National Defence Committee on Feb. 14th, 2022

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht]

We have a shortfall of 7,500 members in the organization. That's over 10% of the CAF's authorized troop strength. There are simply not enough resources to attract talent. The case in point is the CAF's cyber capability. The CAF is competing against 200,000 unfilled cyber positions in North America. The CAF can't compete against industry. It needs a whole host more options.

Yes, money is part of the challenge, but a considerable part of the challenge is getting the right people in the door and then making sure you get the right people into the right positions. Cyber is a great example of how hard it is to get the right people in the door, let alone into the right positions.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

I assume that is part of what you mean by “professional development”; it needs to be broader and more robust.

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht]

The military tends to hire people who are what's known as “left of good” and it trains them up. That's why the military has a very robust education, training and socialization mechanism. It's because of the uniqueness of what it does and because its soldiers aren't born; they're made.

In areas such as cyber, for instance, and increasingly in other trades, we're using what people call the “unicorn model”. This relies on happenstance, that the right people will just show up. We can recruit them off the street and they'll do the work, because it appeals to their sense of duty.

We need to be able to develop people who are left of good, but we also need to recruit people who are right of good. That requires a completely different approach to recruitment. We can't just hope that they somehow show up or that they already exist in the ranks. That requires a lot more government attention, because many of the constraints are not CAF- or DND-made constraints. They are, in some ways, government-made constraints.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

With respect to our capabilities, we have a real problem with getting on with procurement in Canada. When I was associate minister of defence, now eight years ago, we were talking about a need for new fighter jets. Today, we still don't have a decision and we have.... Our fighter capability.... I'm advised that we need 150 fighter pilots trained and we're at less than 50. It is a dual problem of a lack of procurement with modern, fifth-generation equipment and also those trained to operate that equipment.

I'd be interested in your comments on that, Mr. Robertson.

[Colin Robertson]

[Technical difficulty—Editor] effort into looking at the terms and conditions under which we can both attract people and then retain them, because as Professor Leuprecht has pointed out, yes, recruitment is a problem, but so is retention. Are people doing the right things?

That's why I recommend that we take a look at terms and conditions and how we are doing this in order to be able to meet the challenges you have correctly identified. As you have pointed out, procurement has been a problem for a long time. It transcends government, which is again why I think this committee could say that we have to get this right. If you can come up with all-party unity, that would go some distance, because it's a problem that affects all Canadians, and it's something that every member of the committee should care about and I think does care about.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Either one of you can comment on this, or both of you.

How do you see NORAD modernization playing out with the threats posed by new weapons, and what would the impact be on deterrence?

[Colin Robertson]

On NORAD, the one issue—and I listened to the last panel—that the Americans are really pressing us on is NORAD renewal. The United States is our principal partner, our binational alliance. The one that is most important to us ultimately for homeland security is NORAD.

We're now being asked to do more, particularly in the north. My view is that we should get on with it, because, with the American contributions, we get anywhere from 40 cents to 60 cents on the dollar because the Americans invest in this as well, so this is defence that serves the Canadian interests, into which we have a partner south of the border willing to put money. I think we should proceed on this, because how long will that American offer endure?

If we get a change in government, and we get a Trump-like government in 2024, do you think they're going to be willing to put any money in? I doubt it. I think we'd have to do it all ourselves, so this is something that matters deeply to Canadians and to Canadian security.

As I say, we've been asked many times to exercise our sovereignty in the Arctic, but we have trouble doing it. Now we have a real opportunity, a real need, and pressure from the United States. The Americans aren't pressing us to get involved in Indo-Pacific or Europe, but they do want us to do more up in the north.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Unfortunately, again we're going to have to leave it there.

Ms. O'Connell, you have six minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Is there an echo? Is there a problem with my sound?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Yes, we're having issues with the sound.

We're going to go to Christine, and then we'll come back to you, and hopefully we'll fix it.

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

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ms. Normandin, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I once again thank both our witnesses.

I feel like firing a question to both of you, but first, I'll give you a little background.

Mr. Robertson, you talked about the fact that some populations have lost faith in democratic institutions and that this is a breeding ground for hybrid wars involving disinformation, which Russia seems to use a lot.

Dr. Leuprecht, you spoke about the importance of improving the professional, social and personal development of military personnel.

I can't help but draw a parallel with the current situation on Parliament Hill, where we have seen, among others, the military joining the protest movement.

I would like you to talk about the importance of monitoring and training the military more closely. In some cases, they are likely to become associated with more extremist movements, which can be used against us by other countries, particularly through disinformation.

I would very much like you to make some general comments on this.

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht]

In my view, it is inevitable in any institution that some individuals will express unacceptable views. This inevitably poses a considerable challenge for people in uniform, who must remain neutral.

I would say that the Canadian Armed Forces have done a good job in identifying a dozen reservists. It was the forces themselves who identified the individuals who are now under investigation. So the forces are well aware of the situation, and so are the counterintelligence people in the forces.

At the moment, I think the forces are doing an adequate job, but it certainly shows that when it comes to recruiting members, more effort needs to be made at the security clearance stage, even if it takes longer.

You have to make compromises, because the more time you spend checking on a person, the more likely it is that that person will be recruited by someone else. So you certainly have to do a better job at the beginning, but you also have to keep an eye out.

Basically, I would say that there are members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are completely loyal to whatever government is in power. What is disappointing is that all officers in Canada, whether they are military or police officers, know full well the importance of their political neutrality. They have learned this in training and professional development. They cannot say that they were not aware of it. It is disappointing, especially when they make such decisions intentionally—it is disappointing.

It is very important for an institution, whether it is the police or the military, to send a very clear signal to people in uniform that certain behaviours or messages of sympathy are unacceptable.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Robertson, would you like to add any comments?

[Colin Robertson]

In the current world it's even more important now for us to reinstitute civics. This is not a federal responsibility, but a provincial responsibility, back into the school system, because I think we're not looking at one particular group, our enforcement side. We're looking at all of society to remind people why democracy and our system of government are important, and how it takes every citizen to work for that. Again, I wouldn't target a particular group. What our police forces are trying to do is important, as Professor Leuprecht pointed out. These individuals have a particular responsibility, but I think we have what they often call a “democratic deficit”. We're seeing the effect of it in front of Parliament Hill. I think we have to remind ourselves of the values that democracy stands for and bring these back.

I would start with the schools. As I say, it's civic education, civic groups taking responsibility for why these vital freedoms that we fought so hard for still matter a lot.

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

I don't have much time left, but I would like to ask a more specific question about the training of the military, given the hybrid wars and the fact that the military can now often be used in the field by spies.

Should we strengthen training or psychological preparation for fieldwork?

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht]

The psychological screening process is important, but I think we need to look at the impact of deployment on people. We need better research and data on the resilience of people when we send them on deployment, because we see the damage done to many people by their own deployment. So we need to do a lot more research.

I commend the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research for its work.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're going to have to leave it there. Thank you.

Ms. Mathyssen, you have six minutes, please.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would actually like to build a little further on the questions from my colleague, Madame Normandin.

Mr. Robertson, you spoke about civics lessons and the importance of democracy. Are there other institutions that the federal government could focus on? This would be a question for both of you, actually.

I think about our post-secondary education institutions who receive funding. What sorts of supports would you look for from the federal government to build the right people with the right skills in terms of what you were speaking about with regard to understanding how important democracy is?

[Colin Robertson]

With the federal government providing funding, it's pretty much up to each provincial government to decide the curriculum. We've seen changes. I would leave it with the provincial governments, because I think they are just as concerned about what's taking place as the federal government is. I think we have to respect the constitutional responsibilities.

Speaking specifically of the federal government, recently President Biden held a democracy summit in Washington, and the government committed to do more in terms of democracy. We have institutions in our country like the Parliamentary Centre, which has done an awful lot to promote democracy, but I don't see the investment that I think should be going to these kinds of Canadian institutions.

There is a Canadian perspective on democracy that really is fundamentally important. I think we do pluralism better than anybody else. There's a reason the Aga Khan set up his institute of pluralism here. When President Mandela came years ago, he said the one country that really does integration and pluralism well is Canada. We have a lot to share, and we have institutions, but we need to support them.

Again, I would look at the Parliamentary Centre in particular. The federal government has supported it over the years, but it could do more. The government has also talked about its peace, order and good government institute for a couple of elections, but we have not seen that yet.

We should get on with this, because I don't think democracy can wait. This is something we should attend to. We do have capacity, but it needs investment.

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht]

Ms. Mathyssen, we have two significant deficits here that we can identify. One is that this country does not have a systematic network of institutes that do political education.

In Germany, for instance, each of the political parties has a taxpayer-funded foundation. Those foundations operate at arm's length from the party, in the sense that all the activities they do need to be open and so forth. Their key component in Germany is political education for the population. They do a fantastic job at that. It is part of the reason—I mean, this is a multifactor problem—the European population and the German population in particular are much more politically astute and much more aware of public policy in general.

The particular challenge the CAF has is that it has no presence in most of our urban centres, because repeated governments effectively closed those bases and moved the CAF out. If you go into a school in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver, most students have never met anyone who works for the CAF. They have never met anyone in uniform. They have never even met a federal civil servant. It is not even on their radar.

As a result, there are huge misconceptions about the role that institutions such as the Canadian Armed Forces play in terms of our domestic, regional and international interests. One ready thing the government could do is make sure that the CAF are more connected with students and that its federal institutions are more connected. The problem with that is that not only the CAF, but just about all federal departments, are so short on staff that they don't have additional people they can actually send out to build those relationships.

One thing I think we can do is look at how the federal government can build better relationships and socialize the Canadian population as a whole, and in particular high school students, into the role of the federal government. Then, implicitly through that, it can socialize them into democratic norms without treading on provincial jurisdiction in terms of primary, secondary and tertiary education.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

That would certainly help a lot of people in my riding in London—Fanshawe. In London, we had Wolseley Barracks, and there has been a significant shutting down of the direct.... It's exactly what you were talking about in terms of integration and what the forces look like in those urban centres. I appreciate that a great deal.

I might leave my other questions, because he's going to cut me off anyway. I will hold on to my questions for my second round.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you for the saving of 30 seconds.

Madam Gallant, you have five minutes, please.

I'm sorry. I forgot about Jennifer.

Jennifer, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. IT have set me back up, and I thank them for that.

Mr. Leuprecht, I just want to get back to a bit of what you were talking about with recruitment and your thoughts, especially around the fact that it's safe to say that the type of threat, or even the type of combat in a lot of cases, has significantly changed with the pervasiveness of cyber-threats and foreign interference. One never has to set foot on Canadian soil to see examples of this.

I understand your point about education throughout the system, but also at the senior levels, because as you mentioned as well, even just to be promoted or to move up in the ranks, one has to have served a significant period of time.

After the length of service, does that structure not also pose issues with the changing nature of threats and the ability to navigate and manoeuvre? I hope I'm making sense, but in an organization, you don't always have to look within the ranks. You could bring in the expertise that you need at the time.

Do you see this as an issue as well in terms of some of the structures within, with the changes that might be the nature of the operation?