National Defence Committee on June 17th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Colleagues, welcome. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are assembled today for a briefing on Operation Impact and Operation Reassurance.

Appearing before us today we have the Honourable Jason Kenney, Minister of National Defence, and witnesses from the Department of National Defence: Chief of the Defence Staff General Thomas Lawson; Major-General Charles Lamarre, designate director of staff, strategic joint staff; and Rear-Admiral Gilles Couturier, director general, international security policy.

Gentlemen, thank you for your presence with us today. Our time with you is unfortunately cut short by proceedings in the House, but we will continue to the assigned hour of 5:30 p.m.

Minister, your opening remarks, please.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Honourable colleagues, it's a pleasure to be here with you today.

As you know, just a few days ago, Prime Minister Harper and I were aboard HMCS Fredericton in the Baltic Sea, observing its participation in NATO's Operation BaltOps, which constitutes part of NATO's assurance measures for our friends and allies in eastern Europe and part of Canada's Operation Reassurance.

It was very encouraging to be aboard the first fully modernized Halifax-class Royal Canadian Navy frigate to be deployed in such a fashion overseas and to see the excellent equipment and kit resulting from this $4-billion modernization of the frigates in our navy, but also to see first-hand the remarkable skills and dedication of our men and women in uniform.

Mr. Chair, speaking of my trip last week, let me start with Canada's contributions in Europe.

In response to Russia's aggression in Ukraine, under the umbrella of Operation Reassurance, the Canadian Armed Forces have, once again, deployed to Europe; training in Central and Eastern Europe to increase interoperability with our allies in the region; and sailing the Mediterranean, Black and Baltic seas as part of NATO assurance measures.

Canada has also provided extensive support to Ukraine in the form of financial assistance, the donation of key military equipment of a non-lethal nature, and later this year, the provision of training to Ukrainian military forces. In fact, I hope to be able to see the initial deployment of some of our trainers in Ukraine first-hand. Of course, this is in addition to diplomatic and political support, represented recently by the Prime Minister's third visit to Ukraine in the last 18 months.

On April 13, we announced this training operation. Our contribution will consist of approximately 200 personnel who will provide training assistance until March 31, 2017, in the fields of individual and unit tactics training, military police skills and procedures, explosive ordnance disposal, flight safety training, combat first aid, and logistics systems modernization.

Through our efforts and those of other allies, we are demonstrating the continuing strength and unity of NATO.

Next week I will travel to Brussels to meet with my NATO counterparts and reaffirm our commitment to the alliance and our solidarity with our eastern European allies, as I did in meetings with the defence ministers of Poland, Italy, and the United Kingdom last week. We will take key decisions on the implementation of practical measures to strengthen the readiness and responsiveness of our alliance, wherever the threat comes from.

Chairman, Russia's aggression in Ukraine has shown NATO's resolve and resiliency, and Russia must understand that the long-standing principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity are non-negotiable. Indeed, I think there's a broad consensus that the best and most effective way to prevent a miscalculation on the part of Mr. Putin's posture of aggression is through a posture of readiness and a message of deterrence.

Mr. Chair, the Canadian Armed Forces are also engaged in battling a significant danger to international stability. Since last year, Canada has played a strong role in the multinational coalition countering the atrocities of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. ISIS has been complicit in absolute atrocities: committed against children, women, men, and religious and ethnic minorities.

ISIS has been complicit in unspeakable atrocities, including the rape and enslavement of countless women and children. It is estimated that 7,000 Yazidi women alone are being kept as sex slaves by ISIS. A recent report by the UN's Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights contains countless reports of abductions, rape, and other forms of sexual and gender-based violence perpetrated against both women and children.

They are particularly targeting religious and ethnic minority communities in Iraq, many of whom are slaughtered.

We have demonstrated our clear determination to confront this menace to Iraqi and regional security. Indeed, last year we sent troops in an advisory capacity, providing assistance to local peshmerga forces. As you know, the Prime Minister and I also had an opportunity to meet our special operations forces troops, who are engaged in an extremely effective advice and training mission near Erbil in northern Iraq.

In addition, approximately 600 personnel were deployed to the region in October to support Joint Task Force-Iraq and the Royal Canadian Air Force operation of three types of aircraft there. The CC-150T Polaris supports coalition air assets in the region with aerial refuelling, and has now delivered over 10,000 pounds of fuel to coalition aircraft. CP-140 Auroras, recently modernized aircraft, are providing critical aerial reconnaissance intelligence to the coalition. Of course, six CF-18 Hornets have just completed their 100th air strike against ISIS. Earlier this month, altogether the Royal Canadian Air Force has conducted over 1,000 sorties.

Recently the Government of Canada extended the mission and expanded it to include air strikes, as you know, against targets in Syria. Although there have been very few of those, in large measure because of limited intelligence on the ground, it is important as a strategic statement we are making. Insofar as ISIS or Daesh does not recognize a border between Iraq and Syria and they are completely interoperable between the two sides of that border, nor should the coalition, in our view.

Mr. Chairman, the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces are providing critical support to the coalition effort. While much has been achieved to stop the advance of ISIS since the start of coalition operations last October, there is more to do. We are committed to this continued effort to support Iraq's security forces, who must be primarily responsible for their own country's security.

The cumulative effects of striking ISIS targets along with training support to Iraqi forces will ultimately allow Iraqi forces to transition into offensive operations. A few offensive operations have been carried out, but Iraqis on the ground must clearly do more.

The weakening of ISIS, whether it's through destroying or disrupting equipment, leadership, or infrastructure, will provide the necessary freedom of movement for Iraqi forces to make more tactical gains. Over the long term, success will be achieved when ISIS capabilities are significantly degraded to the point where they can no longer claim credibly to have caliphate control over large swaths of territory or to pose an international security risk.

That said, Mr. Chairman, obviously in any military campaign there will be regrettable setbacks, as there have been in Ramadi and elsewhere in the region. But fundamentally, in part thanks to the support of coalition forces, ISIS has lost control of approximately 25% to 30% of the territory it controlled last August, representing 13,000 to 17,000 square kilometres.

This will require continued persistence. As we know, some of our allies, including the United States, are calibrating somewhat their approach with additional training resources. We will observe that with interest, but we are committed to the current level of operations as defined in the motion that was tabled and supported by the House of Commons recently.

I think their efforts I have outlined today—in Operation Reassurance and Operation Impact—are a great example of Canada's and our forces' effectiveness.

I would be delighted to take any questions. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Thank you, Minister Kenney.

We will proceed to our first round of questions with seven-minute segments, beginning with Ms. Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General Lawson, in your recent interview with the media, you dumbed down the problem of sexual harassment in the military to one of biology. Well, your comment dumbed down the position of Chief of the Defence Staff.

What is it going to take to bring the culture of the military into the 21st century?

[General Thomas Lawson, Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I must make it entirely clear that sexual misconduct of any kind in the military is absolutely unacceptable. There is nothing that I could say or would ever say that would indicate it's acceptable. In my comments yesterday, I stand by the apology, for they were an introduction to comments that make it clear that we are committed from the very top—myself, my key generals, commodores, flag officers, chief petty officers, chief warrant officers—right through the chain of command to our aviators, sailors, and soldiers, to rid the Canadian Armed Forces of this problem.

What is probably most damaging about my opening comments yesterday is that they obscure the work going on in the military right now on this. It obscures the fact that we have surveys that indicate our men and women in uniform have never been so confident in the sanctity, the safety, and the satisfaction with the workplace these days. But that doesn't matter. We still have an issue with sexual misconduct.

We had an internal review. We acted on it. We brought in Madam Deschamps to carry out an external review, from which she has come up with 10 recommendations, all of which we will meet the intent of. I have raised, under Lieutenant-General Whitecross, a team of 25 men and women to work on this. This work is all under way now.

I didn't ask Madam Deschamps whether we were better than we were 10 years ago. We have all kinds of indications, including retention figures with our women, which are actually better than with our men, that indicate we are much better. But that doesn't matter; we have a problem.

I didn't ask her to look backwards. I asked her to look at where we are today and how we can get better. She's come back with 10 points, all of which we will be actioning.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Minister, media reports have questioned your statements pertaining to a March 2015 incident, in which the HMCS Fredericton was flown over by Russian aircraft, suggesting the incident didn't occur. Can you speak to what information the Canadian Armed Forces have about this incident?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Yes.

There were some completely inaccurate media reports, Chairman, in this respect. In order to help clarify those inaccurate reports, I would be happy to table with the committee a declassified version of the incident report that came to us from the commander of the Fredericton—or FRE—who explained that:

...during an underway replenishment at sea, two Russian warplanes closed FRE's position and operated in airspace in the vicinity of FRE for approximately 30 minutes. The aircraft closed FRE's position one at a time at medium altitude conducting manoeuvres to demonstrate they were not carrying weapons. Thereafter, the aircraft continued to operate in the vicinity of FRE, flying at low and medium altitudes at distances that ranged from “over top” to several miles from FRE.

I'd be happy to table this. In fact, while I was aboard Fredericton last week with the Prime Minister, the commander and his crew showed us a recording of their radar-tracking of the Russian aircraft flying around and over the vessel in the Black Sea. There have in fact been several such instances of interaction with Russian aircraft, both in the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea, including most recently last week, I understand, with five such incidents in the Black Sea and five in the Baltic Sea.

I do want to underscore what I said on this matter when I was first questioned about it, I believe, in March, which is that at no time have our RCN personnel felt that the Russian aerial reconnaissance missions around and over their vessels constituted a threat. The Russian aircraft appeared to have clearly demonstrated they were not carrying weapons. I have never suggested, nor would I, that this poses a threat, but it does demonstrate that the Russian military is aware of our presence as part of the NATO assurance measures, which is the entire point of our deployment.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Minister, in March when our Parliament voted to extend and expand Operation Impact into Syria, there appeared to be some miscommunication surrounding the use of precision-guided munitions by our coalition partners. Could you please clarify how and what information was provided by the Canadian Armed Forces to the Minister of National Defence?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

In this respect, Mr. Chairman, I had been advised that the Royal Canadian Air Force CF-18 Hornets carried a kind of precision-guided munition that only the United States Air Force was carrying into missions in Syria. I reflected in my public comments the advice I'd received.

I regret that we subsequently learned, I was subsequently briefed, that the information was not accurate, that there were at least some of the Middle Eastern Arab air forces carrying dynamic precision-guided munitions on their sorties over ISIL targets in Syria. I regret that I had misinformed the House, and I have apologized for that.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

What measures have been taken to ensure that the forces the Canadian military will be training in Ukraine will be of proper quality to receive our training, and that it won't be used against our forces or the Ukrainian population in any way?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Chairman, the units of the Ukrainian military that will be trained at the Yavoriv training centre jointly by Canadian and American trainers, starting this summer and fall, will initially be national guard units and then eventually, we believe, Ukrainian army regular units of a battalion size during each rotation. They will be selected and screened by the Ukrainian government, and both the American and Canadian militaries will also be screening those referred to us for the training units to ensure that they are not proponents of extremist ideologies.

I think you may be referring to one media report. A militia group, I gather, is being incorporated into the Ukrainian national guard, one portion of which, I gather, one company's element of which, has extremist views. We will not train those individuals. We have been absolutely clear about that, as has the United States and the Ukrainian military. Let me be uncategorical about this: we will not be involved in training that unit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

That's time, Ms. Gallant.

Mr. Harris, please, you have seven minutes.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, for joining us.

I have to say, General Lawson, that you should get the medal for bravery for showing up today, after yesterday's incidents in the media.

But I do want to follow up on that, General, because we had a statement from Madam Justice Deschamps in her report, which I will read to you. The report says that the military is rife with discrimination, and abuse towards women starts from their first days in uniform while commanders write it off as part of life in the armed forces. Her conclusion is that “there is an undeniable problem of sexual harassment and sexual assault” in the Canadian Armed Forces, “which requires direct and sustained action”.

Do you agree with that statement in light of your comments last night, and in light of the fact that your own internal report, completed about a year ago, said there was nothing wrong with the policies and procedures in the Canadian Armed Forces?

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

First, Mr. Chair, I do agree that we do have a problem that needs to be addressed.

I would take issue with the characterization of my internal study, which did say that policies were in place; however, it indicated that reporting was likely not at a level that we needed and various other issues that led me to then commission the report that was carried out by Madam Deschamps. Her number one recommendation is indeed that we have a problem that we need to deal with and to accept that we have a problem at the highest levels, and we have done that, Mr. Chair.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

General, with regard to your statement last night, I don't know if what you issued would be characterized as an apology, although it has been called that. You recognized that it was an awkward statement, but the suggestion that the problem of sexual assault and sexual harassment in the army is something of a biological imperative, that men can't help themselves, seems to be archaic, at best.

Would you not agree that this kind of attitude, if it were pervasive in the military—particularly at the senior command level, like yourself—would in fact contribute to that problem, or even covertly excuse it?

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

I agree, Mr. Chair, that there can be no excuse for sexual misconduct. The nature of my comments yesterday came from a question saying, here in 2015, how can it be that the Canadian Armed Forces are dealing with sexual misconduct in view of the fact that this is a societal problem that we see across academic institutions, police forces, and broadcast, perhaps, even on the Hill itself? It was an unhelpful conjecture on my part as to what might motivate someone in a heinous way to believe that they could press themselves on someone else. It was not helpful, and it is for that reason that I apologize for that opening. The remainder of the remarks were that this is unacceptable and we are committed to addressing it.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Kenney, in light of the report of Madam Deschamps and certainly the comments, even though he is taking them back today and apologizing for them, many Canadians feel that the military cannot solve its own problem. It seems to be that you, in your department, and your government, are implicitly taking the attitude that this is the military's problem, and that the military can go ahead and solve it.

Are you and your government prepared to take responsibility to ensure that women or the LGBT individuals who have also been identified and who joined the military are going to be safeguarded, safe, and in a safe place if they join the military? Are you going to take responsibility for that and are you and your government going to follow up on an ongoing basis to ensure that this is happening?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Yes and yes.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

That's a commitment I will assure you that this side of the House and many Canadians will want to follow up on, on a regular basis.

If I may, I will move to a couple of incidents and one recent one in particular. Who gave the authorization to risk the Canadian Forces members, officials, and the Prime Minister himself to go to the front lines of the activity and mission in Iraq, where the Prime Minister had said that Canadian Forces members would not be, for the sake of a photo op with no operational or public purposes, a stunt for publicity purposes?

Was that authorized by you, Minister Kenney, or by you, General Lawson? It seems to me that the additional special forces people who were brought there, as well as the officials who were there, along with the Prime Minister himself, would have been placed in a dangerous situation on the front lines where we know there have been incidents of return fire and fire. That seems to me to be reckless. It seems to have been done solely for the purpose of a photo op.

Why would you, Minister, or you, General Lawson, authorize that or did the authorization come from somewhere else?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence authorize their own movements. In terms of the additional special operations forces who are deployed there, they were there as a close personal protection unit, which is one of the functions for which they are trained. It's part of their mandate.

The Prime Minister and I, for example, also visited the two Canadian air force bases out of which we are operating in Kuwait and would normally, going on a military visit of that nature to that region, have soft protection as a part of close personal protection. That would be the normal protocol, I believe. As I understand it, we were not, as you characterized it, Mr. Harris, “on the front line”. The forward line of the Kurdish peshmerga troops was ahead of us. We thought it was important, however, that we, as the Government of Canada, demonstrate our support for both our forces operating in the region and our Kurdish allies, and to demonstrate a message of resolve. I believe it was well appreciated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

You are out of time, Mr. Harris.

You're just short of your seven minutes but it's—

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

In light of the previous questioner, who asked a short question and got a long question and a long answer—

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

A very short question and answer will be allowed.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Chairman, thank you.

I'll just read some headlines: “Canada and the West losing war against ISIS”, “ISIS poses bigger threat after nearly a year of coalition bombing”, and “Islamist group is now a more immediate risk to more people, larger centres than ever”.

Does Canada have any independent strategy in terms of understanding what's happening on the ground in Iraq with the three separate forces at work—the Shiites, the Sunni, and the Kurds—without any diplomatic presence other than one liaison officer in Iraq, in Bagdad, and nothing in Syria and nothing in Iran? Do we have an independent strategy? Are we just tagging along?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

We do not have.... The answer is “neither”. It's a classic leading question, as you'll know, counsel.