When Melanie Joly stepped up to the microphones in Ottawa, it wasn’t just another routine press conference. It was a warning shot — and it was aimed straight at the heart of North America’s defense status quo.
Calm but blunt, Canada’s Industry Minister declared that Canada has not received enough jobs, technology, or industrial benefits from the F-35 program and that, for the first time in years, Ottawa is seriously considering a front-line fighter jet that does not come from the United States.
No polite diplomatic hedging. No vague language. Just a clear message:
The era of Canada quietly accepting U.S.-centric defense deals is over.
“I don’t believe we’ve had enough jobs created and industrial benefits done out of the F-35 contract,” Joly said. “Canadians expect more — and we should get more.”
At almost the same moment, executives from Sweden’s Saab were in Ottawa with a proposal that would’ve been unthinkable a decade ago:
- Assemble the Gripen E fighter in Canada,
- Create up to 10,000 Canadian jobs,
- Transfer key technologies and intellectual property,
- And build a long-term aerospace ecosystem centered in Canada — not Washington.
This isn’t just about swapping one jet for another. It’s about who controls the future of Canadian defense and industry.
F-35: Powerful jet, weak payoff
On paper, the F-35 is one of the most advanced fighter aircraft on Earth — stealth, sensors, networked warfare, fifth-generation capabilities. In practice, for Canada, it has become something else: a symbol of dependence without sufficient return.
The problems aren’t just technical; they’re structural:
- The F-35 is locked into a U.S.-controlled supply chain.
- Maintenance and upgrades depend on American approval and systems.
- Costs are high, and life-cycle expenses are climbing.
- Industrial benefits to Canadian companies have been far below expectations.
Billions have gone out the door. Most of the jobs? South of the border. Most of the value? Captured by U.S. corporations.
Joly’s message was clear: that trade-off is no longer acceptable.
Gripen: Fighter jet or full industrial reset?
Saab is offering something Washington has never truly put on the table:
a partnership of equals instead of a customer-client relationship.
Under Saab’s unsolicited Gripen proposal:
- Final assembly could happen in Canada, not overseas.
- Maintenance, upgrades, and integration would be done by Canadian engineers and technicians.
- A Canadian Gripen hub in Montreal could anchor a wider network of aerospace, cyber, and sensor research across the country.
- Canada would gain the ability to upgrade and adapt its fleet independently, without waiting for U.S. political approval.
The jet itself is purpose-built for the kind of environment Canadian pilots actually fly in:
- Extreme cold, Arctic operations, and remote bases.
- Ability to take off and land on short, improvised runways — even highways.
- Fast turnarounds with a small ground crew, making it ideal for dispersed operations in the North.
Where the F-35 represents global power projection, the Gripen is built for something simpler and more relevant to Canada: defending a massive, frozen homeland efficiently and affordably.
Beyond jets: a clash over sovereignty
Under Prime Minister Mark Carney, Canada has been quietly repositioning itself — reducing overreliance on the United States, diversifying trade, and rebuilding domestic industrial capacity.
The F-35 debate has now become a lightning rod for a much larger question:
Should Canada keep buying U.S. defense platforms by default —
even when U.S. politics are volatile and tariffs are used as weapons —
or should it build real strategic autonomy, even if that means saying no to Washington?
For decades, the unwritten rule was simple:
Buying American meant staying “safe” inside NORAD and the alliance system.
But the world of 2025 is not the world of 2005.
- Donald Trump’s “America First” tariffs and trade threats have shown how exposed Canada becomes when it’s tied too tightly to U.S. decisions.
- Defense, trade, and industry are now entangled. A tariff in one sector can quickly become leverage in another.
Joly’s comments cut through the politeness and said what many in Canada’s aerospace sector have been whispering for years:
Canada has paid in full, but never received what it was promised.
If Canada walks away from the F-35…
If Ottawa ultimately decides to scale back or exit the F-35 program, the fallout won’t be quiet.
- Washington will see it as a strategic snub.
- Lockheed Martin lobbyists will swarm Capitol Hill.
- Donald Trump will almost certainly respond with tariffs, threats, or both.
- U.S. hawks will frame it as a betrayal of “North American defense unity.”
But beneath the outrage lies a more uncomfortable truth for Washington:
Canada would not be alone.
Across Europe and Asia, more and more countries are:
- Developing their own jets,
- Building new non-U.S. defense partnerships,
- And insisting on technology transfer and domestic production instead of one-way purchases.
Canada taking a serious look at Gripen doesn’t just tweak a contract. It joins a global movement toward multipolar defense and industrial sovereignty.
The real question: Who does Canada want to be?
In the end, this isn’t just “F-35 vs Gripen.” It’s identity vs inertia.
- Does Canada remain a permanent buyer, sending billions abroad and hoping for scraps of work in return?
- Or does it become a co-producer, with its own factories, its own engineers, its own leverage?
Melanie Joly’s intervention marks a line in the sand:
Canada will no longer treat U.S. hardware as an automatic answer.
Any deal — with Washington, Stockholm, or anyone else — will have to:
- Create real Canadian jobs,
- Strengthen Canadian industry,
- And respect Canadian sovereignty.
Whether Ottawa ultimately chooses the Gripen or sticks with the F-35, one thing has already changed:
Canada is no longer acting like a passenger in someone else’s defense strategy.
It’s reaching for the controls — and the world is going to have to pay attention.
