National Defence Committee on Dec. 6th, 2018

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

That happened last year. We indicated that.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I wasn't aware of that. I thought we still had the one Aurora there.

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

We replaced those two aircrafts with the two CC-130J Hercules aircraft at the request of the coalition.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Was that accepted by the coalition itself? Did they have to replace that aerial surveillance capability with aircraft from other nations?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

Indeed, the force generation for the coalition is a constant iterative effort that must evolve with the nature of the operations on the ground. When we withdrew those aircraft, the requirement for deliberate targeting had ceased to exist in terms of the need for those aircraft. Deliberate targeting demanding a long cycle of collection was less critical at that time. The ability to move troops, equipment and materiel around the theatre with our Hercules became more of a requirement, so we did it, in consultation with the coalition and in full agreement.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Other coalition partners still maintain fighter and bomber capabilities in the region. Are they still being deployed in Iraq in particular, or are they just used in the Syrian region now?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

There are still assets available to coalition command to use in Iraq and Syria. I can't tell you today what their rate of usage is, but it has decreased considerably since the transition.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

You mentioned that when we first went over we were working almost exclusively with the Kurdish peshmerga. The Kurdistan Regional Government said that our air assets, including our CF-18s, were saving lives, and they always appreciated the work we did in training up the peshmerga in their stand against ISIS. They were key in the liberation of Mosul.

Can you tell us what we're doing with the peshmerga today, if anything at all?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

We are not doing the train, advise and assist mission with the peshmerga anymore. We are conducting security operations with Kurdish forces within the area defined as Kurdistan.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Are any of the coalition partners helping out the peshmerga, or are they being left on their own?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

Yes, they are.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

They are getting help?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

Yes, sir.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

We were going to supply a cache of lethal weapons to the peshmerga, which were supposed to be delivered just after the referendum on their own declaration of independence took place. As I understand according to a question we had on an Order Paper, those weapons are still sitting in storage in both Jordan and Montreal.

What plan do you have for that cache of weapons? Are they going to be gifted to somebody else—like Ukraine—or are they going to be used by the Canadian Armed Forces themselves?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

They won't be used by the Canadian Armed Forces. There has been no decision or military advice provided on my part as to where those weapons should end up. I think we have the capability and the doctrine, I would say, that where we are involved in conflict and where it is appropriate to transfer lethal aid.... We don't really distinguish between lethal and non-lethal aid in Canada. It's a bit of an Americanism, to tell you the truth. However, that assistance to any partner force remains possible. We have no plans to do so with anybody at this juncture.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

You mentioned briefly that we do have special operation forces on the ground. Can you go into more detail as to exactly what their role is on the ground? I know some of it is training, and advise, assist and accompany security forces. Are they also providing that close security capability for our other troops at the role 2 hospital, for example, or at NATO headquarters or the NATO mission in Baghdad?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

No, they are not providing armed security, other than protecting themselves whenever they move around. There's no stand-alone force protection role other than what everybody does all the time to defend themselves.

I can't go into the specifics, sir, but they conduct operations to support and assist Iraqi security forces in ensuring that any pockets of ISIL or Daesh do not re-emerge. It's the connection of intelligence to activity. Then, where necessary, if the Iraqi security forces need to act, whether it's to conduct a detention operation, to seize or arrest someone, or to attack, they're supported in terms of their planning of those operations.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you.

MP Blaney.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

First of all, thank you so much for being here with us today.

I would like to follow up on what my colleague said about wishing our members out there all the very best. I also would like to add that we're incredibly proud, and we appreciate not only them but their families and the sacrifice they make for their work.

I want to say that I also appreciate what you said in the last bit of your report, about our deployed men and women are doing what they do best: demonstrating their professionalism, leadership, and operational excellence in challenging areas of operations.

I know in the work that I do with the NATO Parliamentary Association, every country has nothing but praise for the men and women in uniform from Canada. I just think we should all be incredibly proud of that in this country.

As the person who has the honour of representing CFB Comox 19 Wing, I appreciate also that you talked in your report about the amazing work that the Canadian Air Force has been doing in Operation Impact. As a member who represents not only the base but the many veterans who retire in the Comox region, I certainly get a lot of calls and questions about the work that's being done, so I am grateful that you are here today.

In your report you mentioned that Daesh has lost over 98% of the territory it once held. I know that some Canadians feel very strongly that the reason the Canadian troops were there was to do that work. They're asking me questions about why we're still there. I think you did a little bit of that in the report, but could you expand on what has been going on more recently?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

Thank you for the question.

It's important and I think many people would recognize the challenge from going from winning the battles and the kinetic war to securing the peace. I think the west has been somewhat criticized on different operations where we now find ourselves in that uncomfortable space between having won the clear military fight—or largely won. It's not completely won at this juncture. How do you best set conditions for peaceful resolution when the reasons underpinning the fighting in the first place had much to do with what was going on in society, in government and so on?

There is a role for the military to play in setting conditions so that effective and legitimate governance can re-emerge, and where the security sector can be reformed in such a way as to be credible to their people and serve as a useful instrument for their government in terms of the defence of their territory.

If the question is “Why are we still there?” or “What ought we be doing going forward?”, I would boil the answer down to this: We've learned lessons through a number of conflicts, including Iraq. Having won part of the challenge, one cannot easily walk away without having secured long-term peace and security, for which there is a military role but not an exclusive military role.

I suspect that many people may feel we are in this uncomfortable space between the two as we now work with the Iraqi government. They go through their elections. There are all sorts of social, political and economic things that must happen in that country to weave together the fabric of their society. We remain there to support them as they try to rebuild their defence and security sector. We also provide a measure of security. That's really how this materializes.

If I may, we also have to be ready for reversals. The bad guys always get a vote, so there isn't an element here.... It's not done and over. I think many people are accustomed to the nature of war in the past. It was over, a truce was declared or someone surrendered. Then a political process took place, new governments emerged and everything was won and set.

We're not dealing with that kind of a conflict. Therefore, we must have different answers from perhaps what we're accustomed to in terms of how to secure the peace.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

You said in your report that there were multiple teams working to build resilience and enable long-term security and stability, which is basically what you've just talked about.

Could you give us a bit of detail about how that's actually happening on the ground?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

It's a whole-of-government effort. To do justice to this, I would simply say that other elements of Canadian and international power beyond the military are being employed, where we are financing activities that seek to re-establish neighbourhoods and care for the people who have been displaced.

We have police on the ground—RCMP and others—to try to help them re-establish an effective police force. Remember, this country has been ravaged.

We have a diplomatic mission there that continues to engage.

The military part gets quite practical, making certain that they have good skills in mine clearance and the removal of explosive devices and remnants of war, so that as families move back into neighbourhoods, they can call on their own security forces to help them re-establish some sort of safety.

This goes all the way through to providing the best support we can, in terms of re-establishing their professionalism. They have been dealing with an emergency, so they have recruited rapidly, trained rapidly and engaged as best they could against an enemy of their state. Now they have to rebuild their state, including the institutions that we take for granted. A professional, loyal and fully trained armed forces that is ready to do the bidding of their government is something they're working towards.

They've increased in professionalism, they've increased in capability and they've done a very good job dealing with the clear and present danger: the threat of Daesh. Now they want to professionalize and return to a state of peace, with credible armed forces.

I see the white flag.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

That's okay. Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I'm not surrendering.

Thank you, General.

I'm going to give the floor to MP Robillard.