National Defence Committee on March 8th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I call this meeting to order. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and 81(5), we're here to discuss the mandate letter of the Minister of Defence and the supplementary estimates 2015-16, vote 1c.

I would like to welcome the Minister of Defence, Mr. Sajjan. I would like to welcome the chief of defence staff, Jonathan Vance, and the deputy minister, John Forster.

As discussed prior to the meeting, we'll spend the first hour discussing the mandate letter and the second hour discussing the supplementary estimates (C). The minster will have to depart after 30 minutes into the second hour, so at the 90-minute mark he'll have to leave because he has another commitment.

I appreciate that there's some overlap, so there will be some latitude afforded to questions where these intersect and make sense, but I would like the committee to focus on the mandate letter first and the supplementary estimates (C) second. Again, I appreciate that there may be overlap and I will allow for latitude on that.

Mr. Sajjan, you have the floor.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Members of the committee, it is my pleasure to be here for the first time today and a true honour to serve as the Minister of National Defence.

As all of you know, I served in the Canadian Armed Forces, so I know from personal experience that we ask a lot from our men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces, and I know they deserve to have the right tools and support in return.

Last fall, the Prime Minister made public the mandate letter in which he outlined the top priorities of my portfolio. That letter is a testament to the level of importance that this government places on national defence and I would be happy to speak to any aspect of it.

To set the context for our discussion, I wish to encapsulate my priorities into three fundamental lines of effort: a new defence policy for Canada, a well-equipped and ready force, and the care of our members.

Let me take a moment to summarize each of these briefly. First of all, a lot has changed since the previous defence policy was elaborated in 2008. Look at the situation in the Middle East with the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, and look at Russia with its actions in the Ukraine. We live in an era of instability, uncertainty, and surprise. Insecurity today comes in so many different forms and from so many different places.

Against that backdrop, we need to undertake a comprehensive policy review to produce a Canadian vision for defence that responds to the wide array of emerging challenges. It needs to articulate our priorities in the current security environment and provide meaningful guidance for our investments. This review will be launched shortly and I intend to have it completed by the end of 2016. Of course, the core pillars of a Canadian defence policy will remain the same: defend Canada, defend North America, and contribute to international peace and security.

This review will allow us to look at how we deliver on these responsibilities and invest in our military, so it can continue to be flexible in responding to an uncertain and evolving security environment, and provide support to United Nations peace operations. We have committed to conducting the defence policy review in an open and transparent manner. With input from academics, parliamentarians, defence experts, and allies, we will develop a vision for Canadian defence that is both credible and relevant. In this regard, I believe that this committee is particularly well positioned to offer an informed perspective on Canadian defence as the review progresses.

I recently put forward a proposal to this committee to undertake a study related to the role of the Canadian Armed Forces in the defence of Canada and North America. This input would help shape a core component of Canada's new defence policy. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this suggestion.

Second, as a government, we recognize the importance of a well-equipped military with a range of capabilities. The new defence policy will help define the future requirements of the Canadian Armed Forces over the long-term.

In the short-term, we will have to move forward on a few pressing projects. We have made a commitment to rebuilding the Royal Canadian Navy, while meeting the commitments that were made under the national shipbuilding procurement strategy. I am working with Minister Foote to design an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft.

My department manages highly complex procurement projects and despite sound, long-term planning, these are inevitably faced with changes in scheduling and cash requirements I am pleased to say that I am currently working with my colleagues from Public Services and Procurement Canada as well as Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada to improve these processes.

Third, our military members are the backbone of our defence capability and our greatest asset. That is why I feel so strongly about the level of care they receive.

As a former soldier, I know that the success of any mission is dependent on having healthy, well-trained, and motivated personnel. I also want to ensure that Canada's sons and daughters belong to an organization that offers a safe workplace that is free from harassment and discrimination, an organization that provides the necessary care and support both during and after their time of service. Given what they sacrifice for Canadians, they deserve no less.

This is a shared responsibility between the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Armed Forces, and Veterans Affairs Canada. That is why the associate minister of defence is also the Minister of Veterans Affairs.

I'm pleased to be working with my colleague, the Honourable Kent Hehr, to strengthen the relationship and smooth the transition between our two departments. Our focus will be on streamlining, simplifying, and accelerating the transition from military to civilian life. We will also be reviewing our income support and rehabilitation measures, streamlining functions, and eliminating gaps and duplication in our programming.

Finally, recognizing the importance of mental health care, we are developing a suicide prevention strategy that will leverage existing govenment-wide initiatives and increase Canadian Armed Forces leadership involvement in existing programs. The well-being of our military members, whether they are currently serving or whether they are in retirement, is our number one priority.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you once again for giving this opportunity to appear before you today. As the Minister of National Defence, I invite all parliamentarians to help us advance the defence agenda. Our government is committed to providing the best level of support for the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces, and our work here today will serve to provide them with the required tools and supports to continue building this proud history.

On this note, I'll take any questions. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you, Minister.

Okay, Ms. Romanado, you have the floor for seven minutes.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister Sajjan. First of all, I'd like to thank you for coming today and presenting to us your mandate letter as well as the supplementary estimates (C).

As a parent of two sons in the Canadian Forces, as you know I speak on behalf of fellow families of Canadian Forces' members. I'd like to congratulate you on your commitment to the care of our Canadian Forces' members both in active service and when they leave service. I'd like to get a better understanding from you on what concrete actions you're taking to make sure that our forces' members, from the time they are recruited to their active training to the time they leave the forces.... In terms of that relationship and the cultivation of that relationship and the care of them and their families, can you elaborate on how you're working with your counterparts in other ministries to make sure that our sons and daughters are taken care of?

Thank you.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you for the question, and I also thank your sons for their service. What we also need to recognize is that while they serve, the families also serve alongside them. In fact, in some cases it is more difficult on the families when their sons or daughters, brothers and sisters are deployed because they don't know what's happening when they are deployed. We need to be mindful of how we take care of the families as well.

Since early on when I was sworn in, within the first weeks we sat down with the Chief of the Defence Staff and the deputy minister. We talked about the wellness of our troops. I'm very fortunate that a lot of great work has already been done by the Chief of the Defence Staff on this, and I recognize the importance of our greatest asset. We talk about purchasing-equipment capability, but what we have to realize is that really our greatest capability is the men and women. Their well-being has be our number one priority. When we look at their well-being, it's the training and discipline side of things, but we also have to look at what we are providing them in terms of their support from the time they serve, and how that transition period is going to look when they become a veteran. There are some challenges that we have to go through. There are some gaps that we have to fill.

We have started early discussions with the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and we're working in collaboration with him to make sure that we come up with a plan that transitions a member from when they're serving and that it's a seamless process to when they become a veteran. One example of this that we're working on is when somebody is injured in the Canadian Armed Forces they go through the medical system, but unfortunately currently when you become a veteran you have to then explain the same injuries. We want to make that process seamless. That is one of the gaps that we would like to fill. Also, there are certain benefits we'd like to realign.

Those are the things we're looking at. We're at the early stages. We have already been working in collaboration with Veterans Affairs on this, but a lot more work still needs to be done.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Moving on to a different topic, as the defence of Canada is our number one priority, could you elaborate to the committee what you feel is our current biggest threat in terms of our operational readiness in Canada?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I wouldn't call it a threat for our operational readiness. I'm comfortable with the readiness of the Canadian Armed Forces in terms of our ability to respond, whether it's an environmental disaster, such as forest fires or floods, or even when it comes to the other side, a terrorist attack. That does not mean that we stay at the status quo. We always need to look at how threats are evolving, and we need to evolve with them to make sure our troops have the right equipment and the right training so we can be ahead of any perceived threats.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

To elaborate, what do you feel is the current threat in terms of cyber-attacks?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

We do need to be mindful that this is a growing threat. We need to, not just internally, make sure that.... The defence of our systems has to be paramount. As technology evolves, we need to evolve with it. We are very fortunate. We do have the best minds. I'm very encouraged with what we have. However, this is a realm that we need to look at. The defence review will be looking into this. We'll not only be looking at cyber threats from a National Defence perspective, but I'll be working in co-operation with Minister Goodale as he develops the security framework for cyber threats.

What we also need to take a look at is where cyberwarfare needs to go. We need to also look at our capability and what it's going to be on the defensive and the offensive side. A lot of these discussions will come out in the defence review.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Mrs. Gallant, you have the floor for seven minutes.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Through you and on that note—maintaining Canada's strong commitments to NORAD, encompassing maritime and aerial situational awareness—the frontier being exploited by both ISIL and Putin is cyberspace. How is National Defence currently collaborating with U.S. Cyber Command for the defence of North America?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

When it comes to our cybersecurity, there's a lot of great work being done, not just from a National Defence perspective but also, as you know, through CSE, which comes under my mandate as well. Unfortunately there's a lot of stuff that I can't actually discuss in this forum. Right now we are well poised in a defensive posture. But we need to be mindful that even though I'm comfortable with where we're at, we need to be able to evolve with the technology, because technology is changing rapidly. We need to invest in the right areas to make sure we continue to evolve.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you.

Putin's current narrative is that World War III is just a matter of time. RS-24 ICBM systems were rolled down the streets of Moscow last year.

How does the minister plan to work with the United States to help safeguard North America from this type of threat?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

With regard to some of the images, I think that all of us have been watching them on TV from the days of the parades in the early Soviet Union, and even to this day. Regardless of how Putin's rhetoric might be portrayed in the media, whether he's talking to the outside world or internally to his own country....

We're very fortunate. We have a very unique binational relationship with the U.S., which is NORAD. In terms of where we are and where we need to go, I was able to get a really good picture of our defensive posture and our capabilities during my recent visit to NORAD. What we need to look at now is what NORAD is going to look like and what NORAD renewal is going to look like. That's a discussion that we need to have here in Canada, and it's a discussion that the U.S. also needs to have. How are we, as two nations, going to move forward? What is the defence of North America going to look like 10 or 20 years from now?

It's not an easy game to predict threats, but we need to make sure that we invest in the right technologies and that we have the right command relationship and the necessary tools to be able to carry this out.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Russia is strengthening its nuclear posture. How will our military be equipped to help defend North America from this type of threat?

We've mentioned NORAD, but I'm looking for something more concrete. How are we, as a nation, going to be able to help defend North America?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Without getting into hypothetical questions, it all depends on what type of threat we'd be facing. Right now, our best defence is making sure that we do not get into a World War III type of scenario, as Putin stated in his rhetoric, and making sure that we have the right communication and the right diplomacy to prevent that.

Having said that, we, as a nation, need to be mindful of how we're going to look at our own sovereignty, making sure that we have the right equipment moving forward. I hope that we will able to answer a lot of these questions after the defence review.

What types of capabilities are needed? I don't want to get into the exact details of what type of equipment we need to buy. Capability is going to be the key. How are we going to integrate? How is our command structure going to continue, in terms of a relationship? Where do we need to invest in technologies, and where do we need to invest in our people to make sure that we have the right defensive posture to prevent any type of attack?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

According to NATO, there's a very real, but not yet fully identified risk of foreign fighters in ISIL's ranks using chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear materials as weapons of terror against the west.

What is the minister doing to defend against this type of threat, recognizing that a threat is just a threat until it happens? What are we doing in advance?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

When it comes to these types of enemies, we need to predict what types of capabilities they might be bringing forward. This is something that has been identified. Our troops have the right equipment in place. They have the right training to be able to deal with it. More importantly, we have to make sure we have the right intelligence assets to be able to predict any type of attack that they might carry out.

We are aware of their rudimentary ability for this. Nonetheless, our troops have the right equipment and the right training to be able to deal with this.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Mr. Garrison, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you to the minister for appearing today. I also want to say thanks for not just promising greater openness and communication, but for actually practising it so far. You have been a man of your word, and I do appreciate it, both as a member of this committee and as a member of parliament who represents a large military riding.

In your opening statement today, there were two things, which I want to ask you about, that I think were missing under the supplementary estimates (C). I was disappointed to not see mention of the reserves or civilian employees of the Department of National Defence. I have a couple of questions that I think belong in the other section, which I'll come back to.

I want to start by asking you about refocusing the mission in Iraq. During the campaign, the Liberals promised very clearly to end the combat mission. My question is about the train, advise, and assist role that you're now tripling in Iraq. Both you and, I think, General Vance have acknowledged that it involves greater risk to Canadians in the field.

My question is about the rules of engagement, and whether they include participation in exchange of fire at the front lines, which most Canadians would see as combat.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I'll let General Vance talk about the rules of engagement, but just to answer your question more directly about the mission itself, as the Prime Minister stated early on, we want to be a responsible coalition partner and make a meaningful contribution. That's why we took the time to make sure we had the right intelligence, and to speak with our coalition partners so that when we looked at refocusing, it wouldn't be strictly from a military perspective but also from a diplomacy and a development perspective.

The military solution will buy you time to fix the real problem, but that political solution is just as important, if not more so, for the long-term stability of the country and that region. But before we get to that, we need to make sure the Iraqi security forces have the right training and the right structure in place so they can not only retake their cities but actually hold them as well, because with ISIL they weren't able to hold the cities in the first place, and that's why we are in this situation right now.

The critical piece at this time is making sure that we train not only enough Iraqi security force members but also the right ethnic groups to go retake some of those cities. In the buildup to that though, we require the right intelligence. It's been over a year since the intervention. The enemy will learn quite rapidly from how we operate, and because of that, our intelligence also needs to get better. This is one reason we're making sure to provide the right type of intelligence capability that will provide the theatre-wide perspective and be a greater asset for the coalition commander but also, in particular for our troops in the north, to protect our forces, anticipate some of the future threats, and also contribute to the coalition targeting.

I'll let General Vance answer the question on rules of engagement.

[General Jonathan Vance, Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence]

Thank you, Minister and Mr. Chair.

You asked a specific question about rules of engagement and whether they allow for the exchange of fire on the front line. You understand that this train, advise, and assist mission is largely defensive in posture given that the Kurdish line, if you will, which, where we are, will overlook the Mosul basin, is largely static with some skirmishes to try to establish a better line. The nature of the mission is to support them in their ability to defend and in their ability to launch the offensive operations they need to. We don't accompany them on those defensive operations.

The rules of engagement, to answer your question specifically, allow Canadian Forces to defend themselves and to anticipate their defence so they can engage a hostile act or intent before it materializes. In other words, we won't take the first hit. We can anticipate in order to protect ourselves and those with us. The right of self-defence is paramount and pre-eminent and never ever leaves a soldier. It's an inherent right. The rules of engagement that I assigned to the armed forces allow them beyond self-defence to defend themselves tactically should they come under fire.

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

Thank you very much. I think for most Canadians that does sound a lot like being engaged in combat. Given the shortness of time, I want to ask about equipment needs. As I represent CFB Esquimalt and have a large naval contingent, I was interested in your comments about the national shipbuilding strategy. Is the national shipbuilding strategy a ceiling or a floor? A commitment was made in the past regarding the number of ships and the kinds of equipment, and we've had lots of stories about the funding not being adequate to actually achieve those goals. Are we talking about a ceiling or a floor here when it comes to re-equipping the navy?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I don't consider it a ceiling or a floor. There are some challenges based on the previous amount that was set, and also on the number of the ships. If you give a number, it could be difficult to say what type of capability you want; for example, that this is a certain ship, but you haven't even decided what types of systems you need in it. This is where we get into the difficulty of assigning a number.

What I'm focused on is making sure, as part of the defence review, what type of capability we need from our ships; or we could be getting into a conversation in regard to NORAD about how the interoperability of our communications would work as well. From that process we'll derive what type of capability we need, and then we can figure out what the cost would be. It's too early at this stage, when you're just looking at deciding on the type of capability you require.

I'm hoping that with the defence review we will be able to decide on the capability, but I think it is premature to say that this is exactly the number of ships and this is how much it is going to cost, because by the time you come out with what types of ships you need, that decision may not fit well with the number that was provided earlier, especially with the economic challenges that we may face.

The national shipbuilding strategy is nonetheless a great strategy for Canada. Not only will it provide the navy with the right capability, but we have the right expertise. We need to work through some of the challenges to make it more efficient. I've stated this before; our procurement process has not served the Canadian Armed Forces well, but we learn continuously. Some improvements were made in the past, but we need to move further.

One simple step is working in collaboration in departments. Right now, Minister Foote and I actually have joint briefings. It's a simple matter of doing something like that. A file would normally come to me, but then it has to be reviewed and briefed in another department. This way we can save months. We've done a few other things that are going to drastically decrease the time.

But concerning the numbers, I want to wait. This is what the defence review will allow us to do, make sure that we have a thorough discussion amongst Canadians, the academics, experts within the military, and with our allies to make sure that we have the right capability and decide what we need for the future. Then we can have the discussions on the number of ships and what types we need.