National Defence Committee on Nov. 15th, 2016

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

You asked me if we can meet our commitments now. We can meet our commitments now.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Okay, fair enough.

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

And I think that faced with details of any spending, up or down, and a time horizon, short or long, we would come up with an implementation plan on how we would deal with it.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Do you think we will still be meeting our commitments 10 years from now?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

I believe we will. I believe that Canada as a member of the NATO alliance—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Sorry, I meant at the current level of spending.

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

Are you asking me if we're going to stay spending at 1% 10 years from now?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

No. What I'm asking you is, if we continued the same level of spending that is indexed annually, will we still be able to meet the commitments that are expected of us 10 years from now?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

Again, sir, it's a hypothetical question. I don't know what the commitments are going to be 10 years from now.

I'm not trying to evade the question, Mr. Chair.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Sorry. Will we be able to if the commitments are the same?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

If the commitments remain the same 10 years from now, I think I would have to look at that in detail. We deal with defence inflation. We deal with when materiel is brought into service, and at what spending rate, and what that costs.

Mr. Chair, it's so hypothetical.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I'm trying to wrap my head around the fact that we are meeting our commitments, but we're only spending half of what's recommended.

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

I think I could put it to you this way because I know you have other questions.

It has never been my experience and it is highly unlikely—in fact, I would say impossible—that the Canadian government would commit its military forces beyond their capacity. If we were to project ourselves forward 10 years with an undefined budget line, I would imagine that the government would respect its own decisions on defence budgeting and commitments to make certain that the military is able to do what it is asked to do.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I'm going to completely change gears now. I want to talk about Russia's changes in attitude or capacity in the last, let's say, five to 10 years.

In terms of parts of the Arctic that Russia might be engaging in, activities that it might be doing in the air, can you give us a sense as to what Russia might be doing now that is different from what it may have been doing five years ago?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

In particular, Russia is developing, and has developed, basing in its part of the Arctic in northern Russia. It is, as many are, taking advantage of ice-free time in the Russian Arctic. That activity has increased in last five to 10 years.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Does that include submarine activity?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

I am not prepared to talk about submarine activity here due to its classification. I can tell you that Russia has accelerated its long-range aviation activities. I can't define it for you exactly—again because of its classification—but Russia has spent more time in the last five years in air space around North America and Europe.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Now I have a practical question. Does the increase in activity concern you?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

It does.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Given our current level of defence spending, do you think we are currently spending enough to be able to properly alleviate your concerns?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

At this juncture, I can only say, yes, because I deal with the force that I have with the threats that we have. We're able to adequately deal with them right now.

I would just remind you that we are on the cusp of a defence policy review that will look at all things in a horizon beyond the operational horizon I deal with. Inside that defence policy review will certainly be an acceptance, or an acknowledgement, of the strategic situation we find ourselves in today. It will also project it into the future, and we'll address it thoroughly in terms of what it is that we would do about it.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you, General.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Mr. Spengemann, you have the floor.

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

General Vance, thank you very much for being with us again, and thank you for your service.

I would like to take you back to Iraq and take you up on the offer you made in your written submissions to expand a bit on peace support missions. Iraq is a country of great interest to me. I had the privilege of serving under the UN for almost seven years in Baghdad. I understand the complexity of the country. What wasn't a factor at the time that I served was ISIS. We're now moving into an environment where we're considering steps beyond ISIS being a predominant force in the theatre.

What I wanted to put to you is the tension that we're facing between, one, wanting to take action and systematically take action against threats to international peace and security—that includes the fight against international terrorism—and, two, the sense that we don't nation build, which I don't want to present as a Canadian doctrine or want to attribute to U.S. officials who may have used it. We intervene against terrorism, but we don't necessarily stay for the long haul and reconstruct the country. In some cases, a country resists our becoming too heavily involved in the governance and reconstruction issues that would actually pull a country like Iraq out of the morass and move it into the paradigm of resurrected nations, if that's the right term.

Could you talk a bit more about where you see the role of the Canadian Forces between those two policy constraints? How would the Canadian Forces intervene on the one hand when there is a clear threat against international peace and security, but also see the effort through to the point where a country is back on its own two feet?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

The way I would describe this to you is that it's not just a Canadian Forces effort—it's a Canadian effort. In the recent past, it's become more germane and acknowledged that a comprehensive approach is required if a more thorough and enduring stabilization is to arise as a result of military activity.

I believe, and I have said this many times, that the military can play a part, a good and useful part, in helping to set conditions for the re-establishment of norms in a country that has failed or is failing. It can help set sufficient stability conditions for government to consider in respect of the access of government to get to its people, providing sufficient stability for infrastructure to be addressed, or for getting the economy going again.

I think it is also true today that you would be hard-pressed to find any chief of the defence staff amongst our allies who does not recognize the value and the importance of a comprehensive approach. In fact, it's NATO doctrine, and it's Canadian doctrine. I think we all recognize that it is useful to consider operations in the full spectrum of both time and energy, not just the military piece.

I will end on this point. If there is a desire, it has to be expressed by the government of the day, with the resources that are available, with a view to the likelihood of success and the reasonableness of entering into operations, where you would try to put together a comprehensive approach. Some operations are best left strictly to setting a quick military condition and leaving, in cases where it's a clear and present danger that needs to be dealt with. It's a national decision, not a military decision, to go into what would be considered a stabilization phase.

I would say that Canada doesn't do this alone. It's not whether Canada is in or out. There are many other international organizations, NGOs, the United Nations, and others that attempt to participate in the resurrection of failed or failing states, with or without military intervention by the international community.