National Defence Committee on Nov. 15th, 2016

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

They are. When you say cyberwarfare, that's a term that, perhaps, covers a pretty wide range. We are right now focused principally on cyber-defence of our networks.

We are undertaking an effort to be able to do offensive cyber-operations, should we need to, but we're not there yet. We're examining it. We're putting in place the command and control. It still has some way to go before we are either authorized to do so or have the ability to execute an offensive cyber-operation.

That said, we do have people who are experts in cyber-operations. Instead of saying cyberwarfare, I would call it cyber-operations, which is broken down into a defensive and offensive component. Right now we are principally focused.... I have a director general of cyber-operations. We have a command and control methodology that allows us to develop and perfect our defensive cyber-operations, and we are looking very closely with an intent to be able at some point to have the option of having an offensive capability.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

That's your time, Ms. Gallant.

Mr. Garrison, you have the floor.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you, General Vance, for being with us today.

I want to ask a question about the involvement of our troops in Iraq, but I want to ask it from the point of view of the person in the field and their families.

Whether or not we call this a combat mission or whether it's a train, assist, advise, or train a company, are the people there now receiving the same benefits and supports as if they were in full combat mission? In other words, is the hazardous nature of the mission being acknowledged and the benefits and supports going to those members?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

Yes.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

That's very reassuring, because I think sometimes it's an important question of what kind of mission it is. I just want to make sure that people are actually getting those supports.

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

If I may expand briefly. When we deploy soldiers into an area, it's called a special duty operations area. It's prescribed by me, with approval from the minister as to what exactly are the boundaries. There is no question whatsoever that when you're in there you're on military operations, you're on military duty at the time, and the work that you are doing is recognized, as it would be for any mission.

The only thing that changes are hazard and risk and the benefit that you receive under hazard and risk. If you are in a joint operations area, but not subject to the hazards and risks that someone else may be, then the exact compensation changes for that.

Nonetheless, everybody is treated the same in terms of if you become a casualty, if you are hurt, if you need any support. Certainly, the families are supported the same.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Are there some serving right now who would be at that maximum risk compensation?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

I suspect so.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you.

Right now the Canadian Forces are operating at a rather brisk operational tempo. And now they have to take on additional NATO responsibilities, which we support, and also peacekeeping responsibility, which I also would say we support.

My question is about your budget, and the discussion that the forces may be asked to take a 5% budget cut. How will you maintain this operational tempo and take on these new responsibilities if you get less funding than you got this year?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

I think it's a hypothetical question. Before me right now is not the prospect of a 5% budget cut. In fact, we are in a process right now to approach government on a defence policy review. Anything to do with budgeting and what we might do about any budgeting, I think is premature.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Okay. Thank you.

I have with me today over 140 letters from DND employees in my riding, and I know other members have received them. I'm going to deliver these to the Minister. They express a concern about the contracting out of operations in DND and the Canadian Forces, especially around maintenance, where we're bringing in outside contractors onto bases to do maintenance work that's traditionally been done by either DND or regular serving members.

The concern is very clear. Bringing a lot of non-DND personnel onto bases raises security concerns. The second concern they raise is that these contracts may, in fact, go to foreign companies, even though they might be allies. This raises some questions I know that Britain got themselves into with some of their contractors from countries that didn't agree with their military objectives.

Have you conducted a study about the possible impacts on combat readiness and security for the Canadian Forces to do with this contracting out of maintenance work and, if so, would you table that study with us?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

I think this is a question that's probably best asked of our assistant deputy minister of materiel, Mr. Finn, who has a global view on how we contract and conduct maintenance activities.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

I'm asking about combat readiness and security.

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

From a combat readiness perspective, we maintain the forces necessary on our bases and wings to be able to project force and support those Forces wherever they are in the world. Whether it's maintenance or the service battalion activities, other than maintenance we maintain the ability to do so. We do not deploy Forces anywhere in the world who have a maintenance requirement and not maintain them. Even on operations, such as when we were in Afghanistan, where we can, Canada and other allies will contract out third-line or depot-type maintenance while we're on operations.

But we maintain the ability to deploy and be self-sufficient for all of our operations in our maintenance capacity. So anything that's contracted in is contracted as a result of either a special initiative or a refit. If it's ongoing maintenance, again, I think this is something you may want to talk about with ADM materiel.

As far as the contracting goes, the contracting follows the government contracting regulations. Again, I think Mr. Finn would probably be best suited to describe the details on that.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

So there's no specific study that's looked at how this might affect security or combat readiness.

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

There's no specific study that I know of, but I do know that as we design and maintain our force, we ensure we have the correct number of people who support those who would be conducting the operations.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you.

I was pleased to see you mention Operation Honour and Military Family Resource Centres, even if obliquely, here in your presentation. And we had a very good report from General Whitecross and Admiral Bennett on the excellent work they're doing.

There's some overlap into the Military Family Resource Centres when sexual misconduct affects family members, spouses, or children. Right now DND has ordered a review of the governance of Military Family Resource Centres, and the 2013 report of the ombudsman already did that review and suggested it should continue as it is.

My concern—and again I'm hearing from families—is that there's some attempt to reduce the input or control of families over what happens at the Military Family Resource Centres and bring it more under the line of command. Would you have any comments on whether that's what's really under way here?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

I do, and in fact, thank you for the question because I always look for opportunities to talk about and support the families.

I have spoken with lots of people about this, and there are some who think a review automatically means that there's going to be some sort of alteration that would maybe privilege the chain of command over the family management.

I'm actually in the completely opposite space. I think what we need to do is continue to put MFRCs, correctly resourced and correctly supported, firmly in the hands of families, firmly in the hands of those who are either volunteers or paid employees, in such a way as to be responsive to family demands, which are asymmetric across the country. Each MFRC has a great deal of independence in terms of how they deal with their community. At the same time, they have a close and important relationship with the base that they support.

The review is locked because I wanted it locked to make certain that we're doing right by the MFRCs in every respect. It's certainly not to remove power from families. At the same time, the chain of command has to be appropriately engaged to make certain that they are adequately resourced and that they don't become a residual to other things. As we contemplate the future of MFRCs and how they might support the broader military community including veterans, we have to make certain that they are equipped and prepared for them as well.

You asked about Operation Honour. To be able to interject additional programming, or where we ask that MFRCs have mandatory programming available, there has to be some sort of connectivity and some sort of responsiveness by those MFRCs to be able to do so. To do that, they have to be funded, trained, and equipped accordingly. They also have to be in appropriate accommodations. So there is a close connection with the chain of command to make certain that we understand where it is that any MFRC would want to go. They are not independent. They are part of our family, and so we're going to take care of them, and that's why the review is occurring.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Great. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Mr. Gerretsen.

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

General, thank you for coming today. I have some questions about our current level of defence spending, and I'll preface it by saying that I'm not interested in asking you to get involved in the politics of it. I realize where that lies and who's responsible for making those decisions. My questions are more of capacity and the commitments that we've made. I apologize in advance if I do cut you off. I'm limited in time, and I have a number of questions.

My first question would be with respect to the amount of spending that we are currently engaged upon and whether or not that is enough to meet the commitments that we have with NATO. From a practical implementation perspective, can we meet those commitments with what we're currently spending?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

Yes.

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

Okay.

As we know, NATO is recommending that all partnering countries be spending 2% of their GDP on defence. We are spending about 1% in Canada. Obviously increasing the spending, if we were to go down that road, would be something that's done over time. Can you see how that would be implemented? Can you get an understanding of how we could spend more over a period of time, or would that money just be going to waste?

[Gen Jonathan Vance]

It's a bit of an odd question, sir.

I think I'll answer it this way. You're talking about an undefined time horizon and an undefined amount of money with an undefined question of whether or not it's going to be a waste of time.

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

Okay, let me put it differently then.

NATO is suggesting that we should be spending 2%. You're saying that the current level of spending, which is roughly 1%, is enough to meet our commitments. Are you saying that NATO should not be recommending that we spend 2%?