I said that we don't want to do harm; first and foremost, do no harm. That's one of the things that we take into consideration.

I'm not entirely certain that addresses your question.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

It does.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I have a related question.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Sure.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

It only occurs to me because of the questions you asked.

Gentlemen, we discussed this in Wainwright to some extent. It was the reality that you and I and others around this table lived in Afghanistan. One major distinction between recent missions--in Haiti, Libya, Afghanistan, and smaller missions to Africa, and even missions as recent as the one in the Balkans--and past missions, and certainly in contrast with Korea and the world wars, is that there's a new organizing principle in recent missions, which is that we are supporting the local government. We are not going into an environment where the UN has administrative authority—and Canada hasn't recently gone anywhere where it was an occupying power. We are there to support. That creates a whole new set of challenges for training and readiness, many of which you are meeting, obviously.

Could you summarize for us—and this relates to the question of working with other government departments—how much doctrine in training has changed to reflect the new reality that often in your operations centre, in your brigade headquarters, in your divisional headquarters, your main interlocutors are the ministers of the local government or the generals or the civil society or even the private sector of the host country? Many of the principal tests that you will face are winning their trust and confidence, working in partnership with them, identifying the ones that are effective and the ones that are not, and being on top of that aspect of the mission. Is that as close to the core of training and readiness and preparation as we would probably agree it should be?

[MGen Steve Bowes]

It is close to the core, and in that way I think there's a definite asset that Canadians bring to the table when they walk in the door. I have truly seen that among very young and junior soldiers, in the way they approach people, in the way they conduct themselves in working in diverse environments, and even in training environments.

I was reminded of this when we were down on a mission to help train some of the nations of the Caribbean island chains. I was approached by one of their officers who said they admired Canadians because we spoke to them in the right way.

I think we just bring that as Canadians. And I think that's very important to put out there, because as we come in, one of the harder things to do is to train soldiers on a combat level and where they have to go. Then when we build on this, and when I look at the context of where your question is going, I would point out that we're always working as part of a team. We recognize that. It's why, as an example, some reservists who have so little time in the army have been able to respond so brilliantly in domestic operations. So I think we bring that there.

Has doctrine been modified? At the higher level piece, I think, if anything, it has only reinforced what we already had. It has allowed us to look at that, underpinned by the army ethos, as an example, where we see diversity in Canada as a strength. As we work in teams, in coalitions, yes, we can find things that divide us and that cause friction, but there's always more that unites us. I was reminded by our men and women in uniform overseas that we probably have more in common with one another than we do with many of our own sectors of society back home.

So I think that it has amplified some of the existing doctrine and, for sure, there are elements of this that have changed. But I think that's just been a gradual evolution and it's been heavily influenced, not so much by the operations necessarily, but by who we are as Canadians. From where we were 15 to 20 years ago to where we're now, it's been a gradual evolution of Canada and our values, and these are the people who are coming in the door to represent you.