:
I guess it's how the process is defined under the legislation. It's really up to Parliament to decide if Parliament would rather have that done in a different way.
The idea of the special examinations is that, in those cases, we are going in, we're looking at the systems and practices of that crown corporation, and we're reporting to the board of that crown corporation whether there are any significant deficiencies in their systems and practices. The special examinations around crown corporations were designed as reporting to the board about their systems and practices, but putting a requirement on the board for them to make the report public.
The other thing that I should mention to you is that on May 16 we will be including three special examinations. For one of them, again the time period is such that the crown corporation will probably make it public just shortly before May 16, so there may be another one that you will hear about before the actual tabling on May 16.
We used to just provide a summary of the special examinations. Recently, we've gone to providing you with the full special examination to make sure that you're aware of all of the issues. I think the fact that recently we've started giving you that special examination as the complete report, and it looks like all of our other performance audits, is probably a little bit what's causing some of the confusion because this practice has been going on ever since special examinations were put into the Financial Administration Act, the practice of us preparing them, reporting them to the board of the crown corporation, and the board making them public.
What we did in the past was, we would just do a small chapter that said, by the way, over the past year we had issued special examinations on the following crown corporations, and give you just the summary of it, whereas over the last probably year or year and a half, we've started providing you with the full special examination, so they look like full chapters.
In terms of your question about should it change or not, I mean again, right now, it's a report that's done for the board and presented to the board. The idea of the board having to make it public within a certain period of time is so that it doesn't take a year to make it public. I don't have any particular complaints about that. I think it's more whether, as parliamentarians, you're satisfied with that process.
:
Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to discuss our 2016 fall report on Canadian Armed Forces recruitment and retention. Joining me today is Gordon Stock, the principal responsible for the audit.
[English]
In our audit, we examined how National Defence had recruited, trained, and retained the regular force members it needed. Overall, we found that the regular forces had about 4,200 fewer fully trained members than they needed.
Although the regular force had determined the number of recruits it needed, its recruiting plans and targets were reduced to fit National Defence's capacity to process applications and train new members. National Defence met its overall reduced recruiting target in 2016; however, it accomplished this by exceeding enrolment targets for some occupations while leaving other occupations short-handed.
We also found that the Canadian Armed Forces had set 25% as their target for women in their ranks but that their recruiting efforts maintained the representation of women at only 14%. Furthermore, about half of the women in the regular force were concentrated in six occupations.
In a number of instances, we found that the Canadian Armed Forces' recruiting process did not fit the needs of applicants and caused delays. Examples included delays for medical screening and delays for assessing whether applicants' previous education could reduce their training requirements. In some cases, National Defence closed files and lost qualified candidates who were still interested in enrolling.
[Translation]
Retaining qualified and effective personnel reduces the demand for, and costs of, recruiting and training new members. In the 2015-16 fiscal year, almost one quarter of occupations had attrition rates higher than 10 per cent. National Defence had developed a retention strategy in 2009, but never fully implemented it. At the time of our audit, the Canadian Armed Forces planned to develop a revised retention strategy by June 2018.
In our 2002 and 2006 audits, we found similar problems. These included setting recruiting targets lower than the needs and having no comprehensive plan to attract more applicants, especially for chronically understaffed occupations. We believe that without significant changes to recruiting, the Canadian Armed Forces will not have the members it needs in the future.
We made seven recommendations in our audit report. National Defence has said that it agrees with each of the recommendations and is in the process of addressing some of them.
[English]
Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening remarks. We'd be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for having me back to speak to you and the members of the committee on the Auditor General's report number 5, pertaining to National Defence.
[Translation]
You will notice some new faces today.
I would like to introduce Lieutenant-General Lamarre, who has just assumed his duties as commander, military personnel command; Brigadier-General Steven Whelan, commander, military personnel generation; Colonel André Demers, commander, Canadian Forces recruiting group; and Susan Truscott, director general, military personnel and research analysis.
Lieutenant-General Lamarre is heading up the team that will be responsible for implementing all the recommendations in the report because we, the defence team, have taken them to heart.
We appreciate the auditor general's work in identifying the weaknesses in the Canadian Armed Forces' approach to recruitment and retention. We are committed to addressing his concerns.
[English]
Last week, we tabled with you our management action plan that addresses each of the recommendations. We are conducting an extensive review of our entire recruitment process to make it more timely and efficient, but we're not waiting for the review to be complete before we move forward. We've already used the Auditor General's recommendations to refocus our efforts and to improve the way we attract, select, and enrol new recruits and retain military personnel.
I can tell you personally that the management and care of our people in the armed forces is among the highest priorities of the minister, the chief of the defence staff, and myself. Key among these goals is increasing the representation of women to 25% of all Canadian Armed Forces members by 2026, at 1% per year.
Canada is a leader among NATO countries with respect to the number of women in our ranks and one of the first to allow women to serve in all occupations, but we need and want to do more. We're at 15.2% female representation now, not quite as low as the 14% quoted in the media in February but not as high as we need. Encouragingly, the number of women who enrolled in the military was up 38% this past fiscal year, and the number of women in the Canadian Armed Forces increased by 0.3%, a small change but the first positive growth in more than a decade.
We've convened three working groups that will propose, over the summer, a way to increase these numbers: first, with a strategic intake plan that sets realistic targets; second, with branding, marketing, and targeted advertising strategies; and third, with ways to address barriers to recruitment. In the meantime, to help close the gap between 15% and 25%, we're fast-tracking the applications of qualified women to our military colleges, expediting the intake process for women who meet the entry standards, and reaching out to women who started but did not complete the application process. We want to encourage them to reconsider joining.
Of the 1,046 female applicants we've been able to contact so far, we've reopened files for 457 of them, and 96 are being processed for enrolment. That's about 9%. It's a good start, but we need to encourage more women to apply in the first place.
In February and March, we ran advertising campaigns on Facebook and Linked In tailored to women in the military. The campaign highlighted the wide variety of interesting and exciting jobs in the armed forces and in civilian roles. It spoke to personal fulfillment, to the opportunity to help others, and to the ability to achieve work-life balance, acquire transferable skills, and receive paid education and training for salary.
More campaigns are planned for this fiscal year to attract women and men of all backgrounds.
Our goal continues to be to have indigenous peoples make up 3.5% of the armed forces, and for visible minorities to make up 11.8%. We've doubled the number of visible minorities in the forces over the last 10 years, and we want to double it again. As the and the chief of the defence staff have said, diversity is our strength.
We simply cannot afford not to engage quality candidates. However, we do compete with employers across the country in specialized occupations such as doctors, engineers, social workers, and others in high demand. The recruitment of mental health professionals is especially difficult due to the short supply of psychiatrists, psychologists, mental health care nurses, and case workers. The challenge is made greater by the demands associated with a military career. It's an exacting and sometimes hazardous profession. Realities such as deployment, separation from family, relocation, and the general rigours of military life do not appeal to everyone.
We're not going to shy away from our task. We know we'll need to dedicate more financial and human resources to recruiting and training the required number of personnel for each occupation. We're putting in place measures to improve our five-year recruitment planning and to ensure that adjustments can be made as needed to recruiting requirements for specific occupations. We're going to continue to launch advertising and marketing campaigns that raise awareness of the more than 100 different jobs and career choices in the armed forces.
Attracting people's attention, sparking their interest, and finalizing their enrolment are three distinct tasks. We continue to improve and better target our advertising and marketing to get better at enrolment too.
The Auditor General's report attributes a notable loss of applicants to lengthy delays in the recruiting, and we agree. In December 2016, we launched a 10-month pilot to streamline the intake and speed up the enrolment of applicants into the reserve force, as well as for the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army, and the Royal Canadian Air Force. Our goal for the regular force is to enrol most of the new applicants within 60 to 90 days. For those who have complicated security or medical review demands, our goal is within 180 days.
Once in, we need to have these recruits begin their basic training almost immediately. We've hired 26 military instructors to ensure that they reach their operational functional point as soon as possible. We're implementing a new system to decrease wait times for military training by occupation. To retain these new members, we're creating a work environment that enables as much ease of movement as possible within the institution.
For the primary reserves, we aim to process people within a matter of days, not months, so that we can meet our target of 28,500 primary reservists by the end of the 2018-19. We're emphasizing to Canadians that the reserves are a meaningful way to serve their country, even as they go to school or work in another job. There's no commitment to move, no obligation to deploy, and no long-term contract, just a flexible schedule and the chance to train and serve close to home.
A career in the Canadian Armed Forces has its challenges, but as I am sure Lieutenant-General Lamarre will attest, it's also one of the most rewarding work and life experiences available.
In the two years I've had the privilege of being deputy minister of National Defence, I've had the honour of working with many women and men in the armed forces. Whether corporals, generals, members of the regular force or the reserves, the soldiers, sailors, and aviators I've met are proud of the work they do and the uniform they wear. Following the guidance of the Auditor General, we need to get that message out.
Last year, the armed forces grew for the first time in five years. This year's results look even more promising. I'm proud to help lead a defence team that is committed to being more inclusive, more diverse, and more qualified than ever. I am confident that under leadership of the chief of defence staff, General Vance, and Lieutenant-General Lamarre, we will build the strength and diversity of the forces even further.
Thank you. My colleagues and I will welcome any questions you may have for us.
:
Thank you for your question.
[English]
The recruiting process is a four-part process. First of all is attraction and then the actual processing that you are referring to, selection, and then the enrolment process.
With regard to the processing, five main events need to happen. As part of attraction, first the applicant needs to apply to us. Once we start that dialogue with the applicant, he needs to show us some documents to confirm his age, citizenship, schooling, and so on and so forth. That's usually a very fast process.
Then we need to do what we call a CFAT, the Canadian Forces aptitude test, which tests the cognitive ability of the applicant, which will give us an idea of the applicant's ability to succeed with the basic training. We also need to do a medical process, which, if the individual, the applicant, is good medically, goes rather quickly, and then we can carry on with the process. If there is any issue medically, then there is a back and forth between the medical chain and the applicant to see if we can proceed with the application or we need to close the file.
Once that is done, there is also a process whereby we need to ensure that the individual, the applicant, is reliable and then grant him reliability status to make sure that he has no criminal history and that his credit record is clean, and we check with his references to make sure that he is a worthy individual to serve in the Canadian Armed Forces.
:
Let me address that in two parts. First of all, I'll talk about the morale of the uniformed members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and then I'll talk about the morale of the families.
First, what really drives morale in the Canadian Armed Forces and keeps it high is having good missions, good training, and good leadership. I believe in all those areas we have that clearly identified for members of the Canadian Armed Forces. We now have members of the Canadian Armed Forces deployed on 19 missions around the world, including places such as Iraq and Kuwait. We are also participating on the African continent, in the Middle East, and in Europe. In each one of these missions, our people have worthwhile goals that keep them well employed and well occupied so that they can make a difference.
This has to do with the quality of the training we provide our men and women. It doesn't matter whether you're flying something or part of a crew that's flying something, whether you're on a ship or in land formations, or whether you're in any of the support occupations, we put a high premium on high-quality training so that our men and women feel prepared for the jobs they do. Where we see this being received, and received well, is in how they're appreciated by the coalitions to which we belong. All of the coalition members, whether they are NATO organizations or members of some other organization, are grateful to have Canadian men and women in uniform. That drives the morale wherever we go.
On top of that, there's the leadership. We put a high emphasis on development of our leaders, and that includes not only leaders in the officer corp but also our non-commissioned members, our men. At the corporal, master corporal, and sergeant-on-up levels, we spend a tremendous amount of time developing leadership skills. You take that combination, along with some good support programs, and the next thing you have is a very high level of morale for our men and women in uniform.
If I can switch over to the families for a second, they are also something of great importance. You can say it's something we've been putting a lot of emphasis on. We've put in programs to support the families, whether it's recreational programs on bases or the military family resource centres, there's a tremendous amount of energy spent on making sure we support families.
I can't say we're exactly where we want to be. As a matter of fact, the CDS, with the support of the DM, is looking to make sure that our morale and welfare systems are well in place to support the families. When we're moving families across Canada from posting to posting, we ensure that they're well supported in those moves. We want to facilitate how those families are supported as they depart a location and how they get themselves into their new locations.
When you consider how we look after our members and how we look after our families, you see that we're putting forth a fair amount, actually a large amount, of effort towards making sure morale is good in the Canadian Forces.
:
Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you all.
Mr. Forster, thank you for returning, and thanks to our guests, also.
We are doing two defence chapters in just one week. Normally, I don't feel the need to do this, but it might just be a good time to insert the fact that the starting point for us is respect and appreciation for what the armed forces do. It's a difficult job, probably one of the most difficult in the entire nation, and there's a lot of respect for the work that you do. Our job is to work with you to make it even better for Canadians. We want to start by saying thank you for the service.
Having said that, after two years, Mr. Forster, I think you know that nothing launches me, anyway, and I think most of my colleagues, more than finding out that we're getting consistent audits over and over again that find exactly the same problems, and in many cases, many of the same promises to fix them, only to find out when there's another audit that the problems are still there.
I refer you to page one under Introduction, paragraph 5.5, where the Auditor General says, “The Office of the Auditor General of Canada conducted audits on the Canadian Armed Forces recruitment and retention in 2002 and 2006”. Over the page, paragraph 5.6 says, “Previous findings indicated ongoing, systemic recruiting challenges for the Regular Force in its efforts to counter higher rates of attrition and fill certain chronically understaffed occupations.”
In fact, on page 3, the Auditor General flat out says, “In our opinion, it is unlikely that it will be able to recruit, train, or retain sufficient personnel to meet its target of 68,000 members by the 2018-19 fiscal year”.
Either the Auditor General is wrong, in which case I give you the floor to make that case, or you have work to do that you don't quite yet know how you're going to do, or you have an ace answer that's going to satisfy all these concerns. But I have to tell you, the answer better be pretty good because this is the third go-around on the same issue and, sir, you know that when things are brought to you and they are still not fixed after three times, you would be getting a little upset. I eagerly await your answer.
I can give you an example of concrete numbers. The 12 recruiting centres that were cut, which the deputy minister referred to, resulted in a loss of 180 positions. Of course, those 180 positions are for the types of people who would be involved in processing a specific file for the individuals who are recruiting, so you have a net loss in your capacity of throughput to make this happen.
However, as was alluded to in the opening comments, there's a recognition of that. There are already some steps that are being taken care of. There are some ways forward, if you will. By the middle of the month of June, we'll have 20 new file managers who are going to be working for Colonel Demers down in Borden. They're being hired specifically to look after the processing of files. To also increase the throughput, he will be receiving another 20 of those by the end of the fiscal year.
Within the military personnel command, we also have the responsibility for basic training. Down at our leadership recruit school in Saint-Jean, we are right now increasing their throughput capacity by the provision of 26 contracted instructors. They will be there specifically to take on the qualifications that we must give our incoming recruits, such as first aid and other types of skills like that, so that we can actually get moving forward on these pieces.
If I can add one other point...?
I will talk about two aspects: recruitment and retention.
[English]
On recruiting initiatives that are significant, I'll start with the reserve force, first and foremost.
We used to have a fairly long process. That discouraged young Canadians who were trying to be part of the reserves. The chief of the defence staff was adamant that we would change that, that we would change it down so that you could do the recruitment and, instead of taking multiple months, you could break it down to a period of 30 days at the most. That's what is being done right now in a trial on the east coast and with some air reserve organizations. It's been trialed with some success. It means that on that aspect we're taking some risks, and there are aspects of looking at enhanced security clearance, but we're thinking that if we have a good, solid police check and a credit check, then we can continue to start training these young men and women so that we can actually get them in uniform and excited about what it is that they're going to do. That's one of the initiatives we're doing that is significantly changing things.
As well, the other one that we're looking to do is to significantly change how we're recruiting the regular force members, by going with an electronic format but also by changing how it is that we attract them, with a much higher reliance, if you will, on social media. With the millennials we have, it's no longer one of these large ad campaigns that you're going to see in newspapers, because most of them don't read them. However, the reach-out that is occurring on a multitude of platforms for social media is significantly different. On this particular one, we also need to move ahead faster, so that we can actually reduce the lag time for them to get interested in the Canadian Armed Forces. That's what we're doing in recruitment.
Retention is probably one of the most important ones as well, because if we can prevent young men and women from leaving the Canadian Armed Forces at various gates by making it more attractive, that will be important for us. One of the key programs we're looking at doing right now is to facilitate the move between the regular and the reserve forces. It used to be a complex process to make the transition, but we now want to make it as simple as a transition of a matter of a week or two after showing intent. The reason for this is that it will be attractive to a lot of the population, whether they are trying to satisfy linking up with spouses on other postings or whether they're at the point in their life where they want to have a family and concentrate more on raising their family and maybe parading some part-time.... We want to make it so that we have the terms of service that will enable that. That's a significant change.
Also significant is the change of giving them the opportunity to make sure they have their chance to take a break and come back without a penalty in how they're getting paid, and certainly with the opportunity to continue contributing to their pension fund, so that they can have a full career but with the breaks in their career that are necessary so they can raise their families and so they can achieve other things—for example, pursue another degree—and after that continue as a valued member of the Canadian Armed Forces, perhaps in very bespoke responsibilities and capabilities for which they have the training and for which there might be a short-term contract.
:
Thank you, Chair, and thank you very much, again, to the witnesses for being here today.
I want to explore those numbers a little more because I'm interested in comparing.... I guess I would talk about a funnel. For the recruitment process, how many people come in, how are they onboarded, who drops out? I'm thinking of other forces. It could be allies or it could be the RCMP.
I'd like to get back to that, but before I do, I just want to say that I had the honour and the privilege of being a civilian instructor at Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu during 2006-07. As you can imagine, I was not out in the field helping our soldiers. I was a financial instructor. I was thoroughly impressed by the program that was in place at that time to help recruits and officers with the financial pressures of being a soldier. I'm sure we could go into more detail about what those are. It was, to my mind, a state-of-the-art financial education, although I did find that there was a problem and I tried to address it with my superiors at the time. This would have been in the SISIP program. I have no idea what they're doing now. I must have taught over 4,000 recruits in a six-month period. They were coming in one door and.... I have to say, the saddest thing was when those who didn't make it had to go out the back door with their kit bags and take a taxi back to Montreal. That was sad.
I did not get a chance, as a financial instructor—and I was working with some of the support personnel and so on—to do financial counselling, which was a big pressure. It's under-reported, and I'm sure it's still a major issue today. Someone mentioned earlier the clean credit record. I don't have to tell you there's been a generational change between when we were 18 and couldn't even get a credit card, and an 18-year-old today who has 14 of them. I'm just pointing that out. It was something I tried to address. I did actually—even after I left to go and teach at McGill University in financial education—take it up with one of your ombudsman offices and so on, so I think some work was done there.
However, that was definitely a pressure that the individuals were reporting to me and we did not have a way.... There's a way you can get financial counselling once you're fully onboarded, but as a recruit, certainly the problem of delays would exacerbate that.
I want to get back to that original question about the numbers coming in. What does that funnel look like? What's the drop-off rate? Certainly the shorter time frame would go a long way in solving some of the financial problems that I witnessed.
:
First of all, thanks for your observations about the financial counselling and the financial education. It is something we recognize. As part of our support program, there was an earlier question about how we supported the SISIP program, and the benefits that come from that include financial counselling. One of the things that we do is that we offer it up to have men and women provide that kind of advice to young people so that they can look after their financial well-being as well.
I don't know the answer as to how soon that starts. I know that all of our recruits are pretty busy, and the recruit training courses are not that long in duration. Therefore, we're hoping they're not showing up with that much of a financial problem for the first 10 weeks of their career. I know that they have access to these things.
Second, for the actual numbers of the recruits who we bring in on a yearly basis and who we manage to train through, we're looking at 4,500 every single year. We have a plan to grow that because, of course, we're short on what it is. In the course of the next two years, we want to raise that towards 5,000 and then continue to meet the targets that we have. Of course, that means that includes a full cycle of attraction of how you bring them in, how you do the basic training, if you will, and then how you coordinate with the environmental chiefs and their organizations. If you're going to be an infantryman, you leave the organization that these gentlemen represent and you go off to be trained at battle schools, if you will, that belong to the army. It's the same thing on the air and naval sides.
We want to make sure that we have good coordination with that so we can simplify that throughput.
I'll stop right now and ask if André has any other points he wants to add about the recruiting numbers.
:
That's right. Twelve were reduced in 2012-13. That resulted in some loss of personnel who had been manning them. What we're doing right now is re-equipping the recruiting group with those personnel to be able to process files. There has also been a shift in how files are processed. Earlier, a question was asked about a guy or a gal presenting themselves to do the recruiting. Now we encourage online applications, and most of our recruiting hits come from there. That is how they are coming in to be seen. I think that's important.
If I could also quickly talk about.... You mentioned going and getting people specifically. We have moved away from large newspaper advertising campaigns because the research shows that where you get the most bang for your buck is through social media. But it's not unique. At the same time, we are doing other campaign efforts to make sure that we attract very specific groups.
We have groups that are working towards their initiatives, working to attract indigenous candidates to come work with us. Some of these programs, like Bold Eagle and Raven, are experiential. You bring them in for a period of time, expose them to what the military does, and pay them while they're doing training like any other recruit, and they are given the opportunity to participate in that. It's experiential.
We'll do the same thing with the women in force programs that are going to take place both in Borden and in Saint-Jean—two pilot projects, one in an August time frame and the other one in the fall—where we're going to bring in women to have a chance to see what it's like so they experience this as well.
Finally, there is a tremendous amount of outreach that goes on within specialized environments. For example, our surgeon general has a four-man recruiting team that looks specifically to recruit medical personnel, reaching out to medical faculties across Canada to let people know what they have the opportunity to do by joining the Canadian Forces as medical people.
:
Thank you very much, Chair.
We were mentioning pilots. Apropos to that, and I say so up front just to get it off my chest, I find it so crazy that pilots these days are being paid so little. Sully, “The Miracle on the Hudson”, had to have a part-time job in order to pay the bills. This is crazy. Anyway, I just wanted to say that.
The other thing I wanted to mention, since we're talking about wages and stuff, when we talk about pilots, again, the number of veterans and even active members who find it necessary to go to food banks continues to be an issue that jars a lot of Canadians. But that's not our focus today and so I want to continue.
Here's where I want to pick up. I would ask colleagues to chime in if you wish, because I'm going into an area that is not clear—and you'll get it in a second.
The auditor's report, on page 11, in paragraph 5.55 says, “Since 2008, the recruiting group has been reduced by about 180 positions, and has closed 13 recruiting locations,” as has been said, “as a result of budget cuts.” Even the Auditor General is acknowledging that there were budget cuts that impacted that. Then, under the response of National Defence on page 9, where the recommendation is given about training and training capacity and recruiting, it says, “Agreed. Several years of reductions to recruiting and training capacity as well as shrinking advertising and marketing budgets contributed to the current levels of institutional capacity.” In a direct answer to a direct question, deputy, you said it was a “bad idea”.
Here's where that takes us. I even welcome your feedback on this because this is our trying to perfect what we do.
Normally we don't get into the politics of whether it was a good idea or a bad idea. We go by what decision was made by the government or the minister. That was the direction. You were given the money. The Auditor General comes in after the fact to see whether you followed the mandate you were given and spent the money you were authorized to spend. Did you do it effectively? That's the accounting process. We try to stay away from the politics. In fact, we work assiduously to stay away from that in this Parliament. In fact, there have been a few since we've felt the need to bring in a minister or a former.
My friend has said when you answered with “bad idea”, he immediately...and that gets us into the partisan stuff a bit because he was part of that government, so “Wait a minute, what are these other problems that were showing up in the 2002 and 2006 audits that Christopherson was bouncing off the walls about? How could it be just because of the cuts?”
Here's the thing. If the cuts did directly affect your ability to carry out your mandate, we need to know that and factor that in because that's not your fault. You're left with the business of being loyal to the minister and government of the day and to not throw them under the bus. If we did allow you to do that willy-nilly, every audit report would say, especially if there had been a change of government, that it was the government that cut the funding or didn't let you do this, didn't let you do that, and it was the political side. You were great. They just didn't live up to their part of the thing.
This is where we are right now. It's difficult for us to discern how much of this was your managing as best you could with limited resources or money you thought you had and then it was taken away, versus the two earlier audits and 's pointing out that there were systemic problems all along.
I think when we're in camera we need to maybe talk about how we pursue this sort of thing. I don't have a question per se in this. I'm pointing out that we don't normally get to where it's just black and white, but here we are. Even the report is saying that the cuts had hurt.
I'm going to move on to another question. I'll afford you a chance, deputy, if you wish to comment on this, or you can just take a pass and I'll move on. Being wise, you'll take the time.
Yes, go ahead.
:
Thank you, Mr. Christopherson, for a little bit of context. You're absolutely right; this is where we are.
Since we're doing some introspection here, I had my own company for 26 years, a small business. There were times when there were great efficiencies that I could achieve in my operations by reducing my costs, so I appreciate, Mr. Forster, your saying that and putting it in a better context.
I think this goes right to the nub of what this committee is all about. What we want are the appropriate resources in place at the most efficient cost possible to represent the people who elected us to this position to sit here and scrutinize, just as the Auditor General's role is to do that as the lead-in for us to be able to interpret the data he's giving us.
I don't know exactly where I'm heading here on a question, but the reality is that this is what the objective should be here. Take the politics out of it, if we can. It's not always possible to do that, unfortunately, but when it starts to get tainted with, “This year we didn't have a problem” and “That year we did because of these things”, and we start to get that mixed into what the discussion has turned out to be today.... It is, I think, concerning to all committee members that the comment was made that it was a bad decision.
It may not have been that bad of a decision, sir, at the time. It may have been the logical thing to do. You haven't reopened those offices, right? The resources needed to be replenished in a different way in order to be more cost effective. I will just say that.
I'm really not leading to a question, just giving context or adding a bit more from my perspective on where I was headed. There are appropriate times, as you have said, to make cuts for more efficiency, and there are times to replenish and to build back up. Any comments you might have in order to add a little more to it, Mr. Forster, I would appreciate.
To me, one of the most important numbers is the number of trained and effective members, which is the 56,232.
There's a bit of a discrepancy that I've been trying to reconcile. The Auditor General, in his report, specifically in exhibit 5.1, points out that over the past four years, we have seen a decrease of the number of members who are trained and effective. That decrease has been year after year since 2012. For example, from 2014-15, the numbers were 56,800 versus the year following, 2015-16, where there were 56,300, and now you're saying there are 56,200.
I think it's important to contextualize the statements we make. It does sound good that the forces are growing, but we in fact have a lot of ground that we need to make up because of the four years of decrease. As well, we're a bit far off from the 60,500 minimum that we would like to have in terms of fully trained members.
Having said that, I want to continue on in terms of what Mr. Arya mentioned with respect to visible minorities. It's wonderful that you have increased the number of women in the forces, 15.2%, compared to 14% earlier this year, in February. However, Mr. Forster, you talked about your work in fast-tracking female candidates to military colleges, expediting their intake. At the same time, we are trying to increase the number of aboriginal and indigenous members, as well as visible minority members. To me, these two initiatives can't happen in silos. In order to increase the numbers in both of these areas, you need to take an intersectional approach.
Mr. Forster, have you considered very targeted programs that specifically look at recruiting women who are also aboriginal and indigenous, or from racialized communities?
:
You're absolutely right on many of your assertions, and I want to talk about that in terms of the overall numbers. We are realizing that we're far behind and that 4,000 short is a big target for us to make up. I need to be open about it.
As far as doing the intersection, making sure that we're hitting the women, indigenous people, and visible minorities, they tend to work together in the approach that we have. Specifically, we also have engagements that are looking to encourage...from all those segments.
Let me explain that for you all. The Canadian Armed Forces women in force program is open broadly to women who sign up to come and have the experience with us. With Bold Eagle and Raven, we encourage women from those communities as well, by engaging with the elders there and saying, “This is a program that is open to both men and women, and we want to see applicants from those groups.” We do see a good turnout of women who come out for these indigenous experiential programs, if you will, like Raven and Bold Eagle, so I'm satisfied that we have that one.
As far as the visible minorities, I don't know if we have the exact approach to say that we're looking specifically for women from visible minorities, because from our point of view, we're not trying to grow that set group together. It's not as though the targeting we're trying to do means visible minorities and women are the specific targets. It's in each of those broad targets that we want to include the growth, so you're going to get a bit of a mix of both.
:
Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the opportunity for a couple more follow-ups.
I want to pick up a bit on the conversation we're having. I just would add my comments to Mr. McColeman's that we are a committee about accountability and transparency. At some point, if a government makes the political decision, which they're entitled to do, to go down an austerity road or a road of cuts, there's a price to pay for that, and somewhere in our system that price has to be shown.
When the Auditor General can make a direct connection between the objectives of a department and the funding, by saying that the funding wasn't there, we need to take that into account. It also works both ways. Those of us who have concerns about what austerity can do could also overplay that hand. Again, facts, facts, facts—at a time when parts of the world want to go away from that—are still the key thing.
We need to have that discussion at some point and to recognize that if damage is being done then it has to be accounted for somewhere. No government gets to just hide it underneath the carpet. It all has to come out. You get the credit for cutting because you balanced your budget, but somewhere down the road there's going to be an Auditor General's report that shows what happened when you made those cuts. That's part of accountability too. I will just leave that there.
I wanted to go to page 9, items 5.50 and 5.45. I'm going to do 5.50 and then 5.45. Overall, compared with the occupations from the other report, the Auditor General's department found that the recruiting group was able to meet its overall recruiting target, which, by the way, was smaller than the needs identified by the regular force. There was a study done to determine what the need was, and then they moved that target. I think the general has said that the reason they did that was that they didn't want to have targets they knew they couldn't meet, but that still leaves us with a problem and a gap between what's identified as what we need and what we're even targeting for.
Having said that, they did meet their overall reduced recruiting target. However, as the Auditor General points out—and he uses the word “however”—the recruiting group achieved this by enrolling more than the adjusted target in certain occupations. They met the big number, and one of the ways that was done was by oversubscribing in certain areas.
I would like some feedback as to what the deal is. I have to tell you, what I wrote down when I read that the first time was, “On purpose?” I would hope not, but it does beg the question. I'll put it this way. Why would you over-hire in one area if you don't need them, other than to make your target numbers, macro numbers, look good?
I see a huddle, and I'm waiting for an answer.
:
My apologies, I didn't mean to take away too much of the time.
Part of it comes down to what it is that you are actually able to attract from the population as well. Sometimes when you're looking at that, you want to bring in people because you are resourced to bring in numbers.
When we're looking at the targets for occupations, it's usually over a five-year cycle, so even though we might over-recruit in one year, that might actually help us in “out” years when we're going to need a greater intake of those people. Five-year targets are established for the annual military occupation review system, so that's one thing right there. Also, since you are resourced to have those things, you might as well recruit where you can and take in those folks, because you know you're going to need them.
Some occupations are not as attractive. Sometimes it's difficult to actually get folks in a given year to come and say, “I want to be a hull tech,” because when you say hull tech, that doesn't sound nearly as attractive as firefighter or fighter pilot, for example.
That is the reality of what we are dealing with in a system that is not bang on the number every single year, but it is based on five-year windows of targeting, based on mathematical probabilities and mathematical modelling to see what we're going to have, and knowing what historically has been the number of people who have gotten out every year and anticipating “get-outs”. It really comes down to making sure we can, over the years, continue to fill all of our occupations to the ability we can, and some years you get more than others.
First, I would like to thank the auditor general for the excellent work he and his team do. I would also like to thank all the witnesses here today. I am aware of all the preparation that is needed when you appear before the committee. Thanks to them once again.
Mr. Forster, in your remarks you noted that women currently account for 15.2% of your strength and that your objective is 25%.
In a 2015 report, Madam Justice (retired) Deschamps condemned the armed forces' culture for being hostile to women and fertile ground for sexual harassment. In response to this report, the chief of defence staff at the time, Mr. Vance, established Operation Honour to stamp out this culture. He clearly stated that his objective was zero tolerance.
Recent progress reports have been positive in this regard. It has been noted, however, that not as much progress has been made as was hoped. Women still say that they are victims, and it is difficult for them to get justice.
My question is twofold.
Has the situation that was criticized had a significant impact on the recruitment of women into the armed forces? What strategy have the armed forces adopted to continue the work begun under Operation Honour?
:
Let me begin with the report itself.
As you know, General Vance provided an update on the progress made.
My apologies for switching into English, but I know the terms in English better.
[English]
He indicated that indeed there were a number of actions being taken specifically to ensure that the culture of Op Honour, where you don't have any tolerance for harmful or inappropriate sexual behaviour, is being inculcated throughout the Canadian Armed Forces. I think that's an important aspect where we're starting to see some of the results, and it's important to mention it.
Every single course we offer—leadership or basic courses—in the Canadian Armed Forces has a segment specifically related to making sure people understand that this is not on. That includes every single one of the 4,500 Canadians hired in the Canadian Armed Forces who must go through training to ensure that this is understood. This is a thing that occurs every year, because every year we bring 4,500 or more people into the Canadian Armed Forces. That's why we undertake this.
We have also put in place systems for all the members already within their lines. Every single year there is training undertaken to ensure that this goes forward to eliminate harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour. I'm confident that we're going the right way.
The other indication of what's going on is that 77 individuals are going to be released because they have done some things that were not appropriate. The justice system of the Canadian Armed Forces and the administrative disciplinary system is taking care of that. That said, when you have these things being reported in the media, it does have an effect on the population as a whole.
One of the key messages we want to have out there is that we are dealing with the situation in a very aggressive manner. We have a program that is being institutionalized to clear up and to change the culture. That's an important aspect, and I think it will come to a point where folks are going to say that if there is a problem it's going to be dealt with.
As Ms. Truscott was just alluding to, we conduct studies where we go in and have “Your-Say” and ask people questions for unit life surveys. We ask, “What is going on in your unit, and what's your level of confidence that this is being dealt with?” This is something we will have to publish because it talks to a high level of confidence within our unit that, if there is an issue that is arising, the chain of command will deal with it.
All this is on top of the other initiatives taking place related to Op Honour, including training our police force to deal appropriately with investigations. We make sure they keep on digging and don't dismiss things, and we make sure they go through a very detailed process of proper investigation of these events.
I want to return just briefly to the issue of 68,000 being how many you determined you need, and that we're short of that. Again, I quote the Auditor General's report, paragraph 5.11:
Overall, we found that the total number of Regular Force members had decreased, and that there had been a growing gap between the number of members needed and those who were fully trained.
Although I think you have up-to-date information that says you think you're turning that, the information we had at the time of the audit was that that gap is growing.
Further, I quote from 5.17, “In our opinion”, meaning the Auditor General, and I raised this earlier, “it is unlikely that it will be able to recruit, train, or retain sufficient personnel to meet its target of 68,000 members by the 2018-19 fiscal year.” Anyone who wants to can see a very effective chart at the top of page 5, Exhibit 5.1, which shows the trend line down and the gap growing.
Here's my question. Why aren't you freaking out more?
Here's why I ask. When you were explaining that you lowered the target to make sure that it's reasonable, okay, I accepted that for that round. Here's the more macro question. Either 68,000 is 4,000 more than you need, or you're leaving us vulnerable. I don't expect and I'm not going to ask you to get into the vulnerabilities in a public setting, but I think it's fair to say, if you determined that 68,000 is the number we need and we're not meeting it, just artificially lowering the numbers so you can be more realistic about how you're going to fail to achieve 68,000 still leaves us vulnerable.
I'd like you to comment on that vulnerability, please.
:
I have a statement and I'll take less than a minute, Mr. Chair.
I just wanted to make a reference to page 7 at the top where the department says, “The following initiatives have been or will be initiated before the end of 2016”. I just assumed this was probably written last year because these things lag. I won't read what comes after it.
Then the next paragraph talks about other initiatives that “will be under way in 2017”. Referring now to the last, just before the conclusion, it says, “They were to be implemented gradually”. In 2009 you had a new strategy for retention and, “They were to be implemented gradually from 2009 to 2011.”
Now I'm quoting the Auditor General, “We were informed that action had been taken for some individual projects, but that the strategy had not been fully implemented. In 2014, the Canadian Armed Forces Retention Working Group planned to develop a revised retention strategy, to be completed by June 2018, using the 2009 strategy as its base.”
I'm assuming, if you're using 2009, that the strategy was good but you didn't have the funding to make it real, and that by June 2018, you should have everything caught up. I just want to leave with you that this would probably and potentially be a prime reason for us to ask you to come back in the fall and tell us exactly how well you're doing. I do not want to wait another few years for another audit report that might point out a problem. If we have one, we need to see it early. Conversely, if you're finally hitting targets in this area, then it's an opportunity for us to give you the kudos that you will deserve.
Thank you for your indulgence, Chair.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Christopherson.
There are no other real questions coming, committee, but I do have just a couple of comments and a couple of questions.
I'm very fortunate to have CFB Wainwright in my constituency. First of all, I'll say that we were very saddened last week by an accident there, and Sergeant Robert Dynerowicz was killed. He was an armoured crewman with the Canadian Dragoons based out of Petawawa. I know that the whole base supports his family, and certainly we pass our sympathies along.
Now, having Camp Wainwright in my constituency, I've also attended many of the graduations there. I'll tell you there is nothing that really brings as much pride to everyone involved, not just to a member of Parliament but to their families, when you see these individuals graduating. One of the programs they have that you have referenced today is the Bold Eagle program. It became so obvious, with the number of first nation graduates that we saw going through that program, how much pride their families took in the fact that their children, their cousins, brothers, and sisters successfully went through this program.
When we're talking about recruiting, given that there is such a great deal of pride amongst our first nations when their children are serving in the Canadian military, are we doing enough to target that? Social media, yes, I get it, but are there other ways more specifically that we can connect with our indigenous people? Because when you watch them at graduation, if you had a recruitment office sitting right there that day, you would have brothers and sisters of those graduates signing up.
Maybe there are just a couple of comments on other innovative ways to see some of our very important indigenous people serve with the Canadian Forces.
:
First of all, as for Wainwright, I've spent enough time there that I feel like I'm one of your constituents. It's a great opportunity.
As for engagement, you are absolutely right. I was just recently at Vimy Ridge. I was fortunate enough to be there for the 100th, and Chief Perry Bellegarde was there as well. He and I had a chance to have a bit of a pull-aside, and I asked for a chance to come and meet him because part of the key things we need to do in here—and it's referred to—is to have an advisory body that can help us specifically when we're looking for either visible minorities, indigenous people, or women.
Part of the mandate that I have as chief of military personnel is to be engaged with those groups and those advisers who can help us specifically reach into those targeted areas to find out how we can be most effective.
I'm only four weeks into my job here as the chief of military personnel command, but certainly, one of our keys things is to establish an advisory body so that we can reach in and not just trust ourselves as to how we're doing it on an attracting, marketing, advertising system, but get that advice from the senior leaders. When you refer to people who are so proud to see their kids register and be part of a program like Bold Eagle.... I know in fact, if we had a recruiting office there, not only would we get the sisters, the brothers, the kids sometimes, but we probably would get the parents too.
We want to do those things because we hire folks of a large range, if you will, of ages, including into their forties and everything else because they can come and do service for us. So if any of you leaving this place are interested, certainly, I would be as well.