THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, February 26, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 3 p.m. to examine and report on Canada’s national security and defence policies, practices, circumstances and capabilities.
Senator Gwen Boniface (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, welcome to the National Security and Defence Committee. Before we begin, I would ask my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting with our deputy chair.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais, from Quebec.
Senator Boisvenu: Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, from Quebec.
[English]
Senator McIntyre: Paul McIntyre, New Brunswick.
Welcome to the Senate, General Vance.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario. Welcome.
Senator McPhedran: Marilou McPhedran, Manitoba. Welcome.
[Translation]
Senator Brazeau: Patrick Brazeau, from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Gold: Marc Gold from Quebec.
The Chair: This afternoon, under of the auspices of our order of reference to examine and report on Canada’s national security and defence policies, practices, circumstances and capabilities, we are very pleased to welcome back General Jonathan Vance, Chief of the Defence Staff.
General Vance will be speaking to the committee about the state of the Canadian Armed Forces. I know that in doing so he will address a particular interest of this committee, Canada’s peacekeeping operation. The session will run until 4:30.
General Vance, I invite to you make your opening remarks, after which we will ask questions. Welcome.
General Jonathan Vance, Chief of the Defence Staff, National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m very pleased to appear before your committee and to provide an overview on the state of the Canadian Armed Forces and some of the operations we’re doing. To new members of the committee, congratulations. I very much enjoy presenting before this committee and look forward to the dialogue.
While all military institutions face challenges, I am confident that we in the Canadian Armed Forces are in a good situation right now.
All parts of the Canadian Armed Forces, the navy, the army, the air force, the Canadian Special Operations Forces, the Military Personnel Command, the Canadian Forces Intelligence Command and the Vice-Chief of Defence Staff Group are doing exceptional work defending Canada at home and abroad, and I believe we’re coming off a very positive year that includes our contribution to the battlefield defeat of Daesh in Iraq. More on that later.
[Translation]
The highlight of 2017 was the government’s new defence policy called Strong, Secure, Engaged. SSE represents a more than 70-per-cent funding increase over 10 years. It will modernize our equipment. And it will transform our operational culture — and our capacity to conduct operations — for decades to come.
It will also boost the regular force by 3,500 personnel, to a total of 71,500. The Reserve Force will get an additional 1,500 people, growing to 30,000. We will add more than 1,100 civilians.
[English]
More important, the policy will give us the flexibility to anticipate, adapt and act in response to current and emerging threats.
SSE mandates the Canadian Armed Forces to be prepared for much more international activity. This is the new policy’s most important piece, in many ways, called “concurrent operations.” It’s spelled out on page 81 of the document, and everything revolves around this concept, including how we manage personnel going forward.
It envisions up to 4,000 personnel in four sustained international operations and an additional 2,500 for three smaller and shorter-duration overseas operations. In addition to those seven, the policy requires us to be capable of simultaneously executing a DART deployment and a non-combatant evacuation operation. All told, this policy opens the door to more than 6,500 members deploying on nine overseas operations above and beyond our responsibilities in Canada and with NATO and NORAD.
To put these figures in perspective, we have about 1,800 personnel engaged in 20 operations of varying sizes around the world right now. So this gives a sense of SSE’s scope. I will discuss these current operations in a moment, but I think I should first draw attention to the government’s November announcement on peace support.
[Translation]
We now have a mandate to provide up to 600 personnel to assist the UN in targeted situations where we know we can make a difference. We will offer the UN training, airlift support, and an aviation task force with armed helicopters. We will also be able to deploy a quick reaction force of up to 200 soldiers.
While on peace operations we will seek and develop opportunities to implement the Vancouver principles to eliminate the child soldier phenomenon. We will also work to increase the number of women in peacekeeping roles.
[English]
Peacekeeping operations can be dangerous. In fact, in most places of the world where they’re operating they are. But we’ll give our personnel the appropriate equipment, rules of engagement and mission sets that will allow them to prevail. Peacekeeping skills are, at their root, basic and advanced military skills that we in the Canadian Armed Forces possess in abundance.
I will now pivot to our three most high-profile current operations, because I think they give a good sense of how Canada contributes to global security.
In Iraq, we’ve had as many as 850 personnel. We’re engaged in training, air refuelling and tactical airlift, intelligence and medical services. We also lead a team advising the Iraqi government as it reclaims its territory. And I’m proud of the role they have all played in the effort since 2014 to deny Daesh its ambition to establish a caliphate in Iraq.
In central and eastern Europe we are engaged in two operations aimed at deterring Russian aggression against its neighbours. Specifically, we have 450 troops in Latvia and lead a multinational battle group there. We currently have 240 soldiers in Ukraine training soldiers who are fighting Russian-backed separatists in the eastern part of their country. And we have deployed a number of other assets in the region. This commitment includes a frigate as part of the NATO maritime task force and CF-18s that have participated in a number of air policing operations.
In Ukraine we are engaged in a mutually beneficial relationship with that nation’s armed forces as those soldiers clash with Russian-backed separatists. Our training has helped reduce Ukraine’s battlefield fatalities. It has also increased the Ukraine army’s capability and confidence. And it has also aided the long process of defence reform. Meanwhile, we are learning more about how the separatists and their sponsor use traditional firepower in combination with hybrid forms of warfare, especially involving cyber.
This experience helps Canada and our NATO colleagues develop our own approach to counter Russia’s tactics. Canada’s new policy will give us more tools to help Canada respond, by upping our game in areas like cyber, intelligence, information operations and space.
Closer to home, we work with the U.S. Coast Guard in the Caribbean Basin and eastern Pacific fighting drug trafficking and organized crime. Last year we helped seize or disrupt 11.5 metric tonnes of illicit drugs.
Within our borders, the Armed Forces has a clear mandate to protect Canadians — our most important job — and 2017 was our busiest year in a decade with more than 5,000 of our regular and reserve members helping Canadians respond to several disasters across the country.
We had two major deployments: in Quebec to assist with the spring floods and in British Columbia to respond to wildfires during that province’s long, hot summer. We also had smaller deployments to deal with a New Brunswick ice storm, northern Ontario flooding and Manitoba wildfires.
I must also single out our courageous search and rescue teams. They responded to just under 1,000 incidents last year over an area of responsibility totalling more than 18 million square kilometres of land and sea.
[Translation]
The Arctic, one of the areas where our SAR teams will have a growing responsibility, is a big priority. I don’t have time to go through all of the measures we’ve taken, and exercises we’ve run, in recent years.
[English]
Suffice it to say that Canada has a huge responsibility here as climate change opens up the region for shipping, economic development and competition.
I mentioned at the outset that our policy calls for a larger force. If we’re going to attract talent and ensure that we fully implement SSE, we must become a top-of-mind choice for Canadians of all ages and backgrounds considering their future. We’re competing with the private sector for Canada’s best and brightest, and we’re competing at a time when media coverage surrounding personnel issues in the Armed Forces isn’t always positive.
A private company survey recently reported that the Canadian Armed Forces offers great career opportunities. I agree with that and believe that we’re already a fantastic employer, but we must do more to build a well-supported, diverse and resilient work force, and we must do a better job of communicating that reality to Canadians.
I don’t have time in my 10 minutes to go over the numerous other steps we’ve taken in the past three years to turn these objectives into reality, but I look forward to discussing them should you wish.
We’re investing more money for the ill and injured and making the extra effort to keep good people, even if they are sick, injured or unable to immediately deploy. We’re also doing more to help those transitioning out of the forces.
We are making an enormous effort in implementing Operation HONOUR. This was my first order in 2015, as you may know. The goal is to rid the Armed Forces of harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour. I would be delighted to go over that information during the question and answer period.
I should add that we’re having some success in increasing the number of women in the Armed Forces. For example, the percentage of women enrolled in RMC’s officer training program has averaged 18 per cent in recent years. In 2017-18, we hit an all-time high of 25 per cent. We will continue our successful recruitment strategies to build on this success.
Madam Chair, I’ll wrap it up here, and I’m looking forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, General Vance. Just for the record, two senators have joined us since introductions.
Senator Griffin: Senator Diane Griffin, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Richards: Senator David Richards from New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Than you, General Vance, for your presentation and also for your availability. Welcome to the committee. My first question will be about the IMPACT operation in Iraq. Do you have an estimate of the number of Canadians who fought with Islamic State forces in Iraq or Syria? If so, did any members of the Canadian armed forces meet any such combatants during their mission, to your knowledge?
Gen Vance: Thank you Senator.
[English]
I have no numbers at all that I can give you on the overall situation with regard to Canadians that fought with ISIS in Iraq and Syria, nor do we have any first-hand experience in the Armed Forces facing Canadians fighting with ISIS.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Are you aware of the existence of these Canadians who may have returned to the country after having fought in Iraq or Syria, and could have been trained by the Islamic State group? Do you know if any such individuals returned to the country?
Gen Vance: Thank you, Senator.
[English]
I know of the phenomenon, but it is not the role of the Canadian Armed Forces to track nor participate in anything to do with returning Canadians.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I can’t help putting a question to you about the CF-18s. You know, as do I, that the CF-18s are used in the REASSURANCE and IGNITION operations, I believe. The CF-18s will soon be 40 years old — correct me if I am mistaken. Could you give us some idea of when it will become problematic to deploy CF-18s to missions outside North America, because of their age? We know that the government wants to purchase used CF-18s from Australia. We don’t know if that is for parts, or for the planes themselves, but there will come a time I expect when the age of the CF-18 aircraft will pose a problem when it comes to using them in certain missions. Can you give us some idea of when that might happen? At what point will these aircraft be too old to use on these missions?
Gen Vance: Thank you for the question.
[English]
Airframe life is not measured in years, so it is impossible to determine what year an airplane would need to retire. It is measured in hours on the airframe. If you fly the airframes more, the year that they would need to retire based on engineering estimates, on structural fatigue and on the aircraft no longer being viable is actually the issue.
One of the reasons — perhaps the key reason — an interim fleet is required is to ensure that with the aircraft we have, regardless of what they are — in this case, our own F-18s augmented by fully functioning Australian F-18s — we spread the hours over more aircraft so that they last until we transition to the future fighter fleet.
At this juncture, the command of the RCAF and our own engineers advise me that the timelines match, and that is that our airframe life will be sufficient to ensure we have time to transition to a new fleet.
It is also important to understand that the aircraft also need constant investment in their battle capability, their ability to manage modern operations in Canadian airspace or otherwise, everything from how the cockpit operates and how the weapons operate to operating in a complex battle space.
At this juncture, we are confident that with the additional F-18s from Australia, the number of hours available to the fleet and our capacity to keep the fleet running and keep it sufficiently modernized so that we are competitive in our own airspace and elsewhere, the F-18 fleet combined will last until we get into the full operating capability of the new fighter.
Senator Gold: Welcome, general. In the document Strong, Secure, Engaged, there are many sections on cyberchallenges. At page 72, it’s written that a purely defensive cyberposture is no longer sufficient and that active cyberoperations are called for.
Could you help us understand better the nature of the threats that you think we face, the Canadian military and Canada more generally, in the cybersecurity area, and why the purely defensive posture is no longer sufficient?
Gen. Vance: That’s a great question. It’s certainly germane today.
Just to give you a sense of the threat — and, of course, you will hear from, I suspect, the chief of CSE and others who work in the cyberdomain every day — in the Armed Forces typically we do cyberdefence of our networks all the time, and it has been a defence that consists of only what we can do on our own networks. We are attacked across government, and industry is attacked. We are attacked millions of times a year. It doesn’t mean that the attacks work, but we’re constantly defending the networks.
What’s happened now is that the ability for an adversary in cyberspace to operate completely unmolested, with all options open to them to determine how it is that they will attack, will eventually resolve in a penetration of our network. It could be catastrophic or minor, but, nonetheless, it would be a penetration.
We in the Armed Forces actually have the authority to conduct offensive cyber. We’re working in partnership now with CSE and others to get ourselves into a position where we will do so effectively. But the point is that leaving a potential adversary entirely untouched, uninterfered with as they simply line up their cyberassets to eventually find a chink in your system is not a wise way to operate.
I liken it to fielding a hockey team that only has a goalie on the ice. Eventually you’re going to get scored on. You’ve got to have the capacity to defend yourself using some offensive capability.
That describes defensive operations.
There’s a whole range of offensive operations we are contemplating, and the policy provides for, where, within the bounds of Canadian law and all of the governance around how we conduct targeting, we would use offensive cybercapability to bring an effect against an adversary or enemy to deny them the ability to operate or the ability to attack us.
So cyber is a domain as much as the physical domain is, and it’s also a system of systems that would enable us to protect ourselves as well as conduct offensive operations.
Senator Gold: Is the capacity that you have or that you are developing your own capacity within the Armed Forces, or is it CSE’s capacity that works to your account, if I can use that term?
Gen. Vance: It’s both. We are going to invest in a cyberoccupation. We’ve already commenced a cyberoccupation inside the Armed Forces. We’ll invest in more military and civilians that will work in cyberspace, and we’ll invest significantly in the partnership with CSE. I’m sure you’ll get more on that from CSE. Given their mandates and the new bills that are before government, we would see both the Armed Forces and CSE being able to operate together.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: General Vance, welcome to the committee. I am going to follow up on my colleague Senator Dagenais’ questions. How many members of the Canadians Forces fought with the allies in Iraq or Syria?
[English]
Gen. Vance: We have the mandate to provide up to 850 operating in Operation IMPACT, which would include aircrew, intelligence operators, personnel conducting combat support activities as well as CANSOF.
Just to qualify your question somewhat, “fighting with” is not how I would describe it. Those who are, let’s say, closest to the action on occasion had to fight to defend themselves and the partners that they were with. Their principal role and what they spent most of their time doing was training, advising and assisting Iraqi security forces — first with Kurds to ensure that conditions were set for successful operations into Mosul, and then, following that, with Iraqi security forces, not Kurds, into eastern and then western Mosul.
It was principally designed to ensure that their planning and the execution of their plans were conducted as professionally as possible to avoid collateral damage and damage between themselves and to help them achieve their objectives.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I am trying to understand your reasoning. You say that approximately 800 officers trained the armed forces of both countries so as to prepare them for combat. We are aware that the return of foreigners who fought with the Islamic forces, whether they were British, French or Canadian, was a very well-known phenomenon. Certain countries adopted quite firm positions. I am thinking for instance of England, which prevented these combatants from returning to the UK.
In reply to a question put by Senator Dagenais, you said that you were not aware of this return of Canadian combatants. Was that really your answer, or did I misunderstand?
[English]
Gen. Vance: The Armed Forces is not engaged in the monitoring of or operations against returning Canadians. That is the function of other security agencies.
I personally, because of my position as Chief of the Defence Staff, am aware, and I think the way I answered the question was that I’m absolutely aware of the phenomenon. I’m absolutely aware of the intelligence generated around that phenomenon, but it is not the role or the position or the mandate of the Armed Forces to concern itself specifically with Canadians who are either on the border, in Canada or in transit, for that matter. It’s an entirely different matter.
Remember, we weren’t fighting on the ground. We haven’t been fighting on the ground in Syria, so had a Canadian been met in those circumstances — and we have not — then that person would be a combatant. And if they stopped being a combatant and we were able to identify them as a Canadian, then other processes would take place in terms of perhaps repatriating them to Canada. But we have not run into that situation.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: When these combatants were in an armed forces context, did Syria and Iraq ask the Canadian Forces or the Canadian government about their position with regard to Canadians who were arrested and fought for the Islamic State group?
Were you called upon to advise people at the front, those you oversaw militarily? Were you ever asked for an opinion as to what to do with the Canadian combatants who were arrested?
[English]
Gen. Vance: Just to clarify the question, if a Canadian Armed Forces person or persons captured a Canadian on operations, is that your question?
Senator Boisvenu: Or people from other countries on the ground, did you give them some advice of how to treat that kind of case?
Gen. Vance: It is theoretical at this time. We haven’t had this occur. We were aware of some Canadians operating there. We do believe that some of them were potentially killed in operations, not by Canadians but by operations by allies, but that’s conjecture at this point.
It’s hard to deal with a theoretical, but suffice it to say that any combatant that is captured—and remember, all of our allies have been working with Iraqi security forces, all of them, to train and advise and assist them—so the scenario would more likely be an Iraqi unit with allied advisers would kill or capture a citizen not from Iraq. It could be from any one of our nations.
In that case, they are dealt with through the rules governing the law of armed conflict. They are combatants. So they would be processed first by the Iraqi Armed Forces. But if we were to find out that that’s a Canadian and we were certain that that’s a Canadian, then very quickly it would go from strictly a military dealing with a combatant and become a consular case for the Government of Canada in which the military would be a partner.
The question that you may also be asking, and I’ll just take a stab at this, is have we had consultations with allies about how to specially treat or target Canadians. Absolutely not. We don’t work that way.
Our allies deal with individuals in the battle space through the law of armed conflict. We have done no queuing of targeting against Canadians. We don’t have any special deals about how to particularly attack Canadians—none whatsoever. I’m just making that link because you asked a question about what has been said by allies about how they’ll take care of business, which is, I believe, a wildly inflated message.
Our allies operate through the law of armed conflict and deal with individuals in the battle space based on the rule of law.
Senator McPhedran: Good to see you here, General Vance. It’s not that often we actually get a witness of your rank with no side people. You’re fielding all of this on your own. Thank you.
I wanted to begin actually with congratulations in relation to three initiatives: first, Operation HONOUR; second, the joint connection between Global Affairs Canada and the Canadian Forces for the Elsie Initiative; and third the Vancouver Principles on Peacekeeping and the Prevention of the Recruitment and Use of Child Soldiers coming out of Vancouver. That is strong leadership for us as a country.
I have a multi-part question. The questions flow from those three different initiatives. Should I just go through the three parts, or what would you prefer?
Gen. Vance: Whatever Madam Chair prefers. I’m happy to take them as you see fit. If you ask them one at a time, I’ll try to answer quickly. If you put them all together, I will ramble a long time.
Senator McPhedran: That was my answer, thank you. In the Elsie Initiative, a lot of the emphasis is on training. Is there anything in the works for an equivalent or a revitalization of the Lester B. Pearson Canadian International Peace Training Centre? I happened to be at the two days of the Elsie Initiative last week and met a number of soldiers who actually had the benefit of previous years' training there. Is anything under discussion? Are we going to re-enter training for peace operations in some substantial way?
Gen. Vance: Thank you. At this time there are no plans to reinvigorate the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre. We do training at the Peace Support Training Centre in Kingston. We are looking at expanding the training such that we can make it available to others, but right now, the largest effort around training others would be through our military training and cooperation program. We send trainers all around the world to train others. Sometimes it’s language training. Sometimes it’s basic skills. Sometimes it’s a particular skill set that a country needs, but that is a very valuable program that we use that trains far greater numbers than the Pearson Centre ever did.
Senator McPhedran: Okay. Thank you. My second question relates again to Operation HONOUR and the cultural shifts that you’ve indicated you’re dedicated to making. It’s about the commitment in Strong, Secure, Engaged, the new national policy around Gender-Based Analysis Plus. It’s a very specific question.
Can you tell us if you have any gender advisers in place yet in CAF?
Gen. Vance: Absolutely. Senator, we have them at all levels, from my strategic staff down through Joint Operations Command. All of the services have gender advisers. And it’s not just gender advisers. It is understood they’re part of the planning staff. The whole value of GBA+ is to understand the environment from the very beginning of planning and incorporating a gender view from the very beginning and not bolting it on at the end.
There are staff officers conducting it -- strategic staff. Every single task force deployed has a Gender-Based Analysis Plus adviser available to the task force commander to ensure that the ongoing plans in any theatre are kept fresh through that lens. The same exists on the deputy minister’s side. She has that.
We’re also revamping how it is that we’re going to manage our champions inside Defence. We’ve got an inaugural method around the Canadian Forces champions for diversity and inclusions for operations, which is to impact the two-star level with a number of one stars, major-generals, brigadier-generals, working to ensure that we infuse all the aspects of the institution of the Armed Forces with this, not just our operations. It’s a pretty significant undertaking.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you. The last question also relates to Operation HONOUR and the implementation of the culture shift to which you’ve committed.
Between 2014 and 2017, as far as I can determine, there were 17 courts martial in relation to sexual assault cases, of which there were four findings of guilty, which I take to be roughly a 23 per cent rate. It’s not the perfect comparison because it’s short term, only one year, but in the civil system from 2014-15, the civil conviction rate was 43 per cent for sexual assault. I’m wondering if you can help us understand that very significant difference.
Gen. Vance: I don’t think your numbers are accurate, senator. I don’t have all the numbers at my disposal.
We have just done a review of unfounded cases, cases that are being re-litigated, and my sense from the reports given to me is that our conviction rate is actually better than in the private sector or public litigation.
Allow me to go back, take on notice the numbers that our Director of Prosecutions and the Judge Advocate General have around this. A series of interviews were done just recently with the media on this topic. I don’t have them at my fingertips, but I would say that I think your numbers are a little off, so we’ll help you out there.
Senator McPhedran: I welcome the clarification. Thank you.
Senator Oh: Welcome, General Vance. I have two questions for you. My first question involves the operation of drones. Drones will play an important role in the future of our warfare. How advanced are we? How much are we cruising into the drone area?
Gen. Vance: Thank you. Drone is the common name for remotely piloted vehicles. We do use remotely piloted vehicles. We have for some time. We used different types throughout Afghanistan. So we have some experience with them. We have smaller RPV or UAVs available to us now, all the different smaller types up to sort of a medium size, none of them currently armed.
The policy is that we will buy and field armed UAVs as well, and we’re basically in the policy stage talking about fleets of UAVs for a variety of different reasons. So we are very clearly going to advance in the UAV or remotely piloted vehicle realm, yes, sir.
Senator Oh: My second question concerns the demographic shift in Canada, our population base. How much recruiting is going on for the diversity in our community? I know the second generation are all university grads, a lot of them well educated. Do you have any special recruitment drawing them into the Armed Forces?
Gen. Vance: Thank you for asking that question because it’s certainly one of the most important things we’re trying to get done right now, to increase the breadth and depth and scope of whom we recruit into the Armed Forces. We are deliberately targeting women and diverse cultures across the country, so if you see our recruiting videos, our recruiting program is designed right now to attract as much as possible those sorts of non-traditional groups. I’m hoping that we can stop calling them non-traditional and call them normal very soon.
I’d like to take a moment to explain why. It fits into the category of good to do, the right thing to do. Your Armed Forces should, as much as possible, reflect the cultural mosaic, the makeup of your country. That’s a given.
But I look at it really more as a function of survival. We need to recruit from the broadest possible range of Canadian society — from Indigenous culture, through new Canadians, to women — because if we don’t, we’re going to run out of recruits; we won’t be as competitive. We are competing against government, the private sector and other countries for Canadians to join the Armed Forces.
We also have to look at expanding beyond diversity of culture and background into age and physical capabilities. We need to increase the available population as much as possible and then select from them the very best candidates to field in the Armed Forces.
Very much everything we’re doing right now in the recruiting realm is to that objective. Operation HONOUR is about treating our people with honour in the first place, but it’s also to ensure that future generations of potential female recruits know that the Armed Forces is a good place to come to work, and Operation HONOUR is part of that certainty that you’ll be protected and that you’ll have a good experience in the Armed Forces.
So, yes, it’s incredibly critical, senator, that we draw from the widest part of the population we can. The Armed Forces doesn’t naturally appeal, necessarily, for a variety of reasons. Some people come from backgrounds where the military wasn’t exactly the best thing that they ever met in their home countries. We’re a mobile lifestyle. We have physical fitness challenges. We’re a service; we serve, so you have to be willing to serve. You’re not giving up any of your rights, but you’re certainly giving up some of your comforts and your degree of discretion day by day to be a member of the Armed Forces. That doesn’t necessarily appeal immediately to the generations coming along.
However, I make the point that the career path has potential for a hundred different jobs. If that’s what you want, jobs, we’ve got lots of jobs. If you want a career, we’ve got a career. It’s a place where you can serve your country, if that appeals to you, but also get all sorts of great experience for the future. People are motivated for a variety of different reasons to come to the Armed Forces. I’d like to increase or grow that which motivates and eliminate that which would make someone less interested in the Armed Forces. So we’re all about that. Thanks for the question.
Senator Oh: Very good. Nice to hear that. Thank you.
Senator McIntyre: Welcome to the committee, general. Actually, my first question is a follow-up to Senator Oh’s question. It has to do with drones.
Will the new drones that the government intends to procure be armed with missiles, or will they be used solely for surveillance and intelligence gathering?
Gen. Vance: We will have a number of fleets. Our intention is to have at least one of those fleets be armed, for the strict purpose of being able to use force precisely from that platform, absolutely.
Senator McIntyre: My next question has to do with Canadian Armed Forces funding. As you’ve indicated in your presentation, the SSE, the government’s new defence policy, provides for an increase of approximately 70 per cent in funding for the Canadian Armed Forces over the next 10 years. However, I note that the Department of National Defence will have to formally request these funds from the Department of Finance every year as part of the budget process. That means that this government, or any future government, could decide to reduce the planned investments.
So my question is this: Assuming there’s a recession and that the public finances become strained, will the promised funds still be allocated?
Gen. Vance: You’ll have to ask the future government that question. My sense — senator, it’s a great question — is that the money is available and it’s in the fiscal framework. It is entirely normal; every government department goes through an annual cycle to request the funds, and then does so again in the sups that follow. That’s entirely normal and entirely expected. That doesn’t mean that Defence is being treated differently or worse than anybody else. That’s how this government doles out the money. But the money is there.
At this juncture, I have no choice but to be entirely confident — and I am — that we’ve gone through probably the most rigorous costing exercise ever done with business tools — partly because the business tools are available — that match the very best practices of our most sophisticated allies, to put before government the best possible quality information about what the Armed Forces will cost in terms of quantity and quality going into the future.
The policy was written in such a way that there are really two major areas where investment is occurring. One is output — so the operations you can do, which has a numeric and a qualitative component to it — and the other is in our people. The good news is that if there’s any reduction in the budget of the Armed Forces, at least there can be a useful, sophisticated discussion around what it is that the Armed Forces won’t do. Will we not invest in troops or not invest in output? In the past we didn’t have that degree of fidelity on where the money was going. That’s not a hedge against that it’s not going to happen. If a future government needs to alter course, it will alter course.
Senator McIntyre: It will need to be a political decision at the time?
Gen. Vance: It always is. In fact, the Strong, Secure, Engaged, the increase by 70 per cent, is also a political decision. I just make the point that the work went in — by everybody involved in this in the department and the Armed Forces — to make it clear that where money would be removed would impact either troops or operational output in terms of quantity or quality.
I think that’s a good situation to be in because you can have a sophisticated, reasonable discussion, and government can make the appropriate decision at the time, and that’s a good thing.
Senator McIntyre: I note that the SSE provides for an increase in the number of Regular Force and Reserve Force members. You mentioned that in your presentation.
Why was there no decision to prioritize increasing the number of special force members who are being called on more and more in recent years?
Gen. Vance: They are increasing, sir. The special forces command is increasing.
Senator McIntyre: Is it increasing?
Gen. Vance: Significantly.
Senator Griffin: Thank you for being here. It’s great. Someone else started off with the CF-18s, but I’m going to continue with them.
My understanding is that they were not used in Afghanistan in support of combat operations, but does the RCAF need an additional combat aircraft that can provide increased close air support for our Canadian Forces members on the ground?
Gen. Vance: Yes, ma’am. The statement requirement for the future fighter absolutely demands the capability to be a close air support platform.
Senator Griffin: Terrific. Next quick question: What is the minimum number of Hornets that are required to meet our domestic, international and NORAD commitments?
Gen. Vance: Just to understand your question: 88 is the number of aircraft of the advanced fighters, so the future fighter competition will result in 88 aircraft. Those 88 aircraft are the number we need to be able to do our NORAD and NATO obligations simultaneously.
Senator Griffin: Thank you.
Senator Richards: Thank you for being here, general. I’m talking about the CF-18s as well. I’m wondering how outclassed they are in manoeuvrability with the top fighters of the time, because they are 40 years old; and I’m wondering if that’s a real problem for us.
We’ve become kind of a country of purchasers over the last 40 years, since the Avro Arrow was thrown into Lake Ontario. I’m wondering how well that suits us. We buy our submarines from Britain, and we buy our aircraft from the United States. We mothballed our one aircraft carrier in I think 1970, the HMCS Bonaventure. You talk about wanting the best people technologically to help us out in the Armed Forces. I would love to have them too in the Armed Forces. However, if we are a country of purchasers and continue to go the expertise of other countries, how will you attract the best technicians and the best scientists in the world to help you?
I’ve been viewing this for a long time and wondering where we go from here. You will remember that after the Avro Arrow, most of best technicians went down to the United States and worked there. I remember Gerald Bull, a renegade genius of his time in Canada, was sent packing. If we are a country of purchasers, how can we attract the best Canadians to stay here and help our Armed Forces, where they won’t end up with places in California or Florida?
What’s the timeline to replace the CF-18s? We bought a whole squadron of Australian F-18s so they’re kind of cannibalized. What is the timeline when we will have a new squadron of planes?
Gen. Vance: There is a lot there, senator, so I’ll try to address your first questions first.
The Canadian industry and ISED -- Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada -- are principally the ones concerned about our workforce in the aviation industry that produce the ships and aircraft that we ultimately purchase. I just remind you that it’s not all offshore purchases. Much of what we end up using in Canada has been partially built in Canada. We have a very active aviation industry, for example. Our ships are being built in Canada.
Senator Richards: I should have mentioned that. They are, yes.
Gen. Vance: It’s a bit of a mix. If we have the industrial capacity and it’s competitive — and, again, decisions are made outside of the Armed Forces as to how a competition would result and who builds and what we get — I think that there is a massive investment in the Canadian defence policy in terms of equipment. Much of that is going to be built here or in partnership with major suppliers that will also use contributions from Canadian industry.
Generally speaking, that workforce is important for Canada in many ways, but it sits outside of the Armed Forces. The equipment that we buy we would maintain inside the Armed Forces, but it’s purchased outside.
As for the timeline to replace the CF-18s, there are two parts to the equation. One is to get ourselves in a strong position in terms of our interim fleet. That interim fleet of F-18s will take us out into the early 2030s, which is fine. I don’t have a concern about that. As long as the airframes on them last and the hours on them last — and it is the expectation that they will — while that’s happening, a competition will have been conducted and new aircraft will be coming in. I think they come in starting as early as 2025. By the early 2030s, we’ll be up and running with brand new planes.
The interim fleet of upgraded, continually modernized F-18s are great planes, by the way. They’re satisfactory for us now. Their operational competitiveness with potential adversaries starts to drop off over the time frame of the mid-2020s to the 2030s. That’s why we need to get the new aircraft in place. That’s exactly what we’re doing.
That new aircraft will be subject to a competition. I believe the request for proposals for that competition will be out in 2019. That’s the intent, namely, to get that RFP out the door. The competition will occur, a winner will be selected, and the aircraft will start to arrive in the mid-2020s. I’m being somewhat general about that because there’s always slippage. There can be slippage one way or the other, not always, depending on who bids and who wins.
Senator Richards: Thank you very much. That’s great. Yes, we do make a lot of the parts, and a lot of services do come within the Canadian framework and the Canadian nation. The problem with me is since the Avro Arrow, it’s been someone else’s design and someone else’s expertise before we get it. With all due respect, I think that does Canadians a disservice in the Armed Forces because the Armed Forces is there for us, to protect Canada. We certainly have the expertise in almost anything when we put our minds to it.
I’m not a great militarist, but in 1950, a long time ago, Truman was worried about Canada. It had the third-greatest navy and the fourth-greatest army since the Second World War. I don’t need that and we don’t need that, but if we continually put our hand out to other countries to get the expertise that they have designed — no matter if we’re partners with them or not — in the end, it might do Canada a disservice. That’s all I'm trying to say, sir.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you, general, for being with us today. For my part, let me thank you for the work that you do on behalf of our nation.
Gen. Vance: Thank you.
Senator Brazeau: You were talking about recruitment strategies with respect to women, new Canadians and Indigenous peoples. Is there any specific strategy with respect to trying to have Indigenous people enrolled in the Armed Forces?
Gen. Vance: Thanks for the question. In fact, one of the best sets of programs that we have in terms of their very beginnings and how we launch them is the series of programs associated with Aboriginal youth, whether it’s the Bold Eagle program done by the army or the introductory period to potential recruits at St. Jean to the ALOY program at RMC.
I invite you, senator, to get as involved with this as you would like because it’s a fantastic set of programs that has the Armed Forces partnered with elders and tribal leaders and families to offer at a very early stage in someone’s interest, in an Aboriginal youth’s interest about the Armed Forces, and to say, with no fault, take it for a spin; see what it’s like.
Clearly, one of the challenges for Indigenous peoples, particularly youth, is to move away from home and stay away from home and then move around the country and not go back to that land that is yours and that culture that is yours. That can be an incredibly stressful event. Most who are able to see what the Armed Forces are like quite enjoy it. It’s another family. I think we have been very smart about respecting Aboriginal culture inside the Armed Forces. We have a strong, vibrant Aboriginal spirit with our Aboriginal peoples inside the Armed Forces. We proudly carry the eagle staff where we go. We have senior members of the Armed Forces who are Aboriginal, and we’re doing all we can to encourage by having these trial programs. We did the same thing, although on a far smaller scale, with women last year. The conversion rate of interested youth to joining up and going for it is pretty good.
I got to stand in St. Jean before a platoon of 24 young folks from across Canada, and 22 of them on the parade said they’re going to convert and go on to the next course, which would make it for real, and join the Armed Forces and go. It’s really good. I don’t think that was just because I gave an inspiring speech. I think it came from the fact that when they joined, they met and had active participation with elders from that region. Their culture was respected right from the beginning. It showed them that there is a path that respects their culture, their heritage, but also values them as individuals for what they are and what they can do.
So it’s a big conversation. I’d love to talk to you about it one on one if you’re ever interested, because with the birth rate in our Aboriginal communities, there’s ample opportunity for children to see the Armed Forces as a viable place.
I’m rambling on here, but I’m kind of keen on this one. We need to look at how we are stationed across the country. There’s no way I’m going to be able to have a reserve unit or a unit in proximity to all First Nations locations across the country. But we can do better in terms of where our reserve units are, and attracting Aboriginal youth to those reserve units that are closer to home. We’re going to be making significant changes in our reserves so that we get full-time operational output from this part-time force. It’s a great way to take some initial orientation training, do it for a while close to home, and then if it appeals to you and you have a knack for it, then maybe you join the Regular Force and move around, or you stay put and you do a great operational thing.
There’s lots going on, senator, and I’m really proud of it.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you for your response, and thank you for extending the olive branch, which I’ll most likely take. A few moons ago I was in the Naval Reserve as well. At that time, it was certainly a great experience even though I was a little bit fearful of joining; but it was a life-changing experience for me. It’s important for Indigenous people to know the opportunities that enrolling and joining in the Armed Forces could bring to their lives. Thank you for that.
Would you happen to have the current number of Indigenous people enrolled in the forces? If not, could you at a later date send them off to the clerk so that we can get an idea.
Gen. Vance: We’ll take on notice the exact numbers and the exact percentage as of now. We’re not even coming close to hitting the targets that we’d like to hit. We need to work on it. We’ll take that on notice. I have it somewhere in my paperwork, but it will probably take me longer to find it. We’ll make sure we get it to you.
As I say, we need senior respected members of the Aboriginal community, elders such as yourself, to advertise this. It can’t be just the Armed Forces. It has to come from the community.
Senator Brazeau: I understand. My last question is with respect to PTSD within the Armed Forces. What exactly is the forces doing for people who have been diagnosed with or have symptoms of PTSD?
Gen. Vance: That is another enormous body of work. PTSD is relatively new in terms of the science behind this particular ailment, but I think it’s been around forever. The science has improved, but it still has a long way to go to assure us of a certain path to success in recovering from any injury.
First, it’s a real phenomenon and it’s a real injury. It needs to be taken as seriously as any other injury that’s easier to understand because it’s visible. It’s real.
I’m not a medical expert, but I have a lot of experience with the conditions around which people would suffer traumatic incidents that would bring on PTSD. Modern warfare, from the First World War, the violent situations and situations that place someone in peril over a prolonged period of time can have this impact. We’re doing a lot about PTSD in the Armed Forces. The first and most important thing we do is make our troops resilient to the stresses so that they can withstand those stresses and not become a victim or a casualty of PTSD. We do a lot of that work. A healthy, resilient soldier, sailor or aviator is far more likely to be able to withstand the effects that would bring on PTSD. There are operational techniques. There are ways to manage yourself in operations. Some of them work, but like any injury, some people will suffer from the injury. Then the response needs to be very effective.
PTSD often manifests up to five years or more after the traumatic events that would bring it on have occurred, so it’s been a challenge. You may have experienced something in childhood, you may have experienced something in your initial training, you may have experienced something in operations. You may never have been on an operation and still suffer PTSD. Sometimes PTSD can be confused or conflated with other mental health injuries or traumatic brain injuries. Mental health and PTSD, there are specific areas of unique medical and scientific study that all have slightly different demands in terms of the recovery of the individual.
Our Surgeon General is absolutely seized with this. Honestly, the Canadian population is seized with this. There are more and more scientific people that help us understand veterans’ health and our own mental health. How do you become resistant? How do you become more resilient? What do you do to raise a person’s ability to withstand those conditions? Then what do you do when they become a casualty, even if they manifest much later in life?
We know a lot about PTSD. We know a lot about what it does to people. We are not where I’d like us to be. I think everybody would agree with me, we’re not where I’d like us to be in terms of more certainty on the path to recovery. There needs to be a lot more research and a lot more science behind getting people better.
It’s an injury; therefore, it should be something you can recover from. There are many people with PTSD in the Armed Forces who are managing highly productive, successful professional lives. They are very successful, even though they’ve been struck with PTSD. There are others who are entirely debilitated by their experience. Why the difference? What can we do? All of those questions are still up for science to answer. It’s a big deal. I’d like to focus on the resilience and the correct care while they’re in the forces or even after.
The Chair: We are moving to second round. I have a question on Operation HONOUR. I’m interested, particularly given some of the media issues that the Armed Forces have faced, are you evaluating in some way how the progress of culture change is taking place, and is that an independent evaluation?
Gen. Vance: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, we are. It’s a combination. I’m measuring internally through a whole range of surveys or responses. I’m looking at the number of incidents per month. Every single incident that is reported to the chain of command gets reported to me immediately.
We’ve made it a big issue. We’ve given people the tools to do a number of different things: How to respond? How does the chain of command best support the victim? The victim-centric approach is hugely important.
The Judge Advocate and the Military Police Branch have gone a long way to ensure that they have specialists in the area of sexual assault and trauma so that all things to do with our military discipline and justice system are increasingly more effective in terms of supporting and achieving justice.
We are trying to be intelligent about not releasing people who have suffered trauma and who have every reason to recover, but the conditions for their recovery won’t be present until they’ve gone through sometimes a fairly lengthy legal process or otherwise. So I’m measuring all of that.
There are two aspects of the third party. One is the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre. It is entirely at arm’s length to me and works under the deputy minister. Dr. Denise Preston, who is the executive director, is arm’s length to me. She’s measuring and reporting.
This fall we will have another Statistics Canada survey to repeat what was done two years ago. I said that would be sobering; it was. It measured an awful lot of before Op HONOUR and a little bit during Op HONOUR. We’re going to see in that survey whether or not Op HONOUR gripped the Armed Forces, and where. I’m sure there will be places that we can improve. I’m sure they will show where we have improved. But it’s those third-party approaches that allow us to retarget and refocus.
It’s a long-term commitment. It’s not going to be snuffed out. There is no one who can wave a magic wand and make this all stop. It’s a long-term commitment that every two years we will do a StatsCan survey, and we’ll find out and continue to crunch away at it.
I would like to believe that, based on the numbers, the results that I measure, it’s a known thing. Operation HONOUR is known. It’s known in Canada. It’s known by the troops, and they know there will be a response. The trust in the chain of command that we will respond is going up, in terms of the number of people who respond that way. In fact, the number of incidents that are coming to the attention of the chain of command or the military police in the first instance is increasing.
So I never brag about this at all. It’s modest progress, and there’s a long way to go, but the indicators that we’re seeing right now would say that we’re making some progress.
The Chair: We’re going to move to round two. We have four senators with questions. I would just ask you to be brief in your questions. We’re down to about 15 minutes left.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I have two brief questions. Senator Gold is sitting opposite me, and for your information, General, I will mention that we will soon be studying Bill C-59 in committee, which involves security, among other matters. Here is my first question: I would like to know about the nature of your communications with the Canadian secret services.
[English]
Gen. Vance: I have very close contact with their leadership, but the Armed Forces is largely excluded from the detailed intelligence, depending on what it is and what its purpose is. The intelligence that we deal with is typically associated with the operations that we’re doing abroad.
We don’t gather intelligence on Canadians. We must be prepared to do operations in Canada, largely to support Canadians. But the CDS and our Chief of Defence Intelligence are members of the defence and intelligence community, so I am often aware of the types of intelligence that we have or any specific concerns -- if we have a concern about an individual or something to occur -- but we are very rarely called upon to support with Armed Forces assets as a result.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I cannot stop myself from asking you the following question, and it will be my last: how do you view the legalization of marijuana in the Canadian armed forces?
Gen Vance: I’m going to give you a serious answer. I have other answers, but I’m going to give you a serious reply.
[English]
Honestly, senator, we will follow the law of the land, of course. We are looking at it. I am very soon to make decisions on the specific and unique circumstances associated with military service that would preclude someone from using cannabis at any particular point in time.
So although it may be available and part of a cultural norm, it’s not for a pilot who is about to fly. There are very strict regulations in Canada around certain occupations and how free from intoxicants they can be before they are sort of on the throttle of an aircraft. The same would go for those who are doing very dangerous, specialist skill sets. So I have to make recommendations to my minister on specifics as to where we would have rules that demand a standard of abstinence, let’s say, or not using cannabis because of the nature of their job.
We’re also looking very closely at every industry and organization in terms of our health and safety standards -- when can you use cannabis, when can’t you use cannabis? Generally speaking, we don’t want people at work intoxicated, from anything, whether it’s alcohol or cannabis. So that will always remain in place. You’re not permitted to be doing your job and incapable of doing your job. You can’t be at work that way.
All of the provisions that apply to anybody -- whether you’re intoxicated from cannabis or alcohol or even improperly taking over-the-counter medications -- we can stop you from working and have you recover from whatever influence you’re under before you come back to work. If that happens too many times, chances are you’ll be in some administrative difficulties, and maybe the Armed Forces is not the life for you. That happens to people now; the same thing will happen in the future.
I don’t anticipate this being a significant problem for us. We want to understand it. We want to understand better how to detect. We want to make decisions based on evidence. So we don’t want to start laying down rules about when you can and cannot have taken cannabis that don’t make sense in terms of your ability to recover. So we’re going to try to be smart about it. But in the end, dangerous duty is serious duty for the country, and we don’t want people doing it stoned. At the same time, I think we’ll figure out common-sense policies around this so that we can follow the law of the land.
Senator Gold: Well, from pot to procurement.
Gen. Vance: It could be mixed a little bit to be happier maybe.
Senator Gold: I’d rather keep them separate.
The SSE provides for a change in the defence acquisition process to cut the approval time in half, apparently, and it’s bedevilled all of our attempts to keep up with the infrastructure we need. I know in another committee we’re involved in search and rescue, and we know that we have a real challenge with lack of assets, especially in the North.
Could you tell us a bit about how you plan to change the procedures to shorten the time for procurement, and why we’ll succeed this time when previous governments, at least, have made the same promise but have yet to deliver?
Gen. Vance: Thanks for your question, senator. I will give you the best answer I can, but I think I have to take this on notice, because there’s a body of work that’s done by the deputy minister — I will try to explain it — and ADM (Materiel) and other government departments around all aspects of defence procurement.
The ministerial authorities are going up next year in terms of what we can get done inside Defence by ourselves. The ministerial authorities will go up to, I think, $5 million, which means that we will take less procurement outside of the department and be able to manage them inside Defence. That will help.
There is a commitment on the part of the deputy minister and I to try and reduce internal processes by 50 per cent. We think that’s an achievable target, our own steps. That’s happening already. We’ve seen some successes where projects can go from the initial stages of development through to acquisition very quickly.
Much of our procurement — I’m not going to give you an advertisement here — goes extremely well. The challenging procurement is the major capital projects, the multi-billion-dollar projects. Those are more challenging. The vast majority of what we do goes extremely well, on time, on budget and gets what we need.
More of that is going to go extremely well, I think, with the increased ministerial authorities. I think everybody is seized with this. I don’t know if that’s going to translate into a much-improved situation, but I think it will. I’d like to think it will. I know the deputy and I are certainly seized with it, and we don’t want anything inside Defence to slow it down.
I think that PSPC, ISED and other departments are equally seized of this.
Senator Gold: Thank you. If there is information, you can send to the clerk of the committee that fleshes that out a bit —
Gen. Vance: It will give you a more thorough answer than what I can give you.
Senator Gold: That’s a good answer. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I would like to follow up on Senator Oh’s questions with regard to recruitment. One matter appears fundamental to me: you want to recruit a lot of women, but the businesses that succeed in doing this are those that treat women well. We have some knowledge of the history of the Canadian armed forces with regard to harassment cases that were hidden and not dealt with.
Since you joined the Canadian armed forces, what changes have you seen in the treatment of women who were abused or assaulted in the forces? Is it easier today for them to file complaints following an assault?
Gen Vance: Have you heard about the HONOUR operation?
Senator Boisvenu: Not very much.
[English]
Gen. Vance: I started a significant operation in 2015.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Is true that I am a new member of the committee.
Gen Vance: No problem.
[English]
When I took command, this was a white-hot issue affecting the very credibility of the Armed Forces as a good place to come to work. We had many cases. Many of my people were hurting. They wanted to serve, but they wanted to do a good job and they couldn’t because of the environment they were in.
So I started Operation HONOUR. Senator, it is a huge body of work. It would take me forever to answer the question. Suffice it to say we put in place the special misconduct response centre, operated 24-7 for people to reach out. We started a victim-centred approach which we never had before. We made it an issue in the Armed Forces. Everybody has been briefed and trained on bystander training. The chain of command has received special training, the JAG branch has changed the way they do prosecutions, and the Military Police Branch has changed the way they investigate.
We have instituted training at the very basic level in the first week or two that you’re in the forces on what right looks like in terms of how you treat each other, so that new people coming into the Armed Forces through our recruit training don’t run afoul of Operation HONOUR and do something wrong that might have been okay before but is not okay now.
We are dealing with it extremely seriously. There are those who would say, “You’re not treating it seriously until you actually fire someone.” We fired people. We removed people from command. We have given them due process. If you commit and are convicted in a court of harmful sexual behaviour against one of your subordinates, I will release you. I’ll give you due process, but you’ll be released. The list goes on.
The most important thing was the victim-centred approach. We’re trying to change a culture here. We’re trying to change the approach in the Canadian Armed Forces. We are as infused with bias as anybody else is in male-dominated or traditionally male industries. We’ve got to shed that bias, see the value of women in the first place and make certain that we bring more women into the Armed Forces. That’s connected; bring in more women, it's less likely. It’s kind of an ecosystem that we’re trying to move here. It’s not one thing.
I’m leading it as hard as I can. What I’m proud of now is that the junior ranks are leading it themselves and taking it seriously themselves. About 40 per cent, as I understand it right now, of reporting on inappropriate incidents are from third parties. So those who have been trained as bystanders can say that’s wrong and report it, as opposed to making it always the onus of the victim. So a lot is going on.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I want to congratulate you for your leadership, General.
Gen Vance: Thank you.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: In the most recent issue of Macleans, a columnist made the following statement:
In effect, the Canadian Navy has already been disbanded, replaced with a small coastal defence force.
And that force has already abandoned our northern seaboard. You can still see the wind-hollowed remains of a large military base in Churchill, but the long-promised naval base was downgraded to a fuelling facility, and then to a jetty. It is literally a pile of rocks pushed out a hundred yards into a bay. As for the rest of the Canadian Arctic, an area roughly the size of Europe, we are down to only about 120 military personnel -- that’s one for every 30,000 square kilometres.
As you know, I had the privilege of being in the Arctic with the forces a couple of months ago. There are aspects of this statement that seem a little off to me, but I think you’re the person best suited to respond, so I wanted to share this.
Gen. Vance: I don’t normally respond to articles.
Senator McPhedran: But this is statement of fact, seemingly?
Gen. Vance: I’m sort of with you. It’s probably a stretch. I guess I’d have to ask you what’s your question? Are we defending the Arctic? Is that your concern? Or are we able to respond to the Arctic? Are we maintaining our sovereignty? I’m not trying to put you on the spot. I’m saying that it’s easy to take 18 million square kilometres of land and ocean and say that if we want to populate that at the same rate as European militaries populate their countries, we'd have an Armed Forces larger than the population of our country right now. That’s not what we are about.
What we’re about in the Arctic is the ability to effectively respond to search and rescue incidents, to support whole-of-government activities in the Arctic and to meet military challenges that will come into the Arctic from a posture that is suitable sometimes from the South and sometimes from the North. We have Canadian Rangers in the North. If we need to help someone, we have rangers to help find them. If we need reporting on something that’s occurring, we have rangers that can report.
So we have the Arctic offshore patrol vessels which will be able to patrol in some of the periods in the Arctic. The defence policy will look at everything from underwater remotely piloted vehicles on our coasts to augment our ability to surveil, underwater, the water column and above-water approaches.
NORAD modernization seeks to ensure that encroachments into Canadian airspace will be dealt with effectively into the future as threats become more and more technical and advanced.
So from a military perspective, there is a certain posture that we need to take to get the job done that we need to get done. I think we’re at that posture.
Yes, there’s not a facility in Churchill. I don’t have a military task in Churchill. The Nanisivik port will do what it’s supposed to do, which is to provide refuelling services and sustainment services to ships that are in the Arctic. We train in the Arctic. We’re there in the Arctic. We’re there right now.
So when faced with those kind of articles, sometimes there’s a wistfulness there, that Churchill doesn’t have a military base or that somehow we should be there more. I have to look at it , and the minister and the government as a whole have to look at it, from the perspective of what the government needs to get done up there, and how much military do you need to do that at any point in time?
We have tremendous response capability, and we have the ability to operate there, and we have tremendous capacity to sense what’s coming into the Arctic. That’s our posture.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you for that. You asked me, I guess, the stance of my question. It’s partly because I am a senator from Manitoba, but it was also to try to understand better whether it’s all over for Churchill in terms of forces. There’s nothing being planned. The situation that remains, that will be the status quo for the foreseeable future?
Gen. Vance: Well, again, these aren’t all my decisions, but at this point in time, I have no knowledge of any plans that would re-establish a base in Churchill.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
The Chair: General, we want to express our sincere thanks to you for spending the hour-and-a-half with us. I think it’s been extremely helpful.
Gen. Vance: It went by fast.
The Chair: We very much appreciate the time you’ve given us and certainly the direct answers you’ve given as well. We express our thanks.
(The committee adjourned.)