National Defence Committee on March 23rd, 2011

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Very well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Rear-Admiral Davidson, you have the floor

for seven minutes--or eight.

[Rear-Admiral Robert Davidson, Director of Staff, Strategic Joint Staff, Department of National Defence]

Monsieur le président, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to brief you today on Operation Mobile, Canada's military contribution to the international efforts to respond to the crisis in Libya.

As you will recall, violent protests started erupting in Libya in the middle of February. In response to the emerging crisis, the government, through the Department of Foreign Affairs, began a concerted effort to evacuate Canadians. The Canadian Forces were subsequently asked to assist, and on February 25 the Canadian Forces began their operations, known as Operation Mobile.

Canada's contribution consisted of two large C-17 Globemaster strategic transport aircraft and two C-130 Hercules tactical transport planes, and about 100 personnel that were dispatched to the region to assist in these evacuations.

This was done in concert with the Non-Combattant Evacuation Coordination Centre that was stood up under UK leadership in Malta.

The government also directed that HMCS Charlottetown, a Halifax-class frigate carrying about 240 crew members and a CH-124 Sea King helicopter, deploy from Halifax on March 2 to augment the Canadian Forces presence already in the central Mediterranean in order to offer support to any potential evacuation needs as well as for other regional events.

Over 11 days of operations between Malta International Airport and Libyan airfields, the Canadian Forces contributed to a whole-of-government effort, which saw the safe evacuation of 191 Canadians and citizens of other nations from Libya aboard Canadian Forces flights. The aircraft and their support personnel were subsequently withdrawn when the evacuation mission was no longer required.

There are two UNSC resolutions on the situation in Libya guiding international actions.

Adopted on February 26, the first UN Security Council Resolution 1970 called for an international arms embargo on Libya and the freezing of the assets of individuals close to the Gadhafi regime, or implicated in major violations of human rights.

The second UN Security Council resolution, resolution 1973, adopted on March 17, consists of three main elements: protection of civilians, enforcing a no-fly zone, and enforcement of the arms embargo.

Following resolution 1973, the government directed that six CF-18 fighter aircraft deploy to Italy along with their support personnel to assist allied efforts to implement and enforce this resolution.

You should have before you a slide that lays out the current distribution of our forces in the region. With the support and coordination elements we now have roughly 400 personnel in the area.

HMCS Charlottetown is currently assigned to Standing NATO Maritime Group 1, a NATO ready response force that is conducting a surveillance and presence mission in the central Mediterranean near Libya.

With the decisions taken in the North Atlantic Council yesterday, we expect that this mission will soon transition into an arms embargo enforcement mission to deter and prevent any movement of arms and mercenaries to Libya. The Charlottetown and its Sea King helicopter are well trained and are ready for maritime interdiction operations. I can certainly explain those further, if you desire.

The six CF-18 Hornets and their supporting CC-150 Polaris tankers and support personnel are in Trapani, Italy, under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Sylvain Ménard. They are now supporting the no-fly zone and protection of Libyans missions. This activity is under a Canadian Air Component Commander, Colonel Alain Pelletier who has been colocated with our coalition allies, in the coalitions air operations centre in Ramstein, Germany. Currently, coalition operations are being coordinated by the U.S.

I just want to mention that in looking at the slide you'll see a discrepancy compared to the announcements that were made today during the media briefing. There is in fact a seventh CF-18 in the region at the moment. It was provided in order to have sufficient aircraft during the transit to theatre so that we would have six in theatre should one of them break down. In fact, one of them did have a technical issue. That seventh airplane should return soon, along with one of the two tankers; it will need that support to return to Canada.

Canada's fighter aircraft and their crews are ready and trained to participate both in defensive and in offensive air missions. To date, they have flown both: defensive counter air missions, to react to potential air threats in Libyan airspace, and offensive missions, to reduce the threat that the Libyan pro-regime forces pose, both to the Libyan people and to coalition forces involved in the enforcement of the no-fly zone.

In the past 24 hours, Canadian aircraft have dropped precision-guided bombs on a ground target: a weapons storage facility. Some video of this was in fact provided during the media briefing today.

All missions are assigned by the coalition, but are approved by Canadian commanders and follow the Chief of Defence Staff's approved rules of engagement and Canadian and international law, including the laws of armed conflict. Major-General Lawson will be able to answer any questions related to capability and training of these highly trained and effective pilots, and Brigadier-General Cathcart can address any issues or questions you may have associated with the legal aspects of our operations.

There will also be a National Coordination Component at NATO Headquarters in Naples. This team of about 20 personnel under the leadership of Brigadier-General André Viens will be responsible for ensuring that Canadian activities are well synchronized with those of our allies.

We are ready to answer your questions. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

I now give the floor to Mr. Wilfert.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thanks to you and your colleagues, Admiral, for being here.

First of all, I want to say that of course our thoughts and prayers are with all the personnel—I think over 380 of them—who are engaged in theatre. I think the House was very clear the other night in its discussions that we certainly support the mission.

A number of things obviously come to mind. One is that there's always this issue of how you enforce a no-fly zone and what the objectives are of that no-fly zone. At the same time, there is the issue of whether we are there to engage in supporting the non-Gadhafi elements, or simply to impose a very strict no-fly zone, and what then comes out of that? How do you know you've achieved that goal?

Secondly, there was a mission the other day for which there was concern about collateral damage. It was called off. I assume that's a judgment that is made by the pilots themselves, based on their experience, presumably to avoid civilian casualties.

On this issue of the nature of command, which is going to be shifting, I take it, from the United States over to NATO at some point, what role does and will Canada play in this command structure, at least from the military standpoint?

[RAdm Robert Davidson]

Thank you.

With regard to that series of interrelated questions, let me tackle the first one: what are the goals.

We're operating of course under the UN mandate, and the UN mandate's principal goal is the protection of civilians: the protection of the Libyan people from attack. That's one of the key goals we are there for. That is one of the reasons for the particular missions that are being flown. Of course when you're going to put air resources into the country, there is the issue of risk that would apply to those air forces if they were being shot at by ground surface-to-air missiles and that kind of thing.

There is a suppression of air capability that's essential before you can fully implement a no-fly zone. Perhaps General Lawson could add a couple of points on that.

[Major-General Tom Lawson, Assistant Chief, Air Staff, Department of National Defence]

Thank you.

The pilots and air crews involved in the enforcement of the no-fly zone have a much clearer idea of how to carry that out than some of the more strategic questions that have been asked here. Once they're airborne, for instance, on what is a defensive, counter-air mission, they train all of their sensors--radar and electro-optical sensors--on their area of responsibility. They do that in a defensive combat air patrol some way back, and they're reactive to it.

But if they sense a target, basically a Libyan air asset, that is becoming airborne, they know they will require some sort of clearance, some sort of positive identification. And then it's clear what they have to do.

As it was with the missions that we flew, they came back with their missiles. That speaks not so much to a failure of the mission but perhaps to the effectiveness of the coalition warfare--the Tomahawk missiles and various other attacks that had taken place to that point--and also the deterrent effect of the CAF being airborne.

It's a very clear role for the air crews who are involved in it.

[RAdm Robert Davidson]

I would like to come back to your question on judgment.

Of course we train our pilots very well. In this particular case, I don't have the details to answer whether it was a pilot judgment or it was something done in the chain of command as information came forward, but their instructions.... It's a basic principle of the Canadian Forces to avoid collateral damage, and this was a case where someone in the chain of command, be it the pilot or someone above the pilot, received information that there was something on the ground that would have caused collateral damage had they engaged. So they made the right decision not to engage.

In the case of the attack today, it was a site that was inside a fairly well identified military area. It was clearly a military target, so they were cleared to fire.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

To add to that, I have another question, Admiral. In terms of the reports we're hearing--and we've heard them in the past--that Gadhafi is using human shields around some of these areas, that is certainly going to make it even more difficult to have those kinds of surgical strikes you're looking for.

Adding to that, there is always this discussion as to whether a no-fly zone is actually effective without ground troops, which of course are not authorized. I know the minister had mentioned maybe ground troops, and we don't want to go there at this time, but how do you measure the effectiveness of a no-fly zone without being on the ground?

[RAdm Robert Davidson]

I think to some extent you can measure the effectiveness of the no-fly zone by the fact that the Libyan air force is not flying. We have effectively, to this point, stopped them from flying and conducting those kinds of missions--

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

But they are still continuing offensive operations.

[RAdm Robert Davidson]

--that would allow them to use their air force against the population.

On the section of the UN mandate that allows us to protect the people, again, there is that capacity. That is why this particular site was bombed today. It was a rearmament site for pro-regime troops who are rearming themselves to go back and attack the population, so it became a valid target.

You're right that there is a challenge if human shields are going to be used. Of course human shields are completely contrary to any reasonable person's way to conduct a conflict like this, but we can't guide their ethics.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I assume we have learned a lot from Bosnia, given some of these similar situations at the time as well.

[RAdm Robert Davidson]

This is why, sir, we put so much effort into the training of our pilots. They go through the processes, they're briefed on the target, they launch, they understand their rules of engagement, they understand the guiding principles the Chief of Defence Staff has established. If the circumstances on the ground are different from what they were briefed, they will not engage. So that's what we have already seen take place.

I don't know if I'm running too long now, Mr. Chair. There was a third question, on nature of command. Do I have time to address that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

If it's short, yes.

[RAdm Robert Davidson]

As we have seen through the Afghanistan experience, the nature of a command and control regime evolves over time in a multinational environment. It can start in a coalition and it can then evolve to other organisms, such as NATO, as it did with ISAF. We're seeing a similar kind of thing occurring here. There's going to be an evolution. Those kinds of discussions are taking place in Brussels and elsewhere. I think we'll see that come to clarity and a conclusion in the coming days. That doesn't affect our ability to execute the mission in the short term, though. As I say, our forces are operating under Canadian command, being coordinated through our allies in these coordination centres that are operating. We get targets proposed to us by others, but we approve them ourselves and we make sure we're comfortable with them. And the safety and security of forces are being assured through the coordination processes that are taking place.

It's not neat, it's not as perfect and ideal as we would like. We would like to see it get to a single chain of command and clear authorities. I hope we'll see that in the coming days.

So that's how Canada is responding there.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Well, again, our best to all those personnel. Thank you.

[RAdm Robert Davidson]

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much, rear-admiral.

I now give the floor to Mr. Bachand.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you for being with us. We would like to have you spend time with us more often. As a matter of fact, I will later be tabling a motion in order that we might meet with you on a weekly basis. This will obviously only be possible if there is not an election. We will see what the future has in store for us.

The other day, Mr. Davidson, I was concerned with the issue of command. Please tell me if I am mistaken. The air forces are presently based in Ramstein, and their coordination is being done by the Americans. However, in the case of the naval forces, it seems that they have been integrated into the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1. Therefore, command is in reality coming from different sources for air forces and naval forces.

Notwithstanding the discussions within NATO, do you believe that a single command, namely NATO, would enhance coordination between the various armed forces?

[RAdm Robert Davidson]

There is no doubt that it would be preferable to have a single command. It would be best if all the forces were under NATO command. I also believe that that is the Canadian position.

Furthermore, the situation of HMCS Charlottetown is not a problem. The frigate command is being provided by a different authority than that for our planes, but in the end, all of these forces have been assigned to the command of the expeditionary force and of the Chief of Defence Staff. For Canada, it is therefore not a problem.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Very well.

To your knowledge, how many nations are presently participating in the intervention in Libya?

[RAdm Robert Davidson]

I believe there are about seven or eight nations, but I am not sure.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Very well.

You will probably tell me that you do not wish to discuss the rules of engagement with me, so as to not jeopardize national security.

[RAdm Robert Davidson]

Yes, the rules are always under...