As Prime Minister Mark Carney strengthens defence ties with the European Union, it’s easy to overlook the importance of Canada’s military relationship with its closest ally and neighbour — the United States. But the remarks made this week by Canada’s Chief of the Defence Staff, Gen. Jennie Carignan, should serve as a timely reminder: when it comes to national defence, pragmatism must outweigh politics.
Carignan’s call to resume Canada’s purchase of the American F-35 fighter jets — a program currently under review — is not only measured but grounded in the operational and fiscal realities of modern warfare. Canada’s original plan to buy 88 of these fifth-generation jets was never just a matter of prestige or military posturing. It was, and remains, a necessary move to replace our aging fleet of CF-18s, which have been flying since the 1980s. These aircraft are increasingly obsolete in a world of hypersonic threats and next-generation combat technologies.
Carney’s decision to review the F-35 deal after taking office in March might have been politically motivated — part of a broader attempt to scrutinize big-ticket defence spending amid public concern over rising costs. And indeed, the numbers are staggering: Auditor General Karen Hogan’s recent report puts the full price tag at $27.7 billion, up from the original $19 billion estimate, thanks to inflation, shifting exchange rates, and global demand for munitions. Infrastructure upgrades and weapons systems will require an additional $5.5 billion.
Yet despite these costs, abandoning the F-35 program now would be short-sighted and more expensive in the long run. As Carignan pointed out, changing aircraft at this stage would mean retraining pilots and retooling maintenance operations — a logistical and financial headache. It would also complicate supply chains and reduce interoperability with NATO and NORAD partners, especially the United States.
The Americans are watching closely. U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra has already voiced concerns that pulling out of the deal could harm interoperability between the two countries. He’s not wrong. In an era where joint operations and real-time information sharing are essential for continental defence, flying a different jet than our closest ally risks turning Canada into the weak link in the chain.
Carignan’s suggestion that Canada move ahead with at least more than the current 16 jets — while perhaps revisiting whether all 88 are necessary — strikes the right balance. We need flexibility, not abandonment. Strategic, incremental purchases allow us to adapt to changing defence needs without starting from scratch.
Her comments on missile defence were equally compelling. The North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) has long been a cornerstone of continental security, but it’s no secret that its current capabilities are in dire need of modernization. Former U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposed “Golden Dome” missile defence project may come with a jaw-dropping $100 billion price tag, but the concept highlights a reality we can no longer ignore: Canada cannot afford to stay on the sidelines when it comes to missile defence.
Missiles don’t recognize national borders. If a hostile missile is aimed at Vancouver but enters North America through Alaskan airspace, who shoots it down? Without an integrated system, we risk being caught in bureaucratic crossfire while a real one heads our way.
Critics will argue that such massive investments in fighter jets and missile defence systems come at the cost of social programs, housing, or climate initiatives. That’s a fair concern — but it’s a false choice. A strong, credible defence capability is not a luxury. It’s a necessity in a world where authoritarian regimes like Russia and China are testing global norms, and where deterrence is increasingly the only language aggressors understand.
Carney’s recent pledge to boost Canada’s defence spending by $9 billion to meet NATO’s 2 percent GDP target by 2026 is a good start. But let’s not pretend we can both be a serious partner to NATO and NORAD, while wavering on core investments like the F-35s or integrated missile defence.
As Canada explores new partnerships in Europe, including participation in the EU’s SAFE program, it must not forget where its deepest, most consequential defence obligations lie: here at home, and with the United States. Gen. Carignan is right — we need to act, and act together. The cost of inaction could be far greater than the price of preparedness.
