:
I call to order the meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3), chapter 2, “National Defence--Military Recruiting and Retention” of the May 2006 Report of the Auditor General of Canada.
We have with us today the Auditor General, Sheila Fraser. Accompanying her is Hugh McRoberts, the Assistant Auditor General, and Wendy Loschiuk, principal.
From the Department of National Defence we have Rear Admiral Tyrone Pile, chief, military personnel; Brigadier General Linda Colwell, director general of personnel generation policy; and Commodore Roger MacIsaac, director general of recruiting.
I want to welcome you, Mrs. Fraser, and your personnel.
Mr. Pile, Ms. Colwell, Mr. MacIsaac, welcome to the committee meeting.
Before we ask for opening statements from you, Mrs. Fraser, I'd like to spend about five minutes of the committee's time, so we can get it off our plate, to review, approve, or change, if necessary the minutes of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure that was held yesterday. The minutes have been circulated.
In paragraph one we talked about committee business and proposed schedule. But in the third paragraph, under “Proposed Schedule”, I'd like to add to the minutes, in a friendly amendment, after 2006, “or such shorter time as determined by the committee”. That was clearly decided upon at the meeting.
Are there any comments on the minutes of the subcommittee of agenda and procedure?
We are very pleased to be here today to discuss our status report on the Department of National Defence's efforts to recruit and retain men and women in the regular forces. As you mentioned, I am accompanied today by Hugh McRoberts, Assistant Auditor General; and Wendy Loschiuk, principal for our defence audits.
The audit work for the status report was completed in January 2006. In this audit we examined the progress made by National Defence in addressing the recruiting and retention problems that were noted in our 2002 audit. At that time, we were concerned about the declining numbers of trained regular force personnel, which represents the amount of staff available for duty. This decline occurred as the intake of new recruits fell and the number of members leaving the military rose.
As you know, National Defence and the Canadian Forces require an effective and trained workforce in order to perform the military tasks they are asked to do. Indeed, stress due to a shortage of members became evident when the department reported in its 2004-05 performance report that an operational pause was necessary for it to regenerate.
I am pleased to report that National Defence has achieved satisfactory progress in addressing our concerns reported in 2002. By 2005, it had stopped the decline in the number of trained and effective members and was actually showing a small increase. We looked at the planning it did to establish the annual recruiting and training numbers and found it to be sound.
Since 2002, the department has come very close to achieving its recruiting targets each year. At the time of our status report, the department was working towards a national recruiting strategy to bring more focus and cohesion to its recruiting efforts and was working on performance measures for 2007 to help it assess the success of its recruiting efforts.
[Translation]
The Department was also working on attrition. It conducted surveys to better understand why people were leaving the military and changed its terms of service to better meet its needs. Although results from these efforts are less evident, I am encouraged by the Department's efforts to better understand this problem.
As well, National Defence has taken action to improve its military human resources management although more could be done to improve its human resources information.
As you know, however, I did raise concerns about the Canadian Forces recruiting process because problems that do persist could jeopardize plans to expand the military. Despite its progress in recruiting, many members continue to leave, with the result that while the trained effective strength has not declined, it has not increased by very much either. Because of the rate of attrition, the net number of trained and effective personnel resulting from bringing in 20,000 new members since 2002 is only about 700. This is a concern if the military is to grow significantly over the next several years. When starting this Status Report, we expected to see an increase in the number of people who were trained and operational, so that the military could alleviate shortages in key occupations. We have stated instead that many of the key military occupations that were suffering shortages in 2002 was still short in 2005.
[English]
National Defence needs to identify what it should do to keep its members. About 80% of the military population is in a high attrition group, meaning they either are in the first few years of military service or could soon be eligible to retire.
The recruiting process itself has leakage, some of which is to be expected and some of which is unnecessary. The system needs to identify and recruit suitable candidates in a timely and effective manner, as about 28% of applicants abandon the process because of delays. As well, methods need to be found to make a military career more attractive to underrepresented groups, those being women, aboriginal persons, and visible minorities.
The system should enable the military to grow, but at the time of our audit, we found that intake was well below what was needed for the Canadian Forces to expand.
[Translation]
National Defence also needs to be able to assure itself that it is recruiting the best candidates, but the measures it uses have not been validated to show they predict military suitability or to show that all recruiters are using them in the same way. I am glad to note that the Department agrees that it needs to validate these tools and plans to finish this work by the end of 2008. It also has replied that it is establishing a Recruiting Training Centre in 2007, which is also a positive step.
National Defence also needs a training system that can handle and increase in recruited members. While the basic training system has expanded, there were still some difficulties on the next level for occupation training. The limited capacity of the training system at this level causes bottlenecks and is a blockage to getting skilled people into operations when and where they are needed.
[English]
Mr. Chair, since our audit, National Defence has gone through some changes and now plans to increase by some 13,000 regular force members. This committee may wish to find out more about how the department ensures that it is bringing in good candidates who have the right skills and the profiles the military needs; how the department ensures that its investments in recruiting, training, and retention contribute to the long-term sustainability of the military population; and finally, when an action plan will be in place to bring about the necessary improvements.
Mr. Chair, this concludes our remarks on military recruiting and retention.
We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee members might have.
Thank you.
:
Thank you very much, Mrs. Fraser, for your excellent comments, as usual.
I'm now going to call upon Admiral Pile for his opening remarks.
Mr. Pile, I know you've tabled a fairly lengthy report. Obviously, you've put a lot of time and effort into it, and I want to thank you for that. However, we do have a rule that we normally adhere to. We'd like to keep the opening comments to within five minutes. So I'd like you to paraphrase your report, if possible. We can attach it to the minutes, if you wish. There's no problem doing that. There's no way you can read this in five minutes, so I'd like you to keep your opening remarks to five minutes or less.
Thank you.
:
I've done a quick audit, Mr. Chair, and I will keep it to about five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, lady, gentlemen. It is a pleasure to appear before you today to provide some commentary on the Auditor General's report on recruiting and retention to outline some of the activities we are currently embarking upon and to share with you some of the success we are achieving as we progress with force expansion for the Canadian Forces.
Although my focus will be on the successes we have made in addressing the Auditor General's recommendations, I will also highlight some challenges that still remain. Regarding the Auditor General's report, I must first note that the report is an accurate reflection of the state of play as it existed for the 2002 to 2005 period covered.
The Auditor General's team noted our considerable progress made since the last report in 2002 and correctly pointed out some areas where we did not progress as well or as quickly as intended.
The report itself centres on four key issues: recruiting, retention, retention strategies, and the need for clarity on responsibilities and authority with regard to personnel management and what we call personnel generation. Allow me to make a few comments on each of these issues, commencing with recruiting.
It is important to point out that the years covered in this most recent report were pre-force expansion. Indeed, the 2003 to 2005 period was one in which the Canadian Forces was stabilizing after years of downsizing, followed by a short, sharp spike in recruiting and a period of planned, slow increase to achieve a more reasonable trained effective strength. Trained effective strength is basically our measure of Canadian Forces members who are trained to deployment level and who are available for deployment.
In fiscal year 2005-06 we commenced what has become known as the first tranche of force expansion. The first force expansion requirement, the one on which we based the 2005-06 strategic intake plan, required an increase of 5,000 regular force over five years. We achieved 106% of our strategic intake plan last year, effectively increasing the strength of the Canadian Forces by more than 1,000. Over the course of this fiscal year 2005-06, a larger force expansion was announced. This new plan will see the Canadian Forces move to a total paid strength of approximately 75,000 regular force. This strategy will see the Canadian Forces grow in phases, with a first step to reach a total paid strength of 70,000 regular force by fiscal year 2010-11.
I have recently given direction to begin processing applicants using new protocols designed to increase the efficiency of our recruiting system while maintaining Canadian Forces standards. The new protocols are designed to move from the sequential applicant processing system used during previous years of zero growth and/or downsizing to a system of concurrent steps. For example, criminal record and credit checks have been moved forward to occur while verification of new applicant information or electronic verification of service for applicants with prior military service is being conducted.
Advertising plays a huge role in the attraction process. After all, if people do not know we are hiring, they are less likely to apply. On the subject of advertising, I must admit that we do not have scientific performance measurements that show the return on investment for advertising dollars spent. I can say, however, that advertising campaigns do increase awareness, and when campaigns are running there are more individuals showing interest and more applicants. As well, experience shows that about one month after advertising stops, interest and applications decline.
My colleagues in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand report similar results. The Canadian Forces advertising budget was recently increased from $5 million to $15.6 million, which is similar to a comparable allied nation such as Australia.
With respect to retention, we continue to develop and build a retention strategy with a view to enhancing a Canadian Forces culture of retention. Performance measures for this strategy remain elusive because of the wide range of activity included under the retention rubric. From quality of life initiatives to fair compensation and education and training opportunities, to family and member support initiatives, we know that all of these types of initiatives contribute to establishing a two-way commitment that is essential for creating and sustaining a culture of retention.
Over time, we have maintained an overall attrition rate of approximately 6.5%, a rate that is the envy of our allies. If anything, these rates are at the lower limits of the healthy attrition required to ensure force renewal.
To establish conditions for success, the military human resources group has undergone internal reorganization consistent with the Chief of the Defence Staff's principles, in that we have established a command-centric, operationally focused entity, known today as the Military Personnel Command, led by the chief of military personnel, the position I fill. Internally, we have reorganized to focus on specific lines of operations and to separate policy from service delivery. This new structure is more in keeping with the military personnel generation function and provides the command-centric view so necessary for providing clear direction.
:
You're right on time. We thank you very much.
Again, I want to thank you for your opening remarks and I want to thank you for your appearance here today.
Colleagues, we're going to start the first round of questions. Again, I would caution members to keep their questions short, concise, and relevant; we do not need three- to four-minute preambles. We're not here to discuss foreign affairs policy; we're here to discuss the Auditor General's report.
And to the witnesses, we'd like the answers to be—
Mr. Pile.
[Translation]
Good afternoon.
Do you have anything in your statistics on recruiting that would indicate a problem with recruits who are not hired, who are not kept on because of a problem with language, in other words, they are French speaking and have trouble with the English language? Do you have any statistics on that? Do you feel that it is a problem?
I represent Hull—Aylmer, a local riding, which is probably 75% francophone. People often come to my riding office to tell me that they have always wanted to have a career in the armed forces, but that they had a hard time with the exams and the interviews, because they were expected to speak mainly in English. So it was difficult for them. That is the version that I hear. I'm not saying that it is necessarily true, but this is what I am told. I would like to hear what you have to say about the recruiting process.
Is there a problem for a unilingual francophone or for someone who is not fluent in English when it comes to finding employment in Canada's Armed Forces?
:
Good afternoon Ms. Fraser and Mr. Pile.
In reading your report, Ms. Fraser, we see that you noted an improvement over your 2002 findings. However, a little further on, I see that, for various reasons, there has been some difficulty in filling certain specialized positions.
At paragraph 2.17 of your report, you say that shortages exist in some support occupations. These would include ammunition technicians, logistics officers, and doctors. Considering the fact that there are military operations ongoing in Afghanistan, I have some concerns about the lack of qualified personnel in these areas.
You say that a recruiting effort is underway. We want to increase the regular force by 13,000 members. Your report states that, over the past four years, 700 new members have been hired. At that rate, it will take 75 years to recruit another 13,000. I might be mistaken in my calculations, but in terms of a net increase, those targets are way off.
Elsewhere in your report, you mentioned the appointment of an assistant deputy minister-military human resources. In paragraph 2.67, you say that this authority was not being enforced.
Do you ever get the feeling that the recommendations you made relating to our armed forces in 2002 were indeed implemented but ultimately are being ignored? For example, an assistant deputy minister was appointed, but nothing has changed when it comes to recruiting. I see that as a problem. I would like to know how you feel about it.
:
We followed up the recommendations. What we saw in 2002 is very different from what we see today. In 2002, the numbers in the armed forces were declining. I didn't see any plan to at least stabilize the attrition.
When we compare the situation to the recommendations that we made in 2002, the progress is satisfactory because the numbers are no longer dropping and there has been a levelling off. Of course, the situation has changed, because they intend to substantially increase the number of troops.
Essentially, our message is that recruitment can no longer be done in the same way. If we want to increase enrolment, then things have to change. The armed forces agree with that assessment and have taken the necessary steps. As to accountability, Adm. Pile has begun to deal with those issues. An auditor must reserve judgment and wait three or four years before deciding if an action plan has yielded the expected results. And we must not minimize the nature of these tremendous challenges.
As you mentioned, in 2002, we had noted shortages in certain specialized occupations. The situation persists in 2005. There is a rather high turnover in some areas; in fact, it can be as high as 30%. There are very specific reasons why the armed forces must have an action plan. We must not forget that retirement numbers will be increasing and there will be more new recruits as well. The attrition rate is higher for those two groups. I am not saying that all is well and that everything has been taken care of. An action plan is required. This is something that the committee could examine. You could ask for an action plan to deal with certain more specific issues. The admiral might be able to help you with that.
:
I know my time is likely running short, Mr. Chairman, but I talked to one of the recruiting personnel in the reserves a number of years ago about why they don't do an exit interview with people leaving the reserves so they can find out if they may be doing some things wrong and can improve the retention rate. He seemed rather taken aback that the forces would talk to people who are leaving rather than talking to people who are entering.
The reason I raise that issue, Mr. Chairman, is that I know a young person who was in the reserves. Quite frankly, he gave up in disgust because he would show up on a Saturday morning and hang around all day and nobody was giving him any orders. They just sat around and did nothing. He loved it when they were on exercises. He enjoyed it. But most of the time no one knew who was doing what and there was nobody in charge, so he finally said, “Shove it”, and went home.
That has to be not only dispelled, but you have to address these kinds of issues. Are you addressing these kinds of issues?
:
I believe I have the floor, Mr. Williams.
So to suggest that somehow there's some kind of special efficiency built into the word “private”, I would suggest is a little bit misplaced.
First off, I want to congratulate...well, I'll join in with Mr. Williams, seeing that it was a fine way to start, and offer up our support. But unlike them, some of us happen to believe there is plenty of room to be very supportive of our armed services, our individuals, especially the soldiers who are on the front line, and yet be willing to have a political debate about what the mission is. We believe that separation is legitimate and real and allows us to unanimously say there is support for the troops while we perhaps differ on what they've been assigned to do.
Let me just say that I was pleased to see, in the third point, that there's been such satisfactory progress. That's really key for us, taking a look at where you've been and how you've responded to previous concerns that have been raised. I'm very pleased to see this here, and I think it says a lot about the kind of work that's being done. The more I'm involved--and I step in sometimes for my friend on the defence committee--I thoroughly enjoy appreciating and understanding more the professionalism of our services on a firsthand basis, and this just backs that up.
Having said that, I also have a few questions to raise. I'm going to hit a couple of hard questions first. They're not loaded; they are what they are.
Given the fact that we are in the midst of a war, I'd be curious to know whether or not we have an increase in AWOL--assuming we still use that term. I get that from the old movies. But if that's the term, do we have a growing problem with soldiers leaving active service?
:
Excellent. I'm glad to hear that.
The recruiting ads just started up, and there has been some debate about the ads, whether they're a good thing or a bad thing. I want to raise an issue about the fact that you chose one of the areas of the country where there's the greatest unemployment.
I understand that makes sense from a recruiting point of view, but it does beg the question of whether we don't have enough to offer people who have real choices, that they might make this a choice. Do we feel, as a nation, that we're in a position of having to go to people who have fewer choices and therefore our potential success rate may be higher?
:
I have to tell you, overall it's a good news story for the Canadian Forces. Since the early 1960s, after the Korean War, we've been a declining organization in terms of the size. It wasn't until 2005, when we actually went 180 degrees in the other direction, that we were expanding, and we've continued in that direction.
I must admit there was not a lot of investment and attention paid to recruitment. The Canadian Forces could sort of sit back and rely on certain areas of the country to sustain what we needed at that point in time. In particular regions of the country, like Atlantic Canada, the prairies to some extent, Ontario and Quebec because of their size, and pockets of British Columbia were providing, essentially, a production of white males for the armed forces. What we have to pay a lot of attention to now is that it's estimated that by 2046, white Caucasians in this country will be in a minority, and it's extremely important for us to get out and expand the applicant pool to the diverse nature of what this country actually represents demographically.
So regional focus is extremely important to us, and I didn't want that to be—
:
Thank you. I appreciate that, Admiral. It's duly noted.
It's much like our police services, our fire services. If we want people to feel like they really are first-class Canadians, then make sure they're reflected in the way we run the country.
I appreciate very much hearing that.
My colleagues have raised concerns about language issues. I'd like to move to a gender issue. There was a disturbing article in Maclean's in May, and there have been other reports of potential harassment of female recruits and that the dropout rate of women is much higher. In fact, from 1989 to 1996, 32% of women dropped out of the army, both voluntarily and involuntarily, compared to 11.9% for men. And in 1996--I guess those are the latest statistics available for this article--15% of women and 8% of men.... I don't want to get into the details. You know what I'm getting at.
Give me the assurances. I want to hear that these kinds of things are being addressed and that we're making sure our armed forces are as welcoming to women as they are to men.
:
That particular comfort zone changes as we get larger, because we will want to have a little more attrition, and as we continue to expand, we're going to bring in more people. Let's say, for example, that we are going to stay at 70,000, then obviously our recruiting intake has to come down a bit to a sustained level to meet our attrition expectations.
In the past, when we had less than 60,000 people in the regular force, we had a normal attrition rate of about 4,000 to 4,500. So to sustain the Canadian Forces, we needed to take in about 4,000 to 4,500. Right now, our target intake for this year is 6,428 for the end of March. That will allow us to grow by just over 900, and that number will continue to increase as we approach 2010.
:
Yes, welcome. It's always good to see you, Ms. Fraser.
Rear Admiral Pile, I want to begin with page 56 of the Auditor General's report, paragraphs 2.30 to 2.31, where the beginning sentence is, “We expected National Defence to have a policy to attract the required target populations.” Then at the end of paragraph 2.31, it says, “National Defence needs a comprehensive plan to guide and co-ordinate national, regional, and local activities for attracting and recruiting applicants.”
I have to say that during this meeting I've become kind of confused, because in paragraph 2.33 there's a target of 5,000, and then somehow we have a figure of 13,000 mixed in with the Auditor General's statement today. Now it's 64,000 that we're standing at and then 70,000 for 2010. Could you please tell me, is there a comprehensive plan now? To remove all doubt about the figures, is the target 6,000 more boots on the ground by 2010?
:
I have spent some time as well on HMCS
Montreal and HMCS
Halifax, and I was quite impressed. I was impressed by the bilingualism on the ships, although on those two particular ships orders were given in English, but there was plenty of conversation in both languages.
On the way back from certifying the weapons in the Atlantic, the ship was commanded on the bridge by a female officer. There was such a degree of professionalism in every rank. I have to say also that in all three messes I was spoken to very frankly about how they felt about things. However, the officers' mess was much more diplomatic, and we'll save that kind of language for later.
I noticed that there was a good sharing program, and I want to know whether that is going to be able to tide you over in the gaps. There is a sharing program for medics and doctors. In fact, on those two ships, the medics who were being supplied for that manoeuvre were from the army. Is that one of the ways you're trying to fill the gaps? Is that going to be enough?
:
I don't know if I have the statistics resident here today, but Commodore MacIsaac did work as director general for the reserves and cadets. I will pass the microphone to him, with the chair's permission, in a moment.
What I do want to say is that I know for a fact that we get a lot of interest from those young men and women who have served in the three cadet corps, army, navy and air. If you ask any one of us, I'm sure you would probably see a representative ratio of interest among the people who have actually applied to the Canadian Forces and enrolled.
I was an air cadet at a much younger age. and I believe, Commodore MacIsaac, you were too. No?
But I know a lot of my colleagues were in the cadet organizations across the Canadian Forces, where they first got that taste of military life and military lifestyle and some of the things they might be doing later on. It is a great youth organization, and I'm very pleased we have such great support across the country for it.
Do you want to add some of the numbers?
:
Mr. Chairman, there are approximately 1,130 cadet corps across Canada, just about in every area, even in the north. It is a youth program that is specifically identified and run by the Department of National Defence as a corporate structure, with corporate funding. It is a youth program.
The goals, of course, are to build better Canadians, to enhance the feeling of being Canadian, to provide confidence to individuals, and of course to hone some of their skills with respect to public speaking, or whatever. The objective, however, is not specifically to condition people to join the Canadian Forces. And we do not keep that statistic; we never did. But as the Admiral pointed out, a large number of kids, or a good portion of those who start off in cadets, for whatever interest—normally with some association, having a father, a relative, or whomever, who's served in the cadets or military—do go forward. But we have not kept that statistic.
:
The first thing I'd like to see in a recruit is a proud Canadian who supports the values we have in this country and who wants to promote those values across Canada, and abroad as well. Those are the types of qualities you will see in most people who wear this uniform.
The second thing is that we are looking for an educated, well rounded, physically fit, and adventurous individual, because a lot of what we do requires those qualities in order to be successful in the Canadian Forces.
I would just summarize it by saying we look for an individual with those qualities to start with.
There are many opportunities for us, once they join the Canadian Forces, to improve and build upon those qualities so they become whatever they want to be in this organization.
:
I just want to comment that there were some people, now deceased, from Cumberland House who were well-decorated people in the Canadian armed forces. I think they were a long shot from having their grade 10, but I'll have to double-check on that. They were real war heroes from World War II.
I want to zero in on the aboriginal recruitment issue, because I have a very high first nations population in my riding. I was at a powwow a number of years ago, and I think four young aboriginals who were in the armed forces were being recognized at the powwow. Three of them were in the American armed forces. My read on their careers was that they were in it for the long term. I think one of them even had some stripes, so they'd moved up.
I had a discussion with them after the ceremonies, with their parents involved. Some of the comments were interesting. One that came up from one set of parents—it's too bad Mr. Proulx is not here now—was that they actually thought that the language requirements would impair their ability in the Canadian armed forces. That was one of the reasons they'd moved to the American armed forces. They were bilingual, Cree and English, but they weren't francophone.
I'm not quite clear on what the situation is inside the Canadian armed forces in terms of language. If you reach the officer class and so on, would you have to be functionally bilingual? Is that the requirement in the armed forces?
:
I could certainly ask for it.
We are aware that our first nations Canadians are targeted by specifically the United States Marine Corps, I think, and word does get around that there's an opportunity there. But we want to make that opportunity here in Canada, so we intend to start to reach out to all of the aboriginal communities.
I'm not sure if you're aware, but we have diversity outreach offices that started about three years ago. We opened up a diversity outreach office in Surrey, British Columbia, for the Indo-Canadian community there. We subsequently opened an office in Richmond, British Columbia.
:
I would also suggest that if it can be statistically proven that there's a large number in the American armed forces, our armed forces should look at how we can reach those people and try to get them back into our armed forces, where they should have been in the first place. That's just a suggestion on my part.
I know of some professional medical-type people, like dentists, who have gone through these programs. With one in particular, I know the armed forces paid for all of their education to become a dentist. I would have thought it was kind of like a no-cut, one-way, long-term contract in the world of sports, because there were a lot of benefits to the person who was in the program. But my recollection is that a few years after they were out practising dentistry, they bought their way out of this contract. I thought it was a rather low price to be able to get out of the program.
I guess we live in a free country, but it seems to me that if people are going to get their education paid for and get all the benefits of those professional careers, we should make sure they are tied down for a pretty good period of time.
How does the armed forces deal with that issue?
There are often schools located on military bases, but in Moose Jaw, for example, the service is provided off base. The children must travel to Regina to attend Monseigneur de Laval School, whereas in Bagotville, there are schools for those whose first language is English.
So, the way I see it, soldiers whose first language is French are being discriminated against.
:
General Pile, I appreciate you coming.
I appreciate all of you coming today.
You commented on a competitive labour market. Coming from Alberta, and with my other committee being human resources, I can certainly appreciate the challenges you have right now.
Now, taking a look at exhibit 2.4 on page 54 of the Auditor General's report, if you were to draw a trend line from, say, years zero to three and down to the top of, say, years fifteen to twenty, there's a significant space below that trend line in years four to thirteen, and particularly, of course, as identified in years nine to thirteen. If you were to pump those numbers up in years nine to thirteen to meet the trend line, you would have approximately 13,000 more members of the regular force. That is precisely the number the Auditor General says you now have plans to increase to.
Can you comment on what happened between 1993 and 1997 that caused that shortfall? It seems to be that the urgent problems you're having aren't a result of what you're doing now, but they are a result of what happened in that time span.
:
With the youth in Canada today, it's quite an interesting phenomenon we're dealing with. What we've experienced in the Canadian Forces is a higher than normal rate of failure for physical fitness. As you know, to be a member in the Canadian Forces, you must be physically fit.
Instead of having the physical fitness test during the recruitment phase—another way of speeding up the process, by the way—we've taken that physical fitness test and moved it to just prior to basic training for both officers and non-commissioned members. When they do the test on arrival at the training centre, they will take one of two routes. If they pass the test, they will continue on with their basic training. If they fail the test and it's obvious they're going to need some remedial physical fitness training, we have adopted a mentoring approach to these individuals and they have up to ninety days to get themselves physically fit, with our help, with our encouragement, and also an opportunity to catch up on some other areas of training.
One of the unique things we discovered when that was not in place was that after about four to six weeks of basic training, an individual's cardiovascular system would start to improve and catch up. However, at about the nine- to eleven-week point, the frame—the bones, the tendons—would start to break down because of the very sedentary lifestyle adopted by much of our youth. We were having an extraordinary number of injuries, with some of those injuries going unreported because they were so close to the end of their training. When they finally reported them after training, we were in a position where some of them had to undergo significant rehabilitation or release because they were no longer meeting our universality-of-service principles for service in the Canadian Forces.
That's a long-winded answer, but, yes, we're very aware of the fitness issue in the Canadian Forces, and we're working toward developing a lifelong commitment to fitness and health.
Explain to me again, just in very straightforward terms, how it is that we have recruited 20,000 recruits since 2002 but only 700 are effective trained forces.
Is that the right term--ETF? I see a couple of different terms in here, but you know what I mean.
There are 20,000 recruited, but there are only 700 who are actually soldiers, as one would think of them, out on the front lines. Explain to me again why those numbers are so different.
:
On the question of systems, Mr. Chair, I understand the department has three different systems that we looked at, and they all had different data. It wasn't clear to us which ones were the most accurate. Ms. Loschiuk might elaborate further if the committee wishes.
Performance reporting I think is an issue that's probably common to many departments, especially with the increases that have been announced. It will be important I think for parliamentarians to be able to know the progress that's being made on overall numbers, but also, we would suggest, on certain target groups, and on the representation, for example, of visible minorities, women, and aboriginals. Parliamentarians, I would hope, would be interested in getting that kind of tracking going forward.
I don't have any questions.
First of all, I want to thank you, Ms. Fraser, and your staff for being here.
I certainly thank you, Admiral Pile, and your colleagues for being here. It is an honour for us to have you here. We certainly offer you our support, our encouragement, and, on behalf of all Canadians, our thanks.
Before we conclude, do you have any closing remarks, Mrs. Fraser?