Public Accounts Committee on June 7th, 2016

[LGen Marquis Hainse]

Mr. Chair, may I ask Mr. Rob Roy MacKenzie to answer that.

[BGen Rob Roy MacKenzie]

Mr. Chair, thank you very much for the question. I'll address this in two parts.

First, the Auditor General's recommendation here really assists in work that we've already been doing in publishing some of our doctrine. “Advancing With Purpose” is in its third edition, and now we have “Waypoint 2018”. That's where those expeditionary missions are spelled out in a doctrinal context. We're linking all of this together with the strengthening of reserves initiatives to mission task units across the country, and we'll be in the development of the final stages through this next year. The first phase is where we would see that initial growth. The next phase is more complicated. We want to consult down to the brigade level and the unit levels as to where we would best task units based on their core and branch affiliations, and get that feedback right from the local and regional levels as to where to best mission task those units, where the population and demographics can best support that as well.

Certainly, this next year, with that first phase of consultation, we embark on the five phases, to get us the growth not only in number but also in capability.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay. Just before I move to my next question, and my time must be very brief, I want to underscore what Monsieur Godin said when he reflected on the issue of reservists being treated as poor cousins or second-class soldiers. I have to tell you that in the almost one year that I was defence critic for my party, everywhere I went in the reservist world, that was the belief, from the commanders right straight down. They thought they were always considered to be second best, to be not as important. Whenever there were cuts, they were terrified, because they thought they were going to bear the brunt of them. I think history shows that's true. There certainly is that, at least, awareness out there, and that's not good. That's something that really needs to change.

On page 6 of your action plan, regarding paragraph 5.70, I want to come back to the time frames. It says, “National Defence should ensure that it has up-to-date information on whether Army Reserve soldiers are prepared for deployment. This information should include civilian qualifications held by Army Reserve soldiers.” Then I go over to the time frames, and we go from 2017 to 2022, and there are no milestones in between. There's nothing. I have to tell you, for the amount of time I've been on this committee, to project something in 2022 from 2016 suggests to me there's not a lot of detailed thought going on there. I'm just struck by the fact that you have five years laid out and there are no milestones along the way to make sure that things are going the way they should be. In other words, if you go with this, it won't be looked at holistically until the end of five years, at which point we could find out we've lost half a decade because it's not working.

Would you mind helping me with that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.

General Joyce, go ahead, please.

[MGen Derek Joyce]

Mr. Chair, as I mentioned earlier, the Guardian project is a very detailed and fairly large project that consists of four releases of software. The first release is coming up in May, and in fact what you're talking about, the readiness reporting, very specifically the civilian qualifications for our reservist members, are in fact going to be captured in there. That is one step of four, leading to our final operational capability in 2022.

Each one of those releases actually has an incremental improvement in our ability to pull reports out on readiness for reservists. We're not going to have the full capability of what we want and what we need until the 2022 time frame, but each one of those releases is in fact an incremental improvement.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to ask the Auditor General if he is satisfied with that answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Sir.

[Michael Ferguson]

I think there are a number of aspects of the answer that raised some questions. I'm satisfied overall with the answer. I think there are a couple of things to be aware of.

First of all, the problem we were raising in the report was that the data from the existing system couldn't be relied upon. I understand that a new system is going to be put in place, but it's not just a system. There's already been a system. There need to be the appropriate controls, the appropriate quality assurance, and that type of thing to make sure the information is properly captured, or we end up just putting another system in place that ends up having the same problems.

There's been a lot of emphasis on the system. That's good, and that's important, and it will be a more modern and up-to-date system, but it's very much also a matter of making sure the data is captured and somebody's making sure the quality of the data exists.

The other thing I'm a bit confused about—and I understand these systems are complex, and it can take many years to put them in place—is that earlier on it was mentioned that underlying this is a move from PeopleSoft 7.5 to PeopleSoft 9.2, which I assume means that PeopleSoft version 9.2 already exists. When you have that type of a system, to have to go from a 7.5 to a 9.2 means there have been other releases of that software in the meantime that have not been put in place. Usually a strategy with IT systems is to make sure those upgrades are put in place on a regular basis, so you don't end up with a big project of going from a release that is older and maybe even not supported to the most recent release. That can be a big project when you are skipping over a number of other releases rather than having updated it along the way.

Maybe I am reading too much into that, but I think some explanation of that move from 7.5 to 9.2 would also be warranted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.

Before we go back to Ms. Mendès, I do want to make clear on this, Mr. Jones, that it's going to have to be through the department, but this data issue is an issue that is not just with National Defence. It is every department that is having these types of issues. It's not like we're singling out National Defence.

There are three specific questions for which we would like answers back in writing from the department. Those three questions we can get to you, but I will read them right now.

First, what concrete action will your organization take to ensure it collects relevant information or data on qualifications needed for deployment?

Second, what quality assurance framework will your organization implement to ensure the quality of its data?

Third, what does National Defence need to investigate and analyze to determine whether data on civilian qualifications should be collected?

We can add a fourth one, and the fourth one would be exactly the question our Auditor General just posed to you. What type of difficulties do you see going from one system to the other system? Is this going to be a reason to beg for another extension, or a reason to lengthen the amount of time before you move into that system?

Could you get those answers back to us fairly soon, as we'll be writing a report fairly soon, and we need those.

Ms. Mendès.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank all of the witnesses for being here with us today.

You have just raised several questions we all had here. In fact, I have more comments than questions.

I read the reports and I heard everything that was said today. I am struck by something. The Canadian Army is recognized for its excellence, both military and operational. This is something we acknowledge and we know it. However, I am really pained to note that you seem singularly incompetent in the management of your human resources. I am saying this in the context of our study on the reserve, but also in light of everything we hear about discrimination and perhaps harassment. Your human resource management is problematical.

As we have just seen, you also seem to have trouble managing information technology. I think it's remarkable that you can be as effective as you are in combat or mission situations, and at the same time, have so many problems managing human resources. I don't think any piece of software is going to solve that problem. The issues seem rather to be a matter for your human resources managers.

I've also been quite surprised by this class of soldiers that was created by the Canadian Forces and that doesn't even exist in the National Defence Act, which is the reserve. How do you find this acceptable, particularly as you seem to find this a way of paying them less than you would pay a regular soldier?

These are my questions and my doubts. Again, I am always extremely impressed by the phenomenal excellence of the Canadian Forces in terms of operational capacity, but I find it very distressing that in the management of human resources, there is such a big issue. That I leave as a statement more than anything else.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Ms. Mendès, I don't know if there is a question there.

Mr. Jones.

[Bill Jones]

The member raised a very good point. I'll try to clarify.

The Guardian project certainly involves an underlying IT system and so forth, but it's much more than that. It's to change the business processes for the way we do our HR management in the military. I think the member raises the question. We are just at the beginning of changing some of the processing, defining them and so forth. The system, the IT work, will come later, as General Joyce talked about.

The precise point of Guardian is to change the way we manage human resources. That's what it's all about. It's not about the system, as the member points out.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

I think that goes with your retention issues to. If you want to retain your personnel, you'd have to actually offer them the conditions to find themselves appreciated and valued within the Canadian Forces.

[Bill Jones]

The current HR system we have for managing the military, not just for the reserve, is very complicated. There are many different layers that, over the years, have been put onto the system. We're doing a fundamental rethink of how we manage the Canadian Armed Forces from an HR point of view, which will provide a benefit to not only General Hainse but the chief of the defence staff, a better way to manage those resources. It will also enable us to do a better job of managing HR for CAF members from when they're recruited to when they release and become private citizens. The issue of closing the seam is also relevant to this discussion as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Ms. Mendès.

We'll now move back to Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

The Auditor General raised the concern of preparing our reservists for the circumstances that they will encounter if and when deployed. It seems to me this is an extremely difficult thing to do because you don't know where, when, or how they'll be deployed. It could be a massive forest fire in northern Alberta, flooding in Calgary, or it could be deployment overseas to respond and retaliate to a terrorist attack at home.

How do our forces prepare reservists given the variability of deployment possibilities?

[LGen Marquis Hainse]

Certainly, Mr. Chair. Thanks for the question.

That's why directions are given for the reservists to train in what I refer to as foundation training, force protection, so they know they need to master how to be a soldier, first and foremost, to be able to protect themselves and then to protect their counterparts or the population, the people they have to protect. They also need to train to a level of training where you start to bring the team together, which we refer to as level 3 platoon level, to participate in a company level. Those two terms mean between level 30% to 40% to participate within a company level of about 100 to 120 people.

My belief is that if they do this training properly, they will be able to meet the generic threat. Once we know a bit more about where they are going to deploy, to be employed, this is where we will add a portion of training that is specific to the mission.

Now your question will probably be, what do you do if they have to react to floods or fires or things like that. This is where we are doing specific training for them, the territorial battalion group, which has a specific role to focus on domestic operations. This is how we train them, but not every reserve unit has that particular training.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

In paragraph 5.46 of the Auditor General's report, it says, “We found that National Defence has determined that about 29,000 positions in the Army Reserve would be its ideal size. This number of positions allows the Army Reserve to expand when increases to funding are authorized”.

We discussed earlier that in reality, the number of fully trained and active reservists is 14,000, which is roughly half the ideal size. You're funded for 21,000. You've explained there's a gap, based on the fact that some of your reservists are not trained and some are not active, and therefore, not included in the Auditor General's count.

All that being said, we are a long way from the ideal size. What is the cause of the disparity between the ideal and the reality?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

General MacKenzie, your response, please.

[BGen Rob Roy MacKenzie]

Mr. Chair, thank you for the question.

The 29,000 number is the establishment, as we call it, of filling out every single one of our units. The exhibit diagram in the Auditor General's report lays out the 21,000 number. That is the number we're funded to, and it is the reality of where we were in recent history in size of units and based on the demographics of Canada.

We're looking very hard at this additional growth, which will be a challenge for us, but we will always have to train a specific number of soldiers in basic training and that is where the fairly substantial gap is, close to 4,000.

That's the break between the 18,000 and this 14,000 number. The reality of what we need to meet the needs of Canada in the future, we still want to keep the establishments where they are. I don't think funding that would even be close to realistic today. That's not where we are today. That's what we're here talking about. That additional 8,000 on our establishment is if the need is there to grow in a very rapid fashion, based on the world situation, that we have that flexibility. That's the way to put it.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

That's all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to Mr. Christopherson again, please.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I heard that “again”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I shouldn't say how the chair has failed today, but on your three-minute round, you did have 10 minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I was very appreciative. I didn't want to say thanks, because I would have circled it, but I appreciate it. You know it was either then or later; it was going to find its way out, but I appreciate it. Thank you.

This is more of a comment, an observation, if you will, in closing my remarks, because I think we've done a pretty thorough job of going through the issues that have been raised. I hope I can say this without being out of line, because I mean it as a positive thing. I'm very pleased to see that my friend John McKay is here as the parliamentary secretary. It not only underscores, I hope, the importance they place on the great work that our fellow Canadians do in DND, but also it emphasizes and underscores his personal commitment. I worked with him when he was in opposition. I know he cares about these issues.

What I want to say to the government members and to the representatives here is, if nothing else over the next couple of years, find a way to reflect the respect that I know you have for our reservists and the respect that our communities have. Most of the public would more likely be interacting with a reservist than anyone else, and when they're pumping out negative stories—not that they're not proud, but in the context of wishing they were treated the same as the full-time—all of it is sending that negative message.

I would urge the government members and the leadership of our military here to go out of their way in the next while to give them the respect they deserve. Let them know that they matter, and that the era of their getting less training, less equipment—less, less, less—is over and that there's an over-emphasis, if anything, in the next couple of years on underscoring the value of reservists and how important they are, and again on recognizing that without them we don't have a Canadian Armed Forces, that they are a key integral part of it.

I know that's the way everyone feels. I think it's a matter of getting it reflected out there and perhaps giving the reservists a feeling that there's a corner turned, a change of attitude, that maybe their day of finally getting the full respect they deserve and support is here. That can only be a good thing.

Other than that, Chair, I just want to thank.... We hit hard at this committee, because it's for accountability. We know about accountability, because we get it on the doorstep. We know what it's like. But it always needs to be said that we're incredibly proud of all of our fellow citizens who serve in uniform, from all of you here at the top of the house, all the way down to every single soldier and support civilian involved. We're very proud of our military history and our contemporary military, and we only look to work with you to strengthen it.

Thank you, Chair.