National Defence Committee on Jan. 29th, 2015

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

Just to go back to your discussion about what's a combat role and what isn't, we have seen a direct response from the American Department of Defense with U.S. advisers being removed from actual or expected combat situations as part of our advise and assist mission in Iraq. They're designed to ensure they are not inadvertently put into combat situations and the U.S. trainers have not accompanied Kurdish and/or Iraqi troops to the front lines as part of their effort to advise and assist.

I suppose one might say the first time they were engaged in a firefight at the front lines may have been inadvertent, but we have continued to put these Canadian troops in the front lines in the role of tactical air operators, exposing them to danger again and again. That seems to be inconsistent with not only what I believe to be the mandate given here but also with what other coalition partners and the coalition leader of the United States is doing. Why are we outliers on that front?

[The Co-Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have, but I will ask for a quick response.

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What I think we're seeing is an evolution in the mission that has our special operations troops, together with the Iraqi security force that we're helping, the peshmerga, becoming very effective. About 80% of the time we're back in the classrooms with them. The way that evolution we spoke about has happened is that they are now through those basic skills, which the minister outlined that they've been involved in, and are looking at the lay of the land with an idea of putting pressure on ISIL.

We in no way put our special operations troops anywhere near where we believe they will come under fire. That's why, even though they spent what's been referred to as 20% of the time up forward, there have only been three indications of fire that came to bear. So although the risk is low, and we continue to think it's low in that role, it is not zero.

[The Co-Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're going to turn to Mr. Anderson for seven minutes.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the gentlemen for being with us here today.

Canada has a reputation that is not just for stepping up militarily but also, probably even more so, on the humanitarian front. Mr. Baird, I'd just like to have you comment on Canada's role in providing humanitarian assistance in Iraq. How are we doing? What commitments have we made to this point?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you.

As of today, our total humanitarian assistance to Iraq has amounted to about $67.4 million. This makes us the fourth-largest contributor of aid to the humanitarian crisis since the beginning of 2014. I can speak to some of those highlights.

Just this month Minister Paradis announced $40 million, and $10 million of that went to the World Food Programme to help provide food assistance to about 1.5 million people. I believe we are the second-largest contributor to the World Food Programme. The United Nations World Food Programme does excellent work.

We have given $9 million to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to help about 1.3 million displaced people in accessing legal assistance, blankets, warm clothing, heaters, and 50,000 emergency shelters. We have provided $5 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross for safe water, sanitation, food assistance, financial assistance to some 77,000 people, and supporting three hospitals and nine health centres.

In October Minister Paradis announced $8 million to UNICEF. This is to support the No Lost Generation initiative in Iraq. This initiative will reach as many as 200,000 at-risk children in Iraq and will focus on education in emergencies, child protection, and social cohesion. In September I announced $5 million to provide emergency shelter and emergency relief supplies to the people of northern Iraq and $2 million for urgent health care services to support the victims.

Other humanitarian assistance in 2014 included $7.4 million in humanitarian assistance to Iraq; $6.5 million was provided in March in response to the yearly humanitarian appeals, and some $900,000 to various Canadian NGOs and the Canadian Red Cross through pre-approved rapid response drawdown funds, including the costs of deploying those supplies to Iraq. This is obviously a tremendously important part of the response. There is no doubt though that while the humanitarian assistance we're giving is important, we have seen humanitarian aid workers summarily executed by the terrorists. So I think the biggest humanitarian assistance we can provide is to stop the expansion of ISIL into new areas where more people would have to flee their barbaric practices and so that far fewer people have to live under their barbaric regime.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

We know the disruption has been massive for a lot of people and in spite of the international efforts the humanitarian situation is still desperate in many areas. At the foreign affairs committee we've heard that people obviously would sooner stay in their homes or be able to return to their homes in peace, but the unfortunate reality is that a lot of people are going to have to be resettled; the United Nations commission has said around 100,000.

Can you comment on Canada's plans to accept Iraqi and Syrian refugees and where we are on that?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I think the Minister of Immigration has spoken to these issues. We have accepted 10%, about 10,000. That is tremendously important. Many people who have been displaced would like to stay in the region. When I visited one refugee camp in northern Iraq along with some of our colleagues, I met a Christian family who literally in less than five minutes had to flee their homes to save their lives. One of their neighbours had ratted them out to the terrorists. They want to stay in the region. They don't want to return to Mosul, but they would be quite happy and prefer to resettle in Erbil. So those will be some of the initiatives that Canada will have to explore as well.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

You mentioned the persecution and displacement of religious minorities. I'd like to have you address that a little because that has probably been one of the most visible consequences of ISIL and their activities in the area. We've established the Office of Religious Freedom to address some of these issues, and I'm just wondering if you could talk about what the Office of Religious Freedom has been doing and what it is committed to in the area, to deal with the present situation but also to deal with that fifth component you talked about—delegitimizing the message that ISIL seems to have been sharing with us.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

We've provided to the Office of Religious Freedom some $800,000 to assist religious minorities. One of the key elements in the values that we promote abroad in the department under this government is religious freedom. That, in many ways, exemplifies the pluralism that we have built in Canada, where people of different faiths can live in peace and harmony and build a strong country together.

This is one of the real breakdowns that we see in Iraq, where you have a central government that has not governed for all Iraqis in the past. They've made significant progress in recent months. A lot more work remains to be done, but I think they're going in the right direction.

The reports of Christians, Yazidis, and Shia being summarily executed in large numbers horrified the world. This is I think one of the important areas where Canada's voice and our action can play a constructive role. That's why we established the Office of Religious Freedom.

I think the same could be said within Syria, where we had real concerns a number of years ago whether a new government represented by the opposition, should Assad fall, would govern for the whole country and govern in a pluralist way. We initially had concerns that they might single out and target religious minorities, you know, and with large parts of the opposition we now have a concern that religious minorities could face slaughter, so this is a tremendously important issue for us. This is why Canada was one of the only major western countries that didn't recognize the Syrian opposition as the sole and legitimate representative of the Syrian people.

Obviously, those same concerns unfortunately are manifesting themselves with ISIL in Iraq. Religious freedom is important. Pluralism is, I think, a tremendous gift that Canada can promote around the world.

[The Co-Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much. That's all the time.

We're going to complete the first round with you, Mr. Garneau, sir, for seven minutes.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

Let me say very clearly that we in the Liberal Party support entirely what our special forces are doing and have been doing for the past five months. They're helping to prepare the peshmerga to defeat ISIS. We're in their debt for that. We supported their involvement, in fact, from the beginning, starting with the 30-day deployment that was announced last September.

But that is not the issue for us today. It's about the government levelling with Canadians about what's actually going on, and this government has failed to do that. Remember that it was this government that decided to make public what the special forces were doing, so it opened that door.

My first question is for the Minister of National Defence.

Minister, the Prime Minister told the House of Commons that our special forces role was quite precise. He said, “It is to advise and to assist. It is not to accompany.” This week, you said that you were “not sure we could train troops without accompanying them.” So who's right? You or the PM?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

We have been very clear that we are not in a combat mission, and the Prime Minister and all of the government have been very, very clear. We have taken on an advise and assist role, and as you heard from the Chief of the Defence Staff a few minutes ago, that's completely consistent with what we're doing in all our activities.

I'm pleased that you've pointed out as well how transparent and accountable we have been. This is the second appearance for me and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. You've had four technical briefings in the month of January so far, so we believe in making sure Canadians know, because we believe that Canadians support what we are doing in that part of the world and that they're very proud, as we are, of our men and women in uniform and our armed forces.

We are pleased to talk about this, to appear before the committee, because we can't thank our armed forces enough for what they are doing and what they have done. Yes, they are assisting and they are advising, and you've heard about that, and the air strikes that are coming out of Kuwait are absolutely a vital part of the coalition's efforts to succeed in this area.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Minister, if I may...?

It's no surprise that committee members and the public are confused. Words such as “advise”, “assist” and “accompany” are being used in a military context.

Could you enlighten the committee by telling us exactly what those words mean?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Well, I can give you some examples. You've heard exactly what we are doing. We have been providing them everything from advice with respect to medical care, training, the operation of weapons, that type of thing, and helping them to get the job done that they have to do. And we have been doing this consistently. They are the ones that are going to be, and are, in the combat mode, so they are the ones that need the assistance and advice. That's exactly what we have been doing.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

With all due respect, I don't think you've clarified the situation.

General Lawson, I have a question for you. You talked about combat operations. I'm going to read you something directly from DND's defence terminology bank. It says that a “combat operation” is:

A military operation where the use or threatened use of force, including lethal force, is essential to impose will on an armed opponent or to accomplish a mission. The actual level of force used will be in accordance with specified rules of engagement.

Is this not what we're doing in Iraq?

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, it is not. Under the advise and assist role, we are able to provide the peshmerga the ability to heighten the accuracy of the weapons they are calling in for their combat role—not our combat role, but their combat role.

What we would require to be in combat would be this term “accompany”, and you are right to mention that the word “accompany” in everyday language is quite clear; it means “to be with”. But in military terms—as you're quoting doctrine—it has a very clear other meaning, and that is that you are now up front with the troops that you have been assigned to, with your weapons being used to compel the enemy. So there is no confusion with our special operators on that “accompany” role.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Thank you.

Minister Nicholson, when did Canadian forces begin accompanying Iraqi and Kurdish forces on the front line? What was the date that Canadian forces began painting targets?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Chairman, this has been an evolutionary process, working with them right from the start. We have been there over the last three to four months working with them, assisting them with their strategic and tactical planning, particularly when it comes to integrating the air support provided by the international coalition.

One of the points that has been made here is that we are making progress from when we first landed there. They have made progress in pushing back ISIL and helping to contain ISIL in Iraq, with the support of our air strikes. But this has been an evolutionary process because this has been a success; they're moving forward. That's why we are very proud and pleased with what they've been doing.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Minister, I was hoping for an initial date.

Last Friday you said that the government didn't put limits on our special forces' ability to advise and assist the Iraqis. Does that mean that cabinet did not approve rules of engagement for their mission, or that the approved rules had no limitations as to what they could engage in?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Garneau, what they can do is everything necessary to protect themselves if they are fired upon. Their assist and advise mission is very clear.

With respect to the fact that there were a number of occasions when they were fired on, they have the complete right, as Canadians would expect, to fire back in self-defence. We have been very clear on that. This is not a combat mission, but if you fire on Canadian forces, whether it's here, in Iraq or indeed anywhere around the world, you can expect Canadian forces to fire back. That's completely consistent with the rules of engagement and international warfare and common sense. We are not going to be there and not take every effort to protect ourselves, which is exactly what they have done.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Well, I don't think anybody would disagree with somebody defending themselves.

[The Co-Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

That's your time, Mr. Garneau.

Thank you, Minister.

We'll move now to the second round of questioning, five-minute segments, beginning with Mr. Norlock.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to start my questioning with Mr. Baird, and there's a reason for this.

But before I do, I find this disheartening, having worn a uniform for 30 years. Here we have a small contingent of Canadian soldiers whom we've asked to assist in Iraq, the people fighting for the freedom of Iraqis, the people who are fighting to be able to protect Canadians. Ultimately that's why we're there. That's going to be the direction. Just as we're becoming successful, Her Majesty's third party and loyal opposition seem to want to throw a damper on things when we're beginning to see some success. I just find that and I believe most Canadians find that very strange, when we should be there supporting our men and women when they're doing what we asked. I just don't think that we....

The reason my question is going to be to Minister Baird is that his constituency is in the city of Ottawa. In October the city of Ottawa saw some very terrible things happen. Two people in this country, whose only sin was to wear the uniform of a Canadian soldier, were killed. These very halls here were invaded by somebody who was infected by the warped Islamic belief of a very few. We know in this country that many people like this, some of these extremists, are being funded by people like ISIL. The reason we are there is to protect our own citizens here, which is the most important thing a member of Parliament has to do, and that's the health and safety of our citizens.

I wonder, Minister Baird, if you can talk about that, how it affects the average Canadian, why they appreciate what their government and more especially the sacrifice of our men and women—very few of them—are doing in Iraq right now, and why they need our unequivocal support.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I often speak of the threat we face and the threat the civilized world faces from terrorism. I look at the experience of my grandfather who left Canada in 1943. He was in the war for two years and then stayed in the Canadian Forces for 25 years after that. The great struggles of his generation were fascism and then communism.

In the 21st century the great struggle of our generation is terrorism, and this most recent example with ISIL probably represents the most barbaric, evil form of it we have seen. This requires us to be up to the challenge.

I believe one of the most important responsibilities a Parliament has is to keep Canadians safe. That's why we're in Kuwait on a combat mission with the air force. We're advising and assisting with the 69 men and women providing help there. We're working on the financing with Bahrain. We're working on a counternarrative, and we're working on humanitarian aid because Canadians expect their government to do its share of the heavy lifting. But we're not simply there to hand out warm blankets, when we're facing this great struggle. I think Canadians can be tremendously proud of the mission our men and women in uniform are taking on, on behalf of all Canadians.

But unfortunately, I don't think it will end in Iraq. We saw, whether it was the Air India bombing or the terrorist incident we had just outside these halls that we need to be strong and to have 21st century tools to take this fight to the people who are fundamentally at war with modernity and our way of life. I can tell you when I'm at international summits and meetings people look at Canada as a country that won't get up from the table when the cheque is presented. We're up to the challenge and we do our share of the heavy lifting. Canadians can be very proud of that.