National Defence Committee on April 24th, 2018

[BGen (Ret'd) Gregory Mitchell]

The biggest problem with being on the ground in a mission is the fact that everything—military and civilian—is controlled by the civilian side through the UN headquarters and answers to the UN.

In one of my favourite stories—and I can't even tell you what mission it was—a military commander wanted to do a helicopter operation and planned to get the orders from someone, and then when it came time to launch, he said that the petrol wasn't permitted, allowed, signed off, or authorized by the chief administrative officer of the mission, so the helicopter operation didn't go.

The biggest problem is the command and control, and that's where Denis in the MFO had the wonderful arrangement where he controlled both and was able to do anything.

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you.

Just looking at Mali, what type of military operation should be in place? I know it's not a peacekeeping mission, because everybody agrees that it's not. Should someone else be taking the lead on it, instead of the UN, like NATO or someone else? We don't want to be there for 50 years, because there's no peace to keep. What would you recommend? Who should take the lead and end this conflict in an efficient and quick manner?

[MGen (Ret'd) Lewis MacKenzie]

I would just say that the lead has already been taken, and it's the French who are actually killing the bad guys. They're concentrating on the fundamentalists, and they're responding with deadly force. It certainly can't be the UN, because the other three participants there right now—plus a few others who are there with special forces and don't get announced—are not prepared to accept UN leadership. So, if you're asking me who should lead—and I don't know whether they'd like it—I would say the French.

[MGen (Ret'd) Denis Thompson]

Again, I recall that immediately after the French intervened and before the conflict, there was talk of splitting the north into six different zones with PRTs—provincial reconstruction teams—and mimicking the structure we had in Afghanistan. It needs a counter-insurgency. It wouldn't take a lot of resources, and not to the scale of Afghanistan, because the population is thin. Also, even though the area is large, I think you could probably resolve that issue from a military standpoint and allow for the political dialogue to occur if you put your back into it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

That's your time.

MP Alleslev.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for being here.

Before I get into my question, I wanted to confirm something that you said in your testimony, General Thompson. You said something very critical, and I want to make sure I heard it correctly.

As a guy from the pointy end, you said that logistics matters to an operational commander, or did I mishear you?

[MGen (Ret'd) Denis Thompson]

You didn't mishear me.

I'll just say very quickly that in the MFO, they don't have processed food like every other military mission I've been on. I enjoyed fresh veg and fruit from Israel and Egypt., and I much appreciated it.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

As a former logistician, I greatly appreciate that, sir.

We've been talking a great deal about the degradation and diminishing of our leadership role in peace operations. I don't have a lot of military in my riding, so when I have a conversation with them about our alliances—NATO, NORAD, and our role in peace operations—I often get the response, “Why? Why does this matter?”

Canadians value what they understand. To your comment, General MacKenzie, members of Parliament tend to be a reflection of the priorities of Canadians and tend to advocate for the things that Canadians think are important.

As Canadians, gentlemen, and thought leaders and former practitioners, how do we argue that? What is the answer to why peacekeeping or peace operations matter to Canada, and why does a leadership role in that domain matter to Canada and Canadians?

[MGen (Ret'd) Lewis MacKenzie]

Very briefly, we're not capable of assuming the leadership role. You have three infanteers here. Most of the boots on the ground, most of the casualties, etc....

I'm an honorary chief of the Toronto police service. We have 2,000 more cops in Toronto than we have infanteers in the Canadian Army. Joining forces of 12,000 or 16,000 or so, we don't have the ability...with a number of other more important deployments with NATO, even if you don't agree with some of them. I might not, but that's neither here nor there. Those are important issues, with a proper chain of command.

We don't have the ability to take the leadership role, in my estimation. A leadership role isn't just having the commander of one of the forces. It is unfortunate that we didn't grab one in Mali, for example, although I would have felt sorry for the individual.

We are tiny. We're not a threat to anybody, and we have a tiny military.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

But should we? If we decide, and Canadians decide that we should take a leadership role, in the same way that we value policing in Toronto and put the resources to it, then we as Canadians will dedicate the resources to it.

What is the argument for why we should be? Is it relative to the times that we find ourselves in, and the incredible destabilization of many more regions in the world, not only from state but from non-state actors?

[MGen (Ret'd) Lewis MacKenzie]

I'll just say that we're looking to a nostalgic past, which isn't possible.

[MGen (Ret'd) Denis Thompson]

I think you just need to look to defence policy: defence at home, defence of the continent, and defence of Canada's interests abroad. Peacekeeping, if we're going to use that word—peacekeeping or peace operations—falls into that third realm: defence of Canada's interests abroad.

Are we a G7 nation or not? Do we want to be influential around the world? Do we want to turn the tide on all these negative trends? That's the direction you have to take this in. We're a full player in the international community or we're not. We can close the doors and sit here fat, dumb, and happy in Canada, and this stuff probably won't visit us in our lifetimes. I think we have an obligation as citizens of the planet to engage, as our defence policy points out.

[BGen (Ret'd) Gregory Mitchell]

We live in the world. Our international trade, stability, are all in our interests. That's not going to happen without peace.

I would suggest that we as Canadians have a particular interest. If you look at your riding, the number of immigrants from around the world who all have homes—and people in a lot of these different places that they have escaped from—they have an interest and they reflect Canada. They're part of the face of Canada.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

How do we proceed? What are the critical three things that we need to do to further us in the endeavour?

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I'm going to have to close this round, as we've hit five minutes.

We'll go to our second round, so our last formal round of questions will go to MP Garrison. There's more time, though, so we can circle back on issues we didn't complete.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

General Mitchell, at the beginning you talked about establishing a Canadian peace support training centre. That's of course something close to my heart, which I'm hoping this committee will take very seriously.

The other thing you talked about is less well known as a Canadian contribution, and that's the rapidly deployable headquarters. Can you tell us a bit more about what it will require to get that tradition going again?

[BGen (Ret'd) Gregory Mitchell]

The initial one was a brigade. It was made up of contributions of troops on standby, not full-time standby. For example, if Canada said it was going to contribute a helicopter squadron, it would do its normal duties and everything else. Once or twice a year, its leadership would go on some training organized by the brigade headquarters, the planning folks. They would train on UN procedures, policies, and so forth.

We might take a particular mission. We might visit it, and that sort of thing. We would send people back, and they would do their own helicopter business for the rest of the year. If it were deployed and Canada agreed to deploy, that helicopter squadron would pick up and go.

What I'm suggesting is, forget the brigade. I don't think that will ever come up again with these countries. They're not interested.

The jewel in the crown of that brigade was its multinational headquarters. That headquarters deployed on numerous occasions within seven days to set up a new mission or to expand a current mission. It had all of the branches of a military mission headquarters. It even had police in it. They would go and set it up and have communications set up within the same day, regardless of the location.

They knew the UN policies. They knew the UN procedures. They knew how to do all the reports and returns. They knew that after three months, when some country actually provided the senior operations officer—that person would come from India, Bangladesh, or wherever—our operations officer would step back and be the number two and help them out, and that sort of thing.

What I'm suggesting is that this core of a brigade headquarters might involve 10 or a dozen people, full time in Canada, doing planning, preparing training, reaching out to the other nations, visiting missions, staying in touch with New York, and setting it up. That would be the involvement, with very little cost. It's more of a planning and capability potential. That's what I'm proposing.

[MGen (Ret'd) Lewis MacKenzie]

The reason that General Mitchell's idea could well be practical is that this would be done outside the UN. Rapid deployment for the UN is an oxymoron, a big-time oxymoron. Any time you try to establish a rapid reaction force, as has been done—and R2P falls into the same category—Russia and China will veto it. Anybody who has internal problems within their own country does not want the UN to have a rapid deployment capability, so it will never happen in my lifetime.

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

As somebody who was in East Timor waiting for the UN to arrive, where it took closer to eight weeks than eight days, I certainly do appreciate the idea of a rapidly deployable headquarters.

[MGen (Ret'd) Lewis MacKenzie]

The Australians showed up pretty fast.

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

Once the Australians were asked, they were pretty ready to go.

That was actually where I was going with my question. Are there other countries with that same expertise, or do we as Canadians have a particular role to play in the deployable headquarters?

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I'm going to have to hold it there—

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

Just don't make eye contact.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

The good news is, you're going to get some more time.

That ends the two rounds of questioning. We still have time on the clock. I have MP Gerretsen, MP Gallant, MP Garrison, and MP Alleslev. There will be another slot left if someone just wants to get a question in.

Having said that, I'm going to give the floor over for five minutes.