National Defence Committee on March 23rd, 2011

[RAdm Robert Davidson]

There are a number of nations that are still participating in the mission.

Let me address the comment about whether the skies are completely safe.

What you have is an evolving situation. During the first couple of nights there were, as you know, a number of Tomahawk land attack missiles fired by other countries to take out some of the ground anti-air equipment. Some of that equipment has indeed been neutralized. But we don't have personnel on the ground. So we need to continue to watch the situation and see what happens--whether radars can come back online; whether they're repaired by the Libyans and then begin to pose a threat again. Sometimes it may be that you've taken out a radar, but you may not have taken out the missile system itself. If they can repair the radar, then that system may become dangerous again. There are a number of mobile systems, as well, that the Libyans have.

While it may be fair to say that we're in good shape at the moment in terms of control of the skies, that could change at any time. So we need to be prepared for that.

When it comes to the protection of the population, as I say, of course, that's the mission we essentially did earlier today when we engaged an ammunition depot that was resupplying. There are others that are doing that particular mission as well. They are engaging in activities that would protect the population, as you noted, under article 4 of resolution 1973.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I have an important question, and it has to do obviously with the limits of the mission itself. You're telling us that the rules of engagement are not to be made public. I don't know if that's the rule in all other air forces. My understanding was that when the Americans sign off on rules of engagement, they're a part of in fact ensuring that the public has a means to ensure that the activities are in keeping with international law and the understanding of the mission. Can anyone confirm that it is or isn't the case with other nations?

We are a little bit in the dark here. I understand the argument about it, the ammunition dump, but I'm also sensitive to the notion that article 4 doesn't authorize Canada playing a role or any nation playing a role in attempting to determine the outcome of the situation in terms of helping one side or the other. As the Prime Minister has said, at one point the Libyan people themselves have to decide the outcome of all of this.

It sounds to me like a very delicate operation. How do you get to the point of saying that this particular ammunition dump is going to be used to re-supply a force that's then going to do something that's contrary to article 4? There seem to be several leaps of logic here. How do you do that without avoiding the accusation that you're actually playing a role in deciding the outcome of what's essentially a civil war?

[RAdm Robert Davidson]

Maybe General Cathcart could start on the issue of rules of engagement first.

[Brigadier-General Bernard Blaise Cathcart, Judge Advocate General, Canadian Forces, Department of National Defence]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Normally, I never say never; lawyers are never that definitive. But it's the usual practice of most states and allied states in NATO not to publicly disclose the ROEs, rules of engagement, or certainly details of the ROE. They may comment generally, as we do, generally, on the process and the general overview of the levels of force being deadly or non-deadly. But as a general rule, the allies, including us, do not disclose the rules of engagement for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that the hostile actors will be quite aware of what our tactics would be, and that would clearly be a defeating aspect of our mission.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

What about the second question?

I realize that article 4 is fairly broadly worded and is open to interpretation. We may be interpreting it one way, the British may be interpreting it another way. We have seen this argument break out in England between politicians and military people, and military people saying that they're not able to do that under the mission, and frankly they're not going to do it. They're not going to attack Mr. Gadhafi because they're not authorized to do it. Yet you have some political leaders saying something a bit stronger than that.

That kind of disengagement with what seems to me to be the clear intention of the motion is bothersome to me from this distance. I realize this is not America, and we haven't had such strong statements coming from our leaders, but we've had some things pretty close.

How do we keep on that straight and narrow there? And do you agree with the British general who said that we have no authorization to attack Mr. Gadhafi personally, that we're not looking for him, etc?

I don't want you to comment on Britain, but would you comment on that point in terms of the limits of resolution 1973?

[RAdm Robert Davidson]

The principle here behind the decision whether or not to engage ground targets that are not air-oriented is one of, as you note, the protection of the population. The UN resolution calls for a ceasefire on the part of the Libyan pro-regime forces. When they are visibly refusing to abide by that ceasefire, when they are going and rearming themselves, and we can observe that they are doing this and they are then firing on the population, or firing on other forces--in other words, violating a ceasefire--then we have a fairly clear understanding of whether that particular location is one that is--

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Can I interrupt for one second?

You just said something that doesn't seem to me to be in the resolution. I don't think we're authorized or the forces are authorized to enforce a ceasefire.

[RAdm Robert Davidson]

It says that acting under chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations “Demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians”.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Yes, I understand that attacks on civilians are one thing, but a ceasefire between forces is another. Frankly, what you've said is that one of our objectives is to enforce a ceasefire. I don't--

[RAdm Robert Davidson]

No, what I said is our objective is to protect the population. When we can see that they're not abiding by the ceasefire and firing on civilians--

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Yes, and firing on civilians.

[RAdm Robert Davidson]

Right. If through our observations and surveillance we are seeing that they're firing on civilians, then they become a valid target.

Jill Sinclair, do you...?

[Jill Sinclair, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Department of National Defence]

I think I would make the same point.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I accept that answer, but that's slightly different from enforcing a ceasefire. Obviously, we were quite happy to support this resolution and the activity of the Canadian government because of the approach and the tactics of Colonel Gadhafi and his regime in going to retake a city or whatever, where he would bomb the population, essentially to try to soften up everybody, and then send in tanks and then send in troops. Clearly, that's recognized as being illegal under international law and what we're dealing with here. When you've said it that way, that they're violating the ceasefire and firing on civilians, then they're legitimate. Fair enough.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

I'll give the floor to Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for their flexibility with respect to time and so on.

I have a number of questions that are fairly short, but there may be a couple in the weeds.

Ms. Sinclair, is anybody left to evacuate Canadians who want to be evacuated? Could you comment on the success of that evacuation?

[Jill Sinclair]

At the risk of saying what Mr. Harris thought I would say, I'll say that really is a DFAIT lead. In terms of getting Canadians and other nationals out, as the admiral reported, those who want to go are out. So I think we feel pretty confident.

As you'll appreciate, the situation on the ground is very difficult at the moment. We had the operation running out of Malta. There were ferries and other allies and our own aircraft taking people out, so we feel very good about that.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

General Lawson, this question may be a bit in the weeds, but why not leave the seventh aircraft there as a spare?

[MGen Tom Lawson]

In fact the idea is to have six--four, a two-turn two--and there was no ask on behalf of the coalition for more than six, nor were there any more authorized than that. So in fact there is not authority. Certainly if an ask came the government would have the option to....

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

In the gulf we were asked for 24 and we had 26, but fair enough.

This is pretty key, I think, in terms of target. We've talked about the authorization of targeting. General Cathcart, could you comment on the role of lawyers on site in targeting and mission planning?

[BGen Bernard Blaise Cathcart]

That's a very good question.

For committee members who know from my previous appearances, I talked about the office of the JAG and that we deploy legal advisers with all major Canadian Forces operations. This one is no different. We have a legal officer with the air component commander in Ramstein for the primary purpose of assisting with the targeting process. Under our formal targeting process, the targeting team that advises the commanders at every level primarily consists of intelligence officers, operational officers, legal advisers, and, where possible, policy advisers. They're all there as an integral part of the team to feed into recommendations to the decision-maker, in this case the commander at the various levels. We also have a legal adviser aboard HMCS Charlottetown to help in its operations.

They are very key on all aspects--not just targeting, but use of force in all circumstances. Regrettably, as we've heard in your previous session, military justice still has to be done at sea and on the ground with the troops, and the legal advisers, unfortunately, might have to advise on charges or not charges as well.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

One of their major roles, obviously, is to make sure that we are abiding by the laws of war and international standards and so on.

[BGen Bernard Blaise Cathcart]

Absolutely, that's the critical part, making sure that we are able to operationalize the law. We take what some may call legal mumbo-jumbo and we make it understandable for operators.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

We do that in Afghanistan and have done that in Afghanistan.

[BGen Bernard Blaise Cathcart]

We've done it everywhere. We've done it in Kosovo, in previous missions, everywhere we go, our land forces, maritime forces, or air forces.