National Defence Committee on Nov. 15th, 2016

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

Would it be fair to say, General Vance, that the Canadian Armed Forces could do a great deal to keep a space open in which humanitarian relief can be offered and political dialogue can take place?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

Absolutely.

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

Okay, thank you for that.

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

In fact, I would say that one of the best uses of a military is to set conditions for something more enduring to materialize after the strict military phase.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Mr. Paul-Hus, you have the floor.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

General Vance, once you have your earpiece, I will go back to Operation IMPACT.

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

Okay.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Good afternoon, General Vance. I want to welcome you here today.

Let me go back to Operation IMPACT.

Right now, there are a lot of discussions about our intervention in Iraq. There is a lot of wordsmithing on this issue. At the beginning of the meeting, my colleague asked a question about the specific work that is being done there.

If we go back to the original idea behind Operation IMPACT and its initial mandate, overall, there were the F-18 fighters bombing targets and our special forces that really had an advise-and-assist role. That was quite clear. There was no ambiguity. Afterwards, at the new government's request, the F-18s were pulled out so that our Canadian Forces no longer had a combat mission. So the goal was to maintain one force on the ground to train the peshmerga of the Iraqi army.

Before going any further, let me point out that I fully understand the secret nature of the work the special forces do. I don't want to know where our troops are. I don't want to know where they are on the ground since I don't want to undermine their safety. However, we are now at another stage. The special forces are used to travelling in very secret conditions, and I respect that. However, we are now part of an international coalition. We are now conducting an offensive on Mosul. Everyone knows about the offensive. The international press knows what we are doing. There is no secret about that right now.

I would like confirmation from you. You said that our forces on the ground continue to provide advice, assistance and training, but they don't have an accompanying role. I think there is a lot of wordsmithing going on, because it has been confirmed that the Canadian troops were in contact with ISIS fighters and attacked them directly. They are not just there to defend the Iraqi forces or the peshmerga. They have really attacked targets on the ground. Those events did happen, so it's not a secret.

Are you able to confirm that the Canadian troops on the ground have taken offensive action against the enemy, instead of simply ensuring security and protection?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

Thank you for the question. I will answer it in English.

I can confirm to you unequivocally that the use of force by our soldiers on this operation—armed force, lethal force—has only been used in a defensive mode to ensure that our partners were not subject to an attack that they couldn't deal with.

The only part of the assist function that I think may hold some confusion for others is that as we assist—help—a battalion commander or a divisional commander marshal their forces effectively to get them into the right spot by day or by night, to make certain that they are going in the right direction, with the right battle plans, and with the right fire support in place, and to put all of that together so they are most effective, that is where we are with that commander as they are moving forward, but his forces are well ahead and doing the fighting.

If you're suggesting that our forces have been manoeuvring so as to provide offensive fire, thereby taking the fight to the enemy, then you are wrong. We have responded with fire only to provocation by Daesh, where, either by surprise or by the intensity of the force that they would bring to bear, like a vehicle-borne IED that could not be stopped by any other means, we've dealt with it. I need to be as unequivocal on that as possible.

Yes, sir, there's all sorts of speculation about this, and there's all sorts of wordsmithing going on all over the place. The fact is that we have a very firm mandate, and that mandate is being very carefully and properly commanded by people I trust in the field, who are responding effectively and appropriately to the orders, my orders, and the intent of this government.

I can't make it any clearer than that.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you.

I appreciate your clarifications since it is important for Canadians and for the entire population to know exactly what type of work our Canadian Forces are doing on the ground.

In terms of the role of the special forces—there are forces like the 430 Squadron in Valcartier that are not special forces, but regular forces deployed in support of the special forces—the fact remains that our troops are an integral part of our combat forces. Even if they do not necessarily open fire, they are still part of the fighters on the ground. Can you confirm that?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

I can absolutely confirm that we are conducting operations at a role 2 medical facility. We are conducting flight operations out of Kuwait, and with our rotary-wing helicopters. We are conducting train, advise, and assist mentoring tasks with our partners, and we are conducting additional training to Iraqi security forces, as we have been all along. I can absolutely commit to that, yes. And it is being done in a theatre of operations where those whom we are assisting are in an existential fight for their country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Mr. Rioux, you have the floor.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

General Vance, thank you for being here with us today and for your presentation in both official languages.

The Minister of National Defence announced the return of university training at the military college in Saint Jean. The training will be in social sciences and humanities. This is in line with the review of the defence policy. In addition, Mr. Dion recently pointed out the lack of francophone scolders in Africa. He was referring to soldiers not just from Canada, but also from all the francophone countries. Only 20% of the troops there are francophone.

Will the deadline for the return of bilingual training, but especially French-language training at the Collège Militaire de Saint-Jean be met?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

Thank you for the question.

The decision to reinstate the four-year university level program and perhaps another year for CEGEP at the Collège Militaire de Saint-Jean will be carried out. That's what I know about the situation right now.

It is absolutely necessary to continue to have a good level of bilingualism within the Canadian Armed Forces for a number of reasons. Our country is bilingual and we have bilingual soldiers, as well as francophone and anglophone soldiers. We have to be constantly ready to command and manage our forces effectively, regardless of the language the soldiers speak.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

The constituents of Saint Jean will appreciate your answer.

I will now come back to a more sensitive issue that my colleague Mr. Garrison raised.

President Obama came here to Ottawa and made a speech full of praise for the government's actions. However, he kept going back to one aspect in his speech. He asked Canada for a contribution of 2% in military spending in relation to our GDP, which is the standard asked of NATO member countries. We noticed that Australia has reached that level. Next week, some of our committee members will be at the NATO meeting in Turkey. A number of countries are contributing as much as 2%.

I will try to ask you the question so that you can answer it. Those were Mr. Obama's remarks. Now, Mr. Trump has been elected as president and he was quite clear. He will be asking all the countries to contribute their fair share. Canada is the United States' closest partner, which is commendable. To a certain extent, wouldn't it be a question of fairness and equity for Canada to reach the 2% of the GDP?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

Thank you for the question.

I will answer the question in English because it's a somewhat sensitive matter.

It is entirely the decision of the Government of Canada, taking all factors into account, to decide how much it spends on defence. I think, though, that it would be premature at this point in time to make any conclusions about where the U.S. will be in the days and months ahead. I think there's still some ground to go.

Canada has a proud history of deploying and supporting NATO at the budget level that we're at. We are unequivocally valued as a partner, and I think we will continue to be so.

I think there is sometimes an overreliance on a strictly numeric figure. I'm not saying for a minute that I wouldn't support increasing defence funding. Every chief of the defence staff would, of course, but to take a figure and somehow parlay that into the only metric that you use to determine your worth in an alliance, I think, is shallow and false.

There is a great deal of difference between nations as to what they include and what they do not include in their percentage figures. There's a great deal of difference between nations as to how much they contribute when called by NATO to do something extra. There are lots of nations that are spending 2% of their GDP on defence but are not doing the same level of effort that Canada is. There are lots of nations, I think, that are at or approaching 2% GDP that are not part of the enhanced forward presence, for example, but Canada is. In fact, we're not only doing it, we're the leadership of one of them.

I would just caution, from a military perspective, that the metric is not the only metric that can be used and if it is, then it can provide a very skewed and perhaps incorrect view of the value of a country in an alliance.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

I am sure that your answer will reassure Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

That's your time, thanks.

Mr. Bezan.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

General Vance, it's great to see you again. I would ask that you pass on our deepest appreciation and gratitude to everyone who serves under your command. They make Canada proud and they're doing great work.

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

Thank you, sir.

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

I also appreciate your comments about putting people first in everything that you do as commander of the Canadian Armed Forces. I know when we did our defence policy review consultations, we had over 50 round tables, and we heard loud and clear that the DPR has to be people-centric, that always our troops come first, and that we support them in recruiting, training, retention, and, of course, as they transition out back into civilian life when they leave the armed forces.

I have a lot of questions and, as the country song says, we've got a long way to go and a short time to get there, so I'm going to bounce around a bit with the different questions that I have and that I want to touch on.

I'm going to go back to what Mr. Garrison said about those who are currently deployed on Operation Impact in Iraq and Kuwait. It has been brought to my attention that there are some Canadian troops who are serving with U.S. command at Camp Arifjan who aren't getting the same pay and benefits as those who are stationed at other Kuwaiti bases as part of the Royal Canadian Air Force. I did send a letter to the Minister of National Defence last week on this issue, so I just wanted to make sure that you're aware of it as well, to ensure that they are treated the same way as all the rest of our troops are who are involved in this great mission.

We had General Hood here back in April when we were looking at air defence, and he told us in April that the current life extension program for our CF-18s means that we have a plane that will be able to serve our needs until 2025. Do you agree with that statement?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

The ELE right now, should it fully come to pass, should, with reasonable confidence, keep the CF-18 fleet flying as is until 2025.

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

So there is going to be no capability gap that we'll need to cover until 2025 when we get the first planes to replace them into service?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

No. That is a false deduction, sir.