National Defence Committee on Nov. 24th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Please make it as short an answer as possible.

[Roger Ingebrigtsen]

Yes.

Thank you for the question, and also congratulations on serving for your country in Afghanistan.

There are a lot of practical lessons learned. For example, Norwegian soldiers who been in Afghanistan are better soldiers when they come back to Norway. That is building deterrence also in Norway.

The one and most important lesson learned from Afghanistan is a political issue. When you are sending young people to war, you must, as a politician, if you are sitting in Parliament or government, tell your people very clearly why you are doing this. I think in the first days it was quite clear in Norway, but it was watered down after some years. We tried to find all kinds of reasons for being there.

Why did Norway go to Afghanistan? It was close to an article 5 operation. It was the attack on the United States. The United States, one of our very close allies, asked for help to fight terrorism in Afghanistan. That's the reason. September 11, 2001—that's the reason we are in Afghanistan. We want to fight terror in all parts of the world, including in Afghanistan.

The problem is that politicians, the media, and people started to talk of other reasons for being in Afghanistan. It's a poor country—that's a good reason. It's a regional problem—that's also a good reason. It's ethnic conflict—another reason. There is just one main reason—article 5, supporting a nation that is attacked—and the world united together to try to do something in Afghanistan. That's the most important lesson learned, and that's the reason we communicated heavily before we started the Libya operation. We didn't want to do the same kind of failure again.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much.

Mr. McKay, you have the floor.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, guests, for being here.

To my great surprise, I live on the same street as the embassy. I hadn't realized it before. I walk past the Norwegian embassy each and every day on my way to work here.

As I lined up in the long line to sign the book of condolences, I remembered the television coverage of the terrorist incident. What struck me so forcefully was the dignity and the wisdom of the King and Queen and your Prime Minister. They spoke with wisdom, thoughtfulness, and hope. I thought it was an expression of leadership such as we seldom see in the world. That was my clear recollection of that event. On behalf of my party, please accept our formal condolences.

Minister, you've raised a smorgasbord—for want of a better term—of topics here. I have a limited amount of time, so I just want to get your comments on two topics.

The first concerns the white paper that Norway is going to put forward to its Parliament, presumably in the early part of the new year. I think that's actually a very good idea, and it's something I'd recommend to this government because this procurement process is nigh on to 10 years and the world is a very changed entity. I think it's time to refresh all the arguments because right now we're getting into he-said-she-said arguments--technical arguments, procurement arguments, industrial benefits arguments, and things of that nature, with more heat than light. So I like the idea of that happening, and, like Mr. Kellway, I would adopt that as a proposal to the government.

I did pick up on the fact that you've just recently returned from Texas and you've seen what you've seen. But you did make a comment about the super committee and the failure of the super committee to come to grips with financial reality.

It's our view that the decision about the F–35 is not going to be made here, and it's not likely going to be made in Norway, and it's not going to be made in Britain. It's going to be made in the United States, in Washington, and it may not even be made by Congress. More likely it's going to be made by the bankers for the United States because of their extraordinary deficit situation.

Can you share with us some observations you may have made with respect to that?

The second question I have has to do with NATO. I appreciate, probably just because of your coming here, the significance of NATO to you, which is possibly lost on us because we are in NATO. Your history with Russia, particularly, makes you acutely aware. I know a bit about the Baltic countries, and I have a feeling for what they think about the presence of their Russian neighbours, so I imagine that feeling transfers.

It must be of some concern to you to watch the disintegration of the European Union...not that “disintegration” is the right word, but certainly the stresses and strains of the European Union and particularly the NATO partners, and particularly their ability to carry the financial load that NATO needs to have carried.

I'd be interested in your comments on both subject areas, because that must be uniquely worrisome for NATO.

[Roger Ingebrigtsen]

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to give a short answer. I know the time is running out.

Let me start with NATO. Yes, of course, it's a problem that nearly all European countries are cutting their defence budgets. That's a problem. Norway is one of the few who are able to increase the budget. On the other hand, this has happened before. This is not a new situation that some countries are reducing their efforts in the defence sector.

For me, the answer is easy: we have to cooperate even more. Bilaterally, we need to bring Canada more to Norway, and Norway wants to come closer to Canada. We need to cooperate even closer than European countries. Also, the United States is cutting its budget. The answer is not that we should leave NATO, forget NATO. No; it's more NATO. The lower the budget, the more NATO. That's in a way the main answer to that question.

Finally, I want to be very clear on the F-35s. Norway needs F-35s, and in my opinion--I shouldn't advise your government and you as politicians--I think you also need F-35s. But the country in the world that most of all needs F-35s is not Norway or Canada; it's the United States of America. What you see is its plan to switch from six, seven, eight different fighters to one fighter. That would give a lower long-term cost to their defence sector. But first of all, analyze the United States and its security policy in the future: Canada is no problem; Europe isn't the problem; not Russia; but the Pacific. The Pacific and Asia are in American mindsets; that is the biggest security risk.

Without a capacity like this, the United States will not feel safe for the future. So I don't think it's American banks or super committees. I think the Pentagon and the presidents, whether Democrat or Republican, will force this decision through all places, and the United States for sure is going to procure F-35s.

So the question is not if; the question is how many. And that affects Norway. Therefore, we have very close relations with them, and we want that transparency and to see what the United States is going to do in the next year.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much. The time has expired.

In light of the time we have left, I'm going to do two more four-minute rounds, rather than five-minute, and we'll be very judicious on that time.

We'll start off with Mr. Strahl.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you very much.

It's good of you to be here.

You mentioned there's been a lot of noise on the F-35s in your country. Certainly we hear it in our question period from time to time, and we appreciate your cutting through that. We had Secretary Panetta in Halifax certainly stating his support for the F-35, and yourself, and our country. It's good to hear that directly from you.

You mentioned that there's already testing under way in the United States on the F-35, but when do you expect your pilots to be in the plane, or are they already taking part in the training?

[Roger Ingebrigtsen]

Our pilots will be in the F-35s in 2016, in the fighter. They are following the program very closely.

I asked my people there, our pilots, “Are we doing the right thing? What do you feel about the F-35s? Do you miss the F-16s when you are cooperating with Lockheed Martin and all the partners in Texas?” The answer from my pilots is that this is the best air fighter they ever have seen. All the test results so far are even better than they thought three years ago, when Norway down-selected the F-35s.

Maybe other persons will say something else, but the pilots from Norway are very clear: this is the best thing that could happen to the Norwegian air force in the future.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Go ahead, Mr. Norlock.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you, and my thanks to the minister and the ambassador for being here.

I was very privileged on another parliamentary committee, public safety and national security, to visit your country, looking at the state of your prisons and the issues you were dealing with. I was not totally surprised but I was pleased to learn that you had visited here, and about 60% of your programs were adopted from Canada. And we learned some things, and I think we'll be doing the same.

With respect to aircraft, Canadian Forces Base Trenton is in my riding and I have the privilege of seeing the new C-17s and taking delivery of the new Hercules. One of the things that I was told by our military folks, our air force folks, was that what we're doing when we purchase these aircraft is making sure that they are equipped in the same way that the rest of our NATO allies are equipped, because it's more cost-effective. There's nothing that aircraft manufacturers like more than when you customize your aircraft, because then they soak you when you need to get them fixed.

So that's what we intend to do, right across the board; it makes only too much sense that we would buy the same fighter aircraft. That was started by a previous government, even though they're sometimes reluctant to admit that.

Also, thank you for investing in the world's third-largest oil deposit. I know it has caused some consternation in your country, but let's face it, North Sea oil is running out and you need to make those investments. That's what made your country as affluent as it is, as we know, and that's what's keeping our country afloat—natural resources.

I want to talk about the north and your relationship with Russia. I would like you to talk a little bit about the Arctic Council and more about how we are interrelated as northern neighbours. When, let's say, some ecological or natural disaster occurs, how do you see that council cooperating?

[Roger Ingebrigtsen]

Number one, I feel like I'm home in Norway when I'm looking at you now. There is an opposition in Norway too, so this gives me really a good home feeling. We have exactly the same thing in Norway, where the opposition was the last government, and asks the government what it's doing right now; it's just quite funny to see.

I want to give the floor to Mr. Trond Grytting. He has been serving as one of our leaders in our headquarters at home in Norway. He is practical, and very close to the cooperation in the high north.

Please, Trond, can you give some comments to the question from Mr. Norlock?

[Rear-Admiral Trond Grytting, Defence Attaché, Royal Norwegian Embassy]

Yes, thank you.

We are focused on the high north, our presence there, cooperation with Russia, modernizing our navy and our military, and also introducing into our navy the new naval strike missile, the most advanced missile probably on the market today. We're purchasing a hundred of those missiles. They will be tested next year. We're also introducing the joint strike missile for the F-35.

So there's total modernization with much presence. Our coast guard is very active in the high north and has good cooperation with Russia. We have a long tradition over many years manifesting sovereign rights and sovereignty. The richest fisheries probably in the world are in the Barents Sea today. The whole thematics in terms of cooperation with regard to the development of the oil industry, the fisheries industry, and military activity in a common area, so to speak--the discourse is huge.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We're going to finish off with Madame Moore.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

I want to start by saying that I heard your message that you really want to work with other countries and launch exercises in the high north. Several members of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association are here today, and I think you chose the right venue for your message. Their chair is even here, so the message has been delivered.

I want to discuss the F-35 aircraft. You said your budget was realistic. What is your budget for procuring the F-35s?

[Roger Ingebrigtsen]

It's about $10 billion U.S. That's for 51 or 52 air fighters. That's $10 billion today, but I'm sure there could be another answer in just a few months, when we know more about what's happening in the United States. I'm sure that they are going to put some of their procurement to right...not cuts in the program. It's 2,400 fighters. I think that the United States is going to procure 2,400 fighters, but they are going to procure them more slowly, and this will definitely affect the price for Norway. But the answer to your question is $10 billion U.S. for 51 fighters.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Is that with or without maintenance? How many years does the maintenance plan cover? Is it 20 or 30 years?

[Roger Ingebrigtsen]

You are talking about the lifetime cost.

[RAdm Arne Røksund]

It is included in the initial logistics support. The life cycle costs will be, I think, about—this is not public yet, so I have to be careful—$40 billion U.S. over 30 years. So that's life cycle costs over 30 years, all included.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

For maintenance.

So the $10 billion is simply to purchase the aircraft themselves.

[RAdm Arne Røksund]

That is for the planes, initial logistics included, repair kits, and so on, for the first few years.

I should answer in French, but it's not my forte.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

No, that's fine.

I also have a question about the aircraft's communication system and problems in the Arctic. Three weeks ago, Stein Erik Nodeland, who heads up the combat aircraft program at Norway's Ministry of Defence, said that no solution had yet been found.

So I would like to know which solutions you are considering in terms of operating a communication system in the Arctic and approximately what it will cost to make the system operational.

[RAdm Arne Røksund]

If I understand you correctly, you're asking about communication north of the Arctic Circle with the F-35. First of all, we're operating our F-16s north of the Arctic Circle today with the same communication system that you will have in the F-35. That is unproblematic; it works.

What we do is send the communication, if you're operating in the far north, from one F-16 to another. We use this kind of system. As you know, the F-35 program, as one of its ambitions, is to have a system that can operate permanently and independently north of the Arctic Circle.

It will come at some time, but for the moment we will be using the same system as for the F-16. It works in the areas where we fly, and it's the far north.

I know that the F-18 of Canada has another system, which is a Canadian solution, but we have a system that works. It is kind of an artificial debate, I would say. We sail in the Arctic and we fly in the Arctic, and we have no communication problems that we cannot solve.

There are no fantastic solutions anywhere. You have to make compromises, but it works.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Secretary Ingebrigtsen, I have a quick question for you, with Norway being a fellow member of the Arctic Council.

There's been a lot of discussion at the Arctic Council on everything from climate change to dealing with the wildlife, indigenous peoples, communities of the north, development in the north. How about discussions at the Arctic Council on defence of the north and, as you've already talked about, more cooperation at a multilateral level for the High Arctic? Do you feel the council should be discussing defence issues?

[Roger Ingebrigtsen]

Yes, definitely. Today the Arctic Council is, first of all, a question of foreign policy, but I think they should bring defence policy, defence issues, into the Arctic Council. Definitely, that's one of my main topics.

We should bring also security policy and defence policy into the Arctic Council--and I hope that you can do exactly the same and cooperate with your colleagues back home in Norway.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

With that, I appreciate you taking time out of your schedule to appear today. I really enjoyed your presentation and the discussion.

Thank you for being such a great ally to Canada and part of the NATO partnership, for the contributions that you've made in Libya and Afghanistan in helping those who can't help themselves. Pass on our best to the Norwegian kingdom's armed forces.

I know you'll be joining us in the Senate for the ceremony right now.