COLUMN: On Parliament Hill – Why the F-35s are important to Canada-U.S. relations

Over the weekend at the G20 in Johannesburg, South Africa, Prime Minister Carney was asked when he last spoke with the U.S. president about the tariffs impacting countless Canadians. His response was nothing short of startling. The prime minister replied, “Who cares? I don’t have a burning issue to speak with the president right now.” His reply has left many Canadians – and observers alike – scratching their heads in bewilderment.

Is this not the same prime minister who promised victory months ago, breezing past three self-imposed deadlines without securing a deal? Where is the masterful negotiator Canadians were promised?

This past week in the industry committee, I had the opportunity to hear from expert witnesses on defence procurement, with much attention given to the F-35 acquisition initiated under Prime Minister Harper—and delayed for the last 15 years. The long-overdue purchase has drawn renewed media attention, especially after Industry Minister Joly described the Saab proposal as “very interesting” adding, “We believe that we didn’t get enough when it comes to the F-35.”

The remark became the talking point behind Saab’s claim that its offer would generate 10,000 jobs if Canada were to trade down to the Swedish Gripen.

This was followed by last week’s visit from the King and Queen of Sweden, who promoted the idea of a dual system where Canada could operate two fleets: 18 of the committed F-35s with the United States and the remainder supplied through a Swedish deal. However, as James Fergusson of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at the University of Manitoba clarified, Saab is in fact owned by British Aerospace.

While some are touting the idea as a win, former Chief of Defence General Tom Lawson described the prospect of operating two different aircraft as “enormously destructive”.

The committee’s expert panel echoed this concern. They noted that the argument in favour of a mixed fleet is weak and warned it would ripple across national security and saddle Canada with massive additional costs – duplicating maintenance, repairs, parts training for technicians, and specialized pilot training. Even the oft-repeated promise of 10,000 jobs remains unsubstantiated, with experts suggesting the figure is largely arbitrary. General Lawson added that while the Gripen is a lovely aircraft, it represents “yesterday’s technology tomorrow”. He cautioned that the years required to train pilots, technicians, and ground crews on a second platform could effectively ground them for a decade. Moreover, a mixed fleet would jeopardize the anticipated regional international service depot in Canada, that accompany a dedicated F-35 program, trading it instead of what experts say would amount mostly to an assembly plant under the Gripen proposal.

On the other hand, the F-35 program already employs up to 5,000 people in Quebec, with an additional 5,000 jobs estimated across Canada – in Winnipeg and British Columbia, according to Richard Foster, chief executive and vice-president, L3Harris. These jobs also carry the strong possibility of being sustained for 10, 20, or even 30 years. Chauncey McIntosh, the Lockheed Martin vice-president and general manager, responsible for the F-35 program, noted that more than “110 Canadian companies have contributed to the F-35 supply chain with $32 million in Canadian components in each jet in the current fleet of more than 1,255 aircrafts.” He added that, “the global F-35 program of record is more than 3,600 aircraft for 20 nations with approximately 30 active Canadian suppliers today.” The current and projected value to Canadians from 2007 to 2058 is $15.5 billion.

In business, relationships matter. Keeping North America safe and secure is not just a Canadian concern: It is a U.S. concern. The two primary threats identified in the defence update are China and Russia. Our aircraft purchase must anticipate emerging threats at speeds with a fully dedicated system response. The F-35 is a proven fifth-generation aircraft.

Which brings us to the strategic realities. Pulling out of the F-35 deal will be politically damaging. In 1956, Canada agreed to buy major military systems from the United States in return for equal trade opportunities in procurement.

How this unfolds is being closely watched. U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra referenced trade last week in relation to Canada saying, “We are actually waiting to see exactly where the Canadian government is going to come out on this,” referring to the F-35 purchase review.

Tariffs on military equipment, long term agreements between our countries, integration, strategy, and important relationships are all at stake. Fergusson reminded the committee that until now, there is no evidence that our defence relationship with the United States has been hurt in any way. “You talk to DND, to Canadian military personnel in NORAD – everywhere, defence cooperation continues…”

But this decision could change that.

Prime Minister Carney, how you handle this – particularly in terms of our relationship with the United States, matters. Canadians care and it is time the prime minister cares too. It is time to listen to those who are most impacted and make the right decision for Canadians.