National Defence Committee on April 19th, 2018

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Okay. I guess that's the kind of answer I was looking for. Perhaps we were focused more on the military perspective before, whereas now we recognize that there is a lot more to it than just the military component.

[Mark Gwozdecky]

Yes, but we also realize that Canada's discreet contribution to this mission or that is much less impactful than if we can make a difference by training some of the countries that contribute thousands upon thousands of troops. In making them better and more professional in terms of undertaking their tasks, we'll have a bigger impact across the system.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

How would you say other countries compare to Canada as historical contributors to peacekeeping? Would they have also experienced similar decreases?

[Mark Gwozdecky]

I think it's fair to say that yes, western developed countries, in overall numbers, have all gone down over time, because the global south and China have become more and more prominent in terms of contributing the so-called boots on the ground. What has emerged as a consensus is that we can complement each other. The global south contributes the big numbers, the boots on the ground, and the advanced nations contribute those enabling technologies and very specialized capabilities, such as helicopters, that very few countries have. We can make a difference that way.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

How have other countries reacted to Canada's re-engagement in peacekeeping since 2016-17?

[Mark Gwozdecky]

As General Bowes mentioned, very positively. Countries are very eager to have more of Canada: more Canadian Armed Forces, more police, more diplomats, and more civilians.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

General Bowes, maybe this is a good question for you. We just finished a NATO study that focused a lot on interoperability, highlighting the importance of that interoperability. How does interoperability affect the context of international peacekeeping missions? Is it just as important, as we would have learned with NATO? What's the status of that?

[LGen Stephen Bowes]

Interoperability would be a greater challenge in the dynamic of a UN operation, because many of the forces involved don't have the density of professional military that we do. Interoperability is fundamentally about people. It's not technical. The technical dimension is absolutely important, but it's about the interoperability of people.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Explain that, because that's a little bit different than....

[LGen Stephen Bowes]

I can be part of a Five Eyes conversation with colleagues who speak English as a primary language. We can use the same word and have five different understandings of what that word means and have five different cultural orientations towards problem-solving or a planning challenge. As we go forward, communication is an essential requirement. In the context of the mission we have within the ATF in Mali, it's less of a concern.

You talked about the proliferation of non-state actors. The traditional approach is not going to be as effective, because you're going to have to work across state frontiers. It has to be more global.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you.

Mr. Yurdiga.

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you to the witnesses for testifying before us today.

These are very good questions. A lot of the questions I was going to ask were addressed in some manner.

Currently the top contributors to peacekeeping are Ethiopia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Rwanda. There was an internal UN study in 2014 that found that “peacekeeping missions routinely avoid using force to protect civilians who are under attack, intervening in only 20 percent of cases despite being authorized to do so by the U.N. Security Council”. Do you believe that this is a result of inadequate training of UN peacekeepers, or is this a result of a communication breakdown?

[Mark Gwozdecky]

I think the answer is both. We certainly have noticed that some of the troop-contributing countries deploy people and battalions in the field that aren't ready to take on these kinds of challenges because they're not properly trained to do so. That's why our strategy includes adopting one or two of these major troop-contributing countries and giving them the kind of professional training and equipment that they need in order to go into those operations, so they do not sit in the barracks, but actually get out there and take on the challenges in a way that will ensure their safety but also address the mission objectives.

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

The UN has a program before these soldiers or peacekeepers are deployed in a peacekeeping mission. Is there an actual program out there where they have to meet certain criteria? If so, it seems to be failing.

[Mark Gwozdecky]

This is one of the areas of the UN that we are trying to address to raise their game in terms of the kinds of training that the troop-contributing countries will receive before they go into the field.

[MGen A. D. Meinzinger]

Yes, if I may add, certainly I think this is very much in the space of UN reform. I was down in the UN about nine months ago, and I think the Secretary-General's initiative to elevate the level of training, standards.... In fact, what we experienced recently as part of the process to deploy is in the context of our C-130 Hercules detachment announcement to Entebbe, Uganda. They actually came up and visited our 463 Squadron in Trenton, and it's part of their confirmation process.

I think they're trying to create a more coherent enterprise in terms of how they mount UN forces. It's going to be a combination of a lot of things, including training, as Mr. Gwozdecky indicated, which is really at the core.

[Mark Gwozdecky]

May I add that Canada has taken over responsibility for a three-year training program in support of the United Nations. It's called the UN Leaders Programme, and it's in that program that we take in senior-level officials and military representatives from countries around the world, and we provide them with the kind of training that will allow them to become leaders in peace operations anywhere around the world.

That's one component of how we're trying to improve the UN's ability to deliver highly trained individuals, in this case, leaders, but it also will take place at the level of the troop-contributing country.

[MGen A. D. Meinzinger]

I would point to our peace support training centre in Kingston as well, where we invite nations to take instructions, to take instructor courses, so I think we're contributing to that in a broad way.

[Major-General Derek Joyce, Director General, International Security Policy, Department of National Defence]

I have something quickly on that. You talked about the UN. The UN has identified these communications and the mandate, understanding weaknesses within the system. There are two reports that I would recommend to the panel to review, the HIPPO report and the Cruz report. They're both very useful and enlightening about the weaknesses in UN operations and what they're doing to focus on improving those.

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Over the past few months I've been talking to veterans right across my riding. They were actually in the peacekeeping mission at one time and they're now veterans, and their concern is this. When we go on a peacekeeping mission, we don't have the certainty that they're playing the same game as we are. They're unsure that the people on the ground, who are supposed to be the support, are actually going to be there for support, because we have seen some horrible failures over the 70-plus peacekeeping missions.

How are we going to address that to ensure that when our men and women go out there, they know somebody, on ground support or wherever it may be, has their back?

[MGen A. D. Meinzinger]

As the staff officer who reports to the chief of the defence staff on a regular basis, I would say to you that this is his number one focus, and I think General Bowes touched on it previously. On the force protection of our troops internationally, if it's not something that the UN would provide, then the Canadian Armed Forces, through the advice of the chief of the defence staff, would have set conditions in place that would require enablers to support our troops. I think of things such as medical support, close air protection. There are a number of examples you could pull from, but certainly for General Vance, when he contemplates the deployment of forces abroad through his commander of operations command, these are the priorities first and foremost in his mind.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you.

MP Fisher.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here. Thank you to some of you for being here multiple times.

I want to go to you, Mark, if I could. You mentioned our new Canadian strategy and you used the term “real institutional change”. You basically said that gone are the days of the one-off decisions. Then you also mentioned Canada's credibility.

Does this new Canadian strategy add to our credibility?

[Mark Gwozdecky]

It adds to our credibility when we take on tough assignments, such as the helicopter deployment in Mali, when we're doing some of the so-called heavy lifting, as well as some of the attempts to do institutional change.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Will our position or our high level of credibility allow us to shape a way forward for the UN? You mentioned that the UN is struggling to keep up with challenges, costs, and budgets. Mind you, you also said that the UN is now able to draw from countries that maybe wouldn't have been seen as traditional countries that would provide help.

I know we're only speaking from a Canadian perspective, but from our perspective, what's the way forward? Do you have a suggestion on a way forward? How do we find the balance between the needs, the challenges, the expectations, and the realities; and will our position and our credibility have an impact on a way forward for the UN?