National Defence Committee on Dec. 6th, 2018

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

I'm going to go quickly. You've asked a lot there, and all of what you just asked are things I am deeply engaged in. I would love to give you a more fulsome answer, and perhaps we can do it another time.

What I will say is, number one, our recruitment is going well. We have experienced net growth in the armed forces since 2015, and we are now just shy of 600 short of our pay ceiling. Before, we've been some thousands short. Recruiting is going well and retention is going better, but we're not where we want to be, because we have to grow. We have a mandate to grow the armed forces, and there is a cadence of growth that we must achieve.

My job is to ensure, on a strategic horizon, that the armed forces is fit and that it's the correct instrument for the Government of Canada for the conflicts that will come in the future. The armed forces is as it is today. My team and I manage as best we can dealing with the problems of today as they relate to the changes we must undertake.

We must attract and recruit from a broader segment of Canadian society. We want diversity not simply for the sake of diversity. We want to be able to take full advantage in a competitive world where we want the best, whether it's physical, mental or any other skill sets that you possess. We want to select from the best that Canadians have to offer to be able to field that in the conflicts of the future. I spend an awful lot of my time working on building the conditions, setting the conditions for an armed forces that will acquit itself well in the future, in the 20- to 50-year horizon. To attract and appeal to a wider segment of the Canadian population—the entire Canadian population—is very much what this is about.

We must be able to fight the fights that will come in the future. That means a changing skill set. I've said this before. It's not simply going to be the old style of military on military. We must be competent in cyberspace. We must be competent in the information space. We must be competent in all manner of technical capacity to prevail in the future. It's about being credible as a combat force in the future.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you, General. I believe we have you until the bottom of the hour, and I have four MPs: Spengemann, Bezan, Fisher and Gallant. We're able to give each of you five minutes.

I'll start off with MP Spengemann for five minutes, please.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chair, thank you very much.

General Vance, it's great to be with you. Thank you for your service and, through you, I'd like to thank all members of the Canadian Forces for their tremendous work and service.

Operation Impact is a mission with which this committee has been seized from the outset of this parliamentary mandate. Iraq is a case that's near and dear to my heart, having had the chance to serve for just under seven years with the political wing of the U.N. mission there. One of the issues that we were seized with at the time was the question of the status of Kirkuk in northern Iraq. As we all know, we have very strong relationships to Iraq's north, commercial, cultural and otherwise.

I'm wondering if you can give us your sense of how the relationship between the federal government of Iraq and the Kurdistan region is currently evolving. Do you see any risk points? At one point, there was heightened risk of military tensions between the federal centre and the Kurdistan region. I think that's substantially diminished, but I'd like to hear your views on that.

Then, if you could cast a regional lens on that from a military security perspective, where do you see the Kurdish nation and its aspirations and plans in 2018?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

I think I'd just start by saying that it would be highly inappropriate for me to comment on the details of what I think the Iraqi government should do or what postures they should take with any of their ethnic minorities in their country.

I can say, though, that I think the secret to success that we've seen elsewhere in the world is to be inclusive and respectful of ethnic minorities. I'm a simple infantry soldier. “Run a good country” is easy to say but difficult to do, and I understand that. I am in no way qualified to offer you the ins and outs. I am heartened by the fact that the military confrontation that seemed to many was going to materialize around Kirkuk did not happen, because there was an internal de-escalation function that occurred inside Iraq, in Kurdistan. That's a very good sign.

I think now it's the detail of how you manage this federation, this confederation, this collection of peoples and have appropriate access to oil or the riches of their country. How is that managed? It's not for me to say and not for me to provide guidance on, but what we are committed to is ensuring that it's done in as peaceful and secure an environment as possible, free from the threat of a resurgent or uncontrollable ISIL element.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I'd like to thank you for expressing those sentiments and putting them on the record. I think they're echoed widely by allied forces and the international community.

My second question relates to counterterrorism operations in Iraq, as we've been engaged in a train and assist role. It's a question of regional dimensions of terrorist entities, like ISIS. In other words, if one conducts operations in country X, there's a high risk of terrorist elements being displaced into other regions. We've heard it with respect to Libya and then the G5 Sahel.

From a Canadian military perspective, can you give us your views on what that implies, in terms of strategic planning for operations in the Middle East?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

If I may say, it's a great question. In fact, it's not just the Middle East. It's a global phenomenon, so we are militarily and certainly at the political level—Mr. Bezan mentioned the discussions going on today at Meech Lake—increasingly concerned about the spread of the phenomenon and being able to put in place and militarily appropriately support, because it's not a military lead, those agencies and governments seized with countering the violent extremist threat that's emerging around the world.

Whether it's in Malaysia, the Philippines, the Sinai, Iraq and Syria, the Caucasus, the Balkans or wherever these violent extremists may wish to migrate to, we need to account for the phenomenon because it can move more. We are not immune, so it is of concern to me as it relates to the protection of Canadians and it's a concern to me as it relates to the protection of our missions that we're on.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I have very little time left, so maybe I'll end this on a yes or no question.

From a Canadian military planning perspective, are the root causes of terrorism relevant in any way?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

Yes.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

That's helpful.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

That's perfect timing.

MP Bezan.

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

Mr. Chair, just to follow up, we're talking about ISIS, war crimes and crimes against humanity like the Yazidi genocide.

Are there any efforts by the military to actually capture some of those leaders so that they can stand trial for the crimes they've committed?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

There are efforts on the part of some militaries, not ours. We do share intelligence as it would relate to actors in the battle space, but we are not doing any direct action against anybody like that.

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

I know, General, you don't like getting into political discussions, but I think the one issue that a lot of us are concerned about when it comes to Iraq is the Iranian influence. Tehran, of course, is heavily involved in the Government of Iraq. We know that the Quds force and leaders from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard are embedded in Iraqi security forces. They're providing weapons and materiel and command and control to Shia militia in the area.

How do you balance that off from an armed forces standpoint, knowing about the insidious nature and the terrorist threat that Iran, itself, possesses and then trying to work alongside them in getting rid of ISIS?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

It's a great question. None of these places where we work are easy to understand, let alone easy to fix, and that's probably why they had the problem in the first place. In this case, it's very clear that Iran is an actor. It's an interested party and, in some cases, a malign agent in Iraq.

That said, the PMF and Shia militia forces did help with the destruction of Daesh. We never worked with them, and I gave orders that we would be entirely deconflicted with anything that they were involved with. We don't do any train, advise and assist. We did no fire support. We did nothing with those forces. That said, it is up to the Government of Iraq, sir, to decide on its go-ahead relationship. It's not up to us.

We train, advise and assist in the NATO mission, and in the current mission we're in, in Erbil, we are dealing with vetted, approved Iraqi security forces. I want to assure you of that. These are not PMF forces. They are not Shia militia. They are bona fide, enrolled, recruited Iraqi security forces.

I think it is really a question for you, or an issue for you and other political leaders and foreign affairs departments to determine what posture we take as we go forward in supporting Iraq to become the Iraq that it wants to be.

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

I appreciate that and understand the fine line you have to walk as a commander diving into those political discussions.

We talked about the meeting that's happening up at Meech Lake right now. What's the hard stop right now in the current Operation Impact? When does it come to an end if it's not renewed?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

It's March 31, sir.

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

Will the discussion today be about an exit strategy or a drawdown of forces in Iraq?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

The discussions today are privileged, sir. They are getting an update on the issue and they are developing consensus and views at the Minister of Defence level on what needs to be done and what, perhaps, might be done in the future.

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

From the perspective of what's happening on the ground today, how much fighting are we seeing on a daily basis? We're not hearing a whole lot of news coming out of Iraq these days.

You said 98% of the country is under control of the Government of Iraq now. Is there a major push to free the last 2% of the country, and then put it into just a hold basis to secure the borders to make sure that the insurgency stays out of the country?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

Yes, sir.

I would say on a daily basis there is very little fighting at all—mostly none. That 2% figure—I think, as I said earlier I confess—is perhaps somewhat indicative of some small pockets that are in the Euphrates River valley, the northern river valley, and largely not in Iraq.

Iraq is not free from the occasional flare-up that you and I would probably consider in the realm of criminality, or as Ms. Gallant mentioned, insurgent-type activity, but it's not organized open conflict.

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

My final question is on the air task force. How many troops would be involved there? Is it still situated in Kuwait, or is it now supporting the Griffons, predominantly, in Iraq itself?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

There are three parts to all things that fly in Iraq. There is Erbil. There will be Baghdad, itself, where we have the NATO training mission, and then we are flying out of Kuwait with the larger fixed-wing aircraft. All of those troops fall within that 850 person total.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you.

Mr. Fisher.