Testifying Before the Defence Committee

 Today, I got to be one of three academics to be part of a panel testifying on threats facing Canada and the military's readiness to address them. 

Here's what I said in my opening statement (and video):

 

Opening Statement to NDDN on the threats facing Canada and the CAF’s readiness

Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today.

It may sound strange at a time where the focus of much of the world, including Canadian leadership, is on the war between Russia and Ukraine, but the most important threats facing Canada and the CAF are climate change and its own abuse of power crisis.  In this statement, I will briefly address the threats we are facing and how well DND/CAF are prepared for dealing with these threats.  I come at this based on my expertise on civil-military relations, my work as a scholar of International Relations, and my interactions with various elements of the defence and security community via my role as the Director of the Canadian Defence and Security Network.

 My big caveats are:
--I am not an expert on any particular military technology so my opinions about procurement are less well informed than my views on the CAF and the crisis it has been undergoing for years.
--I am an Arctic skeptic.  If the Russians can’t provide logistics for a conventional military campaign next door, I cannot see how they pose a huge threat to our north.  We do need to invest in modernizing our warning technology in the north. This requires greater consultation with the people who live there.  Our best protection against northern threats is a better relationship with and more investment in the people who live there.  The Canadian Ranger system works precisely because of local trust and buy-in. 

People used to talk about climate change in abstract terms.  This fall, storms and floods isolated Vancouver and severed Canada’s connection to the Pacific more effectively than a Russian or Chinese first strike.  Before the pandemic, General Eyre, as Army Chief of Staff, noted that assistance to civil authorities was increasing in intensity and frequency.  The pandemic itself, where more Canadian civilians  died than in any war or attack, was yet another emergency requiring much CAF effort.  Yet we continue to see domestic operations as an afterthought, always mentioned as a priority but always the least of priorities.  This has to change.

The second threat is the CAF itself.  Sexual misconduct is just one part of a larger abuse of power crisis.  We have seen numerous generals and admirals lose their positions because of poor behavior, and this creates a chilling effect that is not new.  Soldiers, sailors, and aviators have long known that the folks up top do not want to hear bad news and do not respond to it well.  Meanwhile, promotions have been an old boys club, where the CDS got to pick his command staff with little oversight.  Stories of resentment and feuds between the two towers, DND and CAF, are just getting out now, but have long been the case.  Civilians who were supposed to be responsible for civilian control of the military largely abdicated their responsibilities.  Given this environment plus a good job market, we should not be surprised that people do not want to join or stay in the CAF.   Eyre has used the phrase “existential threat” to describe the challenges the CAF faces as we are already something like 10,000 short of our recruitment and retention targets.  Perhaps people choose not to join because they fear that they will be abused.  People leave because of such abuse.  They fear reporting their abuse through the chain of command.  Yet we had in place a Minister and CDS for several years who did little or nothing or worse to change things.  Indeed, the CDS picked as head of personnel a man who had a nicknamed earned from his successful efforts to escape responsibility—the Mulligan Man. 

 The good news is that the new Minister is much better equipped and far more serious about making the changes.  So far, the CAF talks a good game about changing its culture.  But one of the most serious challenges is this: will the CAF accept serious civilian control of the military?  The Minister’s job is more than just picking the CDS—she understands her role far better than her predecessor.  I am not so sure the mid-level officers of the CAF do.  General Eyre and Minister Anand have started the process of making serious reforms, but they need to be institutionalized, and we need to learn lessons from the past failures.

 You should take a closer look at the National Defence Act and consider whether it provides adequate authorities and tools for civilian control of the armed forces.  Does the Deputy Minister have the tools needed to make sure the folks under them can do their jobs?  I would suggest two potential changes:
--apply a similar but stronger restriction than what the US has—they are supposed not to have a recently retired senior military person as Secretary of Defense.  They have waived that twice recently.  Our experience, Liberal and Conservative, with senior military officers as Ministers of National Defence have been predictably bad.  They are too close in mind-set and in networks to have the adequate distance to be sufficiently critical.
--similarly, the US and most other advanced democracies have regular reviews—quadrennial in the US case.  Canada should as well.  We need to adapt, and we need to have benchmarks that we regularly evaluate.  Much has changed since the last defence review.  This would also build up the DND muscles/habits for regular evaluation. 

I have one other suggestion which focuses on the challenge of recruitment and retention mentioned above: military service as a pathway to citizenship.  The US has long offered citizenship to people elsewhere, who then become citizens along the way.  This would not be easy, but it would help provide a deeper and wider and more diverse pool of recruits.  People will push back and talk about security clearances, but that is something the US managed to finesse.  We can, too.  The very least we can do is reduce the obstacles to immigrants already living here, as we need their skills, their diverse perspectives, and their energy.  With the populations of the usual pools of recruits declining, we need to be more imaginative and more determined.

Thank you.

 My colleagues got most of the questions (saying that I am an Arctic skeptic probably deterred questions), but I was asked about whether the ombudsman should report to parliament (I said no since that would politicize things quite a bit) and what tools we can use to improve civilian control of the military).

It was definitely an interesting conversation.