National Defence Committee on May 2nd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have about 30 seconds.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Okay. How about the funding for ground-based air defence systems in these estimates?

[Troy Crosby]

Mr. Chair, at this point the ground-based air defence is in a phase where we're developing the request for proposal—so it's essentially salaries. We see the release of a draft invitation to qualify to industry being released later this year.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

So zero, is that the correct...?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Kelly.

Colleagues, it works better if you give the respondent an opportunity to catch their breath and respond.

With that, I know Madame Lambropoulos will give you all kinds of time to respond to her questions.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you for being with us to answer our questions today, and I'm going to ask questions specifically about recruitment and retention.

Of course, it's been a challenge for the armed forces as it's been for all industries and across the country. I'm looking for other reasons besides the labour shortage. Can you tell us about some of the main issues and challenges you've had in recruiting and retaining members of the armed forces that have to do with the culture specifically?

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

Mr. Chair, I'll take this one.

Recruiting and retention are at the top of our priority list. We're calling it reconstitution as we rebuild our numbers.

The honourable member is absolutely correct. This is a very tight labour market, and like every other industry out there, we're seeing what has been called the “great resignation” as people move off to different employment.

When compared with our allies, we're facing many of the same challenges they are as well. Indeed, our attrition rate is lower than that of many of our closest allies. In the last statistics I saw, we're sitting at 9% attrition. Normally, we're between 7% and 8%, so we're seeing slightly elevated attrition rates.

On the recruiting side, what other reasons are out there? There's the military lifestyle, for one. We have to take a look at the makeup of our country. Right now, most of our population is urban and most of our operational bases are in rural locations. This poses a challenge. For example, for somebody growing up in downtown Toronto and who is posted to Wainwright, Alberta, that itself poses a bit of an impediment. So we have to look at ways to incentivize movement to some of these different locations where individuals may not be inclined to go to to start off with.

The challenge of evolving our culture is out there, as well. We need to be an organization that can attract and retain talent from all segments of Canadian society, where all members of this country can feel welcome in our ranks and can see themselves. That work is continuing. I said this recently, and I'll say it here to this committee: You'll be hard-pressed to find another organization in this country that is putting as much effort into that aspect of making ourselves a better place.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

On that, the minister mentioned that there is specific funding for specific initiatives, including culture change. I'm wondering if there's anything that you have on the docket, any plans for making the armed forces more attractive to women and members from diverse communities?

[Bill Matthews]

I can start, Mr. Chair. I'm sure the chief will chime in.

There are a couple of things worth flagging. The new approach of character-based leadership assessments is being rolled out, so there's money in these estimates for those.

If you think specifically about measures to make the Canadian Armed Forces and the department on the civilian side a more inclusive place, we have diversity advisory groups in place. We also have measures specific to women's health and for providing women more functional clothing, whether they be just for regular duty or if they're pregnant, and a space of nursing, etc. All of those measures together are a broad suite to make it a more inclusive workplace.

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

Mr. Chair, if I may add, we're in the process of implementing all of the recommendations from the independent external comprehensive review, so those 48 recommendations are in progress.

We are adjusting many aspects of the institution. We've recently published our new military ethos “Trusted to Serve”. Many have asked what's different this time? It's a values-based approach. Rise to your values, not sink to the level of regulation. So that is being put into place.

There are changes in our leadership training, evolving with the times how we lead, with a much more humble, emotionally intelligent approach, understanding the importance of inclusivity. Let's face it, as the face of our society is changing, the cookie-cutter solution that we have used over decades and generations is not as applicable, and we must have a much more inclusive, individualized approach as our team members change.

There are many initiatives, both top-down and just as importantly, bottom-up, from a grassroots level that are going to make this a changed, more fit-for-purpose organization.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you very much.

You mentioned earlier in your first answer how we are ranking well compared to our allies or that they are also dealing with similar issues. Can you give some specific examples?

In terms of the initiatives you've just spoken of, how do we compare to our allies? Is anybody doing it better? Are there examples to follow elsewhere?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have about 30 seconds.

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

Mr. Chair, we are in constant communication with our allies with regard to the sharing of best practices. In fact, there is a Five Eyes group focused on personnel—human resources issues, recruiting, retention. It meets fairly regularly. When I meet with my NATO allies, we discuss these issues.

Many are watching us with much interest because they see their own reckoning coming as well. With many of the initiatives that we have under way, all of which it's far to early to claim success on, they are quite curious about because they also need to change.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Ms. Lambropoulos.

Go ahead, Ms. Normandin. You have six minutes.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Turning to the witnesses, I'd like to pick up my conversation with the minister regarding the replacement of the Lockheed CP‑140 Aurora aircraft. She said that the Boeing P‑8A Poseidon was the only patrol aircraft with the required capability to replace the Aurora.

Does that decision have to be made now? According to the original schedule, the project was to be defined in 2023‑24 and implementation was to begin in 2027‑28, with the first delivery set for 2032‑33. Is that still the schedule? If so, there's time to see whether other options would be available in a couple of years.

[Bill Matthews]

Thank you for your question.

We have already received information indicating that the Boeing P‑8A Poseidon is the only aircraft that currently meets all of the air force's requirements. Is it possible that other companies might develop a useful plane in the future? Yes, that's possible. However, the question we have to consider is whether we should take the risk and wait or whether we would be better off buying the equipment that is available now. As the minister mentioned, no decision has been made yet, but that's the question we have to consider.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

The original schedule didn't include a good rationale for making a decision right now. Why did that change? Does it have to do with the fact that Boeing said that, if the government didn't submit its order, the P-8s might be no more? Did Boeing pressure the department to change the original timeline?

[Bill Matthews]

Since Boeing will be ending production of the P‑8As in the future, it's a good idea to look at the aircraft now. It's the one our allies are currently using, so we have a meaningful opportunity to look at our options.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Basically, I gather that it really has to do with Boeing saying that it could halt production if it didn't get any more orders. That's why the government decided to revise its schedule and move up the dates.

[Bill Matthews]

That's not exactly the reason. It has more to do with taking advantage of an opportunity. When circumstances change, we have to re-evaluate our approach. As I mentioned, our research shows that the P‑8A is the only aircraft that currently meets all of the Canadian Armed Forces's requirements. The government will make its decision in the future.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I'm going to rephrase my question. The industry made certain things known, which we've heard, and that is why the government moved up the timeline and revised its schedule, a schedule that wasn't originally designed around the industry. Is that right?

[Bill Matthews]

No. As I said, it's simply about paying attention to changes in the industry so we can plan out our options better. That's what we are doing right now.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Switching gears, I'm going to piggyback on Ms. Lambropoulos's questions about the shortage of personnel.

We recently learned that members of the military weren't entirely happy about the post living differential being replaced by the new housing differential. Media reports indicate that this move to replace the benefit will save the Canadian Armed Forces $30 million. Is that correct?

[Bill Matthews]

I'll answer first, and then I'll have General Eyre provide more information. The purpose of the move is to update a really old rule, a policy that we have been looking to improve for years.

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

Mr. Chair, I'm going to answer in English to make sure I get the terms right.

The post-living differential was brought in in 2008, and it had not been changed since. It was based on market differences. In the 14 or 15 years since that policy was brought in and last updated, there have been changes in markets, so many were getting the benefit where others weren't.

The housing differential was brought in to address our most vulnerable at the lower band of pay to ensure that they could afford to live. We have heard from many of the tens of thousands who are now collecting this benefit that they are quite content.

There were a number of others who were collecting this benefit. Had it been changed earlier, they would not have been in receipt of the benefits they received over the last number of years.

The work on this continued. In terms of the exact number, prior to this we were authorized $110 million. We were spending above that. This moved our authorization up to $150 million, so it's an expansion.

Our team has done the best it could within that $150-million envelope to provide that benefit where it is most needed, based on data, based on science.