National Defence Committee on Feb. 14th, 2022

[Colin Robertson]

They are in reality, but in our government we have tended to focus on the Canadian security establishment to watch and monitor, because while they may be military in intent, as we know, they are often aimed at vital infrastructure, particularly public utilities, which are managed on the civilian side.

I have looked at this issue around the world. I think the Baltics, which are often subject to attacks from the Russians, tend to consider this military, but it's a mix of military and civilian. We are de facto doing that anyway, so there's a military aspect to this; there's a civilian aspect, and then there's an industry aspect to this, which is trying to link the pieces together. I think CSE has probably been charged with doing that and seems to be managing it well, but it certainly is an area, as you pointed out, that is the future battlefield.

If you look at Ukraine, they are probably going to do cyber-attacks before they send in the rockets, and they have already used cyber-attacks to try to destabilize the Ukrainian government, as an example.

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht]

We live in a globalized world where, ultimately, this is a space we cannot play defence; we have to play offence. We have to know what the adversary is up to, what its capabilities are and what its intent is before it is ever able to go after us. The biggest challenge that we have in the government is old networks. The attack on the GAC network, which is still not entirely back up and running the way it should be, is one example. We can invest, for instance, in people and so forth all we want, but the older our networks, the more vulnerable we become. There's an urgent need for an investment in our networks by the Government of Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay. You're not going to give me an opportunity to cut you off unceremoniously. Thank you for your deference.

I don't see Madam Lambropoulos on the call.

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

I am, but just give me a minute. Can you go to someone else, please? I apologize.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

I'm wondering, Mr. Chair.... One of my other colleagues had her question cut off. Perhaps you could go, maybe, to Jennifer, if she wants to get her question in.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Your thinking is strangely aligned with my own.

I'm going to ask Ms. O'Connell to use a minute to summarize her question, and then we will ask that the final three minutes go to our two witnesses.

With that, Jennifer, do you want to summarize your question?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Sure. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

As the time went on, Professor Leuprecht answered some of it, but perhaps both of you can speak to how we actually recruit based on expertise. What does that model look like, or how do we change that model to ensure that we have, as was said, a force that looks like and represents the Canadian public, which includes in those communities? That's my example about the challenges with police and fire. They are the same types of challenges of this being a dignified job or a career path for many in different cultural communities, as one example.

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht]

I'll make three quick points. One is that the CAF has done a pretty good job on families, on, for instance, parental leave and the way members are evaluated when they return from parental leave. There's been considerable progress made. There's still a lot of change that needs to happen, but I think the organization is doing much better here.

Inherently, organizations that are more diverse tend to perform better; they're more productive and more creative, so there's a general case to be made for diversity beyond the normative case in terms of setting the organization up for success.

The challenge that you bring up is that the CAF is on a 30-year timeline from the time you recruit someone until they actually rise to the senior ranks. Direct entry will allow us to remedy some of those shortcomings in staffing. Yes, it's about making the organization more diverse, but I think many of the skill sets that the CAF actually needs are now skill sets where the diverse components of Canadian society are disproportionately represented. Bringing people in laterally not only makes the organization more diverse; it also helps us remedy some of those shortcomings. The problem is within the current framework for recruitment, but also within the current framework for remuneration. This is extremely hard to do, in part, because remuneration is tied to rank. The CAF has resisted, tooth and nail, changing the system for remuneration that might decouple rank from remuneration.

[Colin Robertson]

You have to look at the terms and conditions under which people serve, and that should take in all those groups we've been talking about, because they vary.

The other piece I would suggest we need to look at is the recruitment. There, I would certainly endorse Professor Leuprecht's suggestion of looking at the German model, I think he said, in terms of bringing people in at the lieutenant colonel level. Again, we do this now in government across the board. I come from the foreign service. We began doing this because we found we were missing pieces. I think the military are doing it by bringing them in in a kind of ad hoc advisory role, but we probably need to, again, look at this in a systemic fashion so that we get the people and have it continue, so it's not just a question of having to be done by circumventing the rules.

Again, I endorse the professor's suggestion about looking at the German model.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay. We'll leave it there.

On behalf of the committee, I want to thank both of you for your insights and the brilliance of the way in which you articulated those insights, Ambassador Robertson and Professor Leuprecht. As we've seen in the last few days and weeks, if you don't have security, you don't have anything. I think this is a very timely discussion.

With that, colleagues, we will adjourn, and we'll see you on Wednesday.