Canada’s massive military buildup: Part 2

Summary

Front Burner (CBC)

Episode: Canada’s Massive Military Buildup: Part 2

Date: July 3, 2026
Host: Imogen Burchard (Producer, for this episode)
Main Guests:

• David Puglasi (Ottawa Citizen, Defence Reporter)
• Kelsey Gallagher (Senior Researcher, Project Plowshares)
• Robert Hewson (Saab)
• Roman Shimonov (CEO, Roshel)
• Mark Carney (Prime Minister of Canada – key speeches featured)

---

Main Theme Overview

This episode continues the deep dive into Prime Minister Mark Carney’s ambitious push for a huge expansion of Canada’s military and domestic defence industry. The discussion unpacks the underlying drivers—geopolitical tension with the US, NATO pressures, and the promise to create Canadian jobs by shifting procurement from American to Canadian firms. The documentary also scrutinizes the ripple effects: from Canada’s messy entanglement with US defence equipment, to the export ambitions that raise ethical and regulatory questions about the future of Canadian arms abroad.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Canada’s Urgent Drive to Expand Military Spending

• Carney’s Justification (01:07–01:23)
  • PM Carney frames the US as a direct threat to Canadian sovereignty:

  “We have to prepare for America’s threats to our very sovereignty. They want our land, our resources, they want our water, they want our country.” (Mark Carney, 01:07)

  • Carney pledges to ensure Canadian companies benefit from procurement, reducing dependence on the US:

  "An end to sending dollar after dollar south of the border to a nation that is threatening us." (Mark Carney, 01:23)

2. Pressure from Trump and NATO: Raising the Bar for Defence Spending

• NATO Spending Agreement (02:19–04:00):
  • Donald Trump’s return to office in 2025 reinvigorated years-long pressure for Canada (and NATO) to increase military budgets, culminating in a commitment to spend 5% of GDP.
  • Mark Rutte (NATO Secretary General) credits Trump entirely for this leap:

  "Without President Trump, this would not have happened. With this 5%, the Europeans and Canadians will equalize their defence spending with the United States." (Mark Rutte, 03:25)

3. Scaling Down Reliance on U.S. Defence Equipment—But Is It Possible?

• Challenges to ‘Buy Canadian’ (04:13–07:39)

  • Carney seeks to flip the ratio: from 75%+ of defence dollars going to US firms, to 70% going to Canadian companies.
  • Disentangling is complex: high-profile procurements like the F-35 fighter jet (made by Lockheed Martin, US) remain contentious.
    • Carney’s review of the F-35 contract sparks pushback from both the American government and Canadian military insiders:

    “The pushback Carney got was intense… The Americans [are] extremely angry… And you’ve seen a leak of some material that paints the F35 in a very positive light. And you've got all these retired generals who… have been connected to US companies, and they've been pushing for the F35.” (David Puglasi, 04:55)

  • Current reality: Even the biggest “Canadian” arms manufacturers are often subsidiaries of US multinationals.

    “If you look at the top 10 largest arms manufacturers in Canada, something like five out of 10 of them are American owned. They’re American branch plants.” (Kelsey Gallagher, 06:35)

• Domestic Procurement Dilemmas

  • Example: Ammunition investment splits heavily between a small Canadian firm and General Dynamics—an American company’s Canadian subsidiary.
  • Political skepticism remains about what counts as a truly Canadian firm:

    “Having a wholly owned subsidiary of an American company is not enough for something to be Canadian. It has to be Canadian ideas, intellectual property, Canadian management…” (unattributed at 07:39, likely Aaron O'Toole)

4. The Export Imperative: Growing Canadian Arms Exports

• Ambitions & Pathways (09:15–10:55)
  • Carney’s Defence Industrial Strategy aims to grow Canadian defence exports by 50% over ten years.

  “If realized, this would be the most aggressive increase in Canadian arms exports in recent history. We've really never seen anything like this.” (Kelsey Gallagher, 09:39)

  • Realistically, the US is likely to remain Canada’s largest customer; efforts to expand exports to Europe or NATO allies may not offset that.

  “…it is most likely that this increase in arms exports by 50% if realized, will drive arms exports through the path of least resistance, which is to the United States. So why is that problematic? …we have recently seen the US utilize Canadian technologies in very problematic operations.” (Kelsey Gallagher, 10:20)

5. Ethical and Regulatory Gaps: Where Do Canadian Arms End Up?

• Use of Canadian-Made Equipment in Controversial US Actions

  • Example: Reports of high-tech Canadian camera systems used to enable US airstrikes on suspected drug smuggling boats—some called war crimes.

    “According to Gallagher’s research, a high tech Canadian made camera system was used to track the boats in at least two of these deadly strikes.” (Imogen Burchard, 11:35) “These operations were described… as instances of extrajudicial killings. Very, very serious allegations.” (Kelsey Gallagher, 11:43)

  • Canadian arms transfers to the US are largely unregulated—no permit, no human rights risk assessment.

    “The vast majority of Canada’s arms transfers to the United States, there’s no oversight by Canadian officials… they’re essentially allowed to be transferred to the US without any regulatory oversight.” (Kelsey Gallagher, 12:38)

• Parliamentary Attempt to Add Regulation

  • The “No More Loopholes Act” (NDP-backed) proposed stricter controls—ultimately opposed by the government:

    “[It] would decimate Canada’s defence industry, would weaken Canada’s role in NATO and… jeopardize the capabilities of our Canadian armed forces… It creates new vulnerabilities. It is irresponsible to propose a bill like this.” (Anita Amand, Foreign Affairs Minister, 13:07)

6. International Ethics: Comparison and Corporate Approaches

• Swedish Model & Challenges for Non-US Firms

  • Robert Hewson (Saab) explains Sweden’s strict laws governing defence exports—explicitly banning them except by regulatory approval, with a “risk” standard not just for violations but for mere possibility of misuse:

    “We are a defence company in a country where by law all defence exports are banned… We lose out on a lot of business by simply saying, absolutely not, the risk here… is too high.” (Robert Hewson, 14:51)

  • Saab still sells to the US and Canada, balancing business realities and ethical concerns.

• Canadian Corporate Practices

  • Roman Shimonov (Roshel) emphasizes strict controls over sales and efforts to prevent third-party or “gray market” re-exports:

    “We don’t sell anything through resellers, we don’t sell anything through third parties. And this to ensure that the ultimate user will be the one that we got the export permit to.” (Roman Shimonov, 17:05)

7. Indirect Exports & The Israel Case

• Canada’s January 2024 pause on direct new arms permits to Israel due to humanitarian law concerns didn’t stop indirect transfers via the US—most notably with F-35 fighter jets containing Canadian-made components.

  “But all of these [F-35] aircraft include some level of Canadian components that have been filtered onto Israel through the United States, due to Canada’s failure to regulate these transfers.” (Kelsey Gallagher, 20:21)

  • Gallagher stresses even small components can have major consequences:

    “An F35 cannot conduct an airstrike in Gaza without its constituent components.” (Kelsey Gallagher, 20:27)

8. Saudi Arabia, Light Armored Vehicles, and the ‘Defence Economy’ Dilemma

• Second only to the US, Saudi Arabia is a major Canadian arms client—primarily for LAVs (Light Armored Vehicles).

  “Saudi Arabia has one of the worst human rights records in the world. This is an authoritarian monarchy that… brutalizes its own citizens, but also fails to observe its obligations under international humanitarian law in... hostilities.” (Kelsey Gallagher, 21:32)

  • Controversies have haunted the 2014 LAV mega-deal; pressure to cancel it was met with warnings about economic impact.
  • The episode ends by emphasizing the risks of economic dependency on arms exports—jobs and industry can be pitted against values and international law.

---

Notable Quotes & Powerful Moments

• Carney on National Strength and Values:

  “Canada will be defined not only by the strength of our values, but also the value of our strength.” (Mark Carney, 22:30)

• On the Defence Economy:

  “To be a defense economy, you need… to use your product, and you use your product in a war.” (David Puglasi, 23:25)

• The Export Paradox:

  “Hitching your wagon to arms exports as a mean to keep your domestic industry buoyant can have long term, very problematic side effects.” (Kelsey Gallagher, 23:49)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Carney Lays Out the Threats and Strategy: 01:07 – 01:23
• Trump-Driven NATO Pressure: 02:19 – 04:00
• F-35 and ‘Buy Canadian’ Challenges: 04:13 – 05:43
• US Defence Industry’s Deep Roots in Canada: 06:35 – 07:05
• Munition Manufacturing Investment and Political Reactions: 07:05 – 07:39
• Defence Export Expansion Plan: 09:15 – 10:55
• Canadian Components in Controversial US Operations: 11:26 – 12:38
• Parliament Debates Stricter Export Controls: 13:07 – 13:46
• Saab on Swedish Export Ethics: 14:31 – 15:56
• Roshel's Export Principles: 17:05 – 17:55
• Canadian Parts in F-35s Used by Israel: 19:30 – 21:00
• LAV Exports to Saudi Arabia and Ethical Concerns: 21:07 – 22:27
• Carney’s “Strength and Values” Mantra: 22:30 – 22:41
• The Defence Economy Warning: 23:25 – 24:33

---

Concluding Reflections

The Front Burner episode paints a nuanced, often troubling picture of Canada’s quest for military independence and economic expansion through arms manufacture. As Imogen Burchard notes, the tension between jobs, profits, and values is only growing:

“As we seek to expand our arms exports by so much, will those values be tested?... Will it become harder to say no to a deal that comes into conflict with those values or to back out of a deal if those values are threatened?” (Imogen Burchard, 22:53)

This documentary ultimately asks listeners to weigh what it means for Canada to tie its economic future to an industry where ethical dilemmas are as omnipresent as the global demand for arms.

---

(Summary skips advertisement, intro, and outro content as requested.)

Transcript

[Podcast Narrator]

If you're listening to this, I already know you have great taste in podcasts, but maybe if you're like me, you still wonder if you're missing out on the best stuff. That's where the Sounds Good newsletter can help you out. Every other Thursday, the audio files at CBC Podcast highlight one must hear show and lots of other new and noteworthy titles. They do conversation starters, they do hidden gems, and they also tell you about the stuff they love that they didn't make. Go to CBC CA Soundsgood to subscribe. This is a CBC podcast.

[Imogen Burchard]

Hi, I'm Imogen Burchard, a producer here on frontburner. Today we're airing part two of our documentary on Prime Minister Mark Carney's commitment to massively expand Canada's defence and defence industry. The prime minister has repeatedly said that we live in a more dangerous and divided world and that one of those dangers is the United States in this crisis.

[Mark Carney]

We have to prepare for America's threats to our very sovereignty. They want our land, our resources, they want our water, they want our country.

[Imogen Burchard]

It's a big part of why he said we need to spend so much more on defence and why we need to spend it here at home.

[Mark Carney]

We will ensure as much as possible that Canadian companies, Canadian companies benefit from Canadian procurements. An end to sending dollar after dollar south of the border to a nation that is threatening us.

[David Puglasi]

Yeah. So Mark Carney made significant promises to boost defence spending for Canada, for the Canadian forces.

[Imogen Burchard]

This is David Puglasi. He's a defense reporter with the Ottawa Citizen.

[David Puglasi]

And one of his key promises was to move away from reliance on the US in particular US Military equipment. And so he was arguing that, you know, 70% of our tax dollars on defense equipment go to American companies. And so he wants to change that, or that's what he promised he was

[Imogen Burchard]

going to do, which is a little ironic because the US Played a big part in pushing us into this spending in the first place.

[Donald Trump]

I've been asking them to go up to 5% for a number of years and they're going up to 5%, and that's a big from 2%. And a lot of people didn't even pay the 2%.

[Imogen Burchard]

So I think Trump's been complaining about Canada and other NATO allies military spending since his first term.

[Donald Trump]

NATO has not treated us fairly, but I think we'll work something out. We pay far too much and they pay far too little.

[Imogen Burchard]

And as he came back into office in early 2025, musing about making Canada the 51st state, he turned that Pressure

[Donald Trump]

up more and we are not treated well, as you know, by Canada. Canada is subsidized to the tune of about $200 billion a year, plus other things. They don't essentially have a military, they have a very small military. They rely on our military. It's all fine, but, you know, they got to pay for that. It's very unfair.

[Imogen Burchard]

When NATO allies agreed to spend 5% of their GDPs on defense last summer, NATO's secretary general, Mark Rutte gave full credit to Trump at a summit where he also weirdly called Trump Daddy.

[Mark Rutte]

I want to state here, without President Trump, this would not have happened. With this 5%, the Europeans and the Canadians will equalize their defence spending with the United States. So this is not about American taxpayers paying more. This is about Europeans, Canadians paying more. And again, this would not have happened. I'm really saying this here and some people might criticize me, but then when I speak with them, they all say, yes, you're right, this would not have happened if you would not have been elected in 2016 and reelected last year and back into office in January. So I want to thank you.

[Imogen Burchard]

So to hear the Chief of NATO tell it, Canada wouldn't even be doing this huge leap in military spending if not for Trump and the United States. But now Carney insists it's Canadians who are going to benefit from this, not Americans. Not anymore.

[Mark Carney]

We're spending over 75 cents on every dollar of capital spend for defence goes to the United States. That's not smart.

[Imogen Burchard]

What's better, the Defence Industrial Strategy commits to flipping this so that the share of defence contracts awarded to Canadian firms is 70%. But disentangling our military spending from the US is easier said than done. Just look at the whole F35 debacle. The purchase of these mostly American made Lockheed Martin fighter jets has been controversial for years. There were technical problems and major cost overruns. Trudeau campaigned on scrapping the deal, but went ahead with ordering 88 of them. Then Trump starts talking about annexing Canada and Carney comes along and orders a review of the purchase.

[David Puglasi]

The pushback Carney got was intense. So there's a couple of fronts that he's facing. You've got the Americans extremely angry that this is going on and they have made a number of threats through the US Ambassador to Canada if we don't purchase the F35. On the other front, the Air Force themselves are not happy. And you've seen a leak of some material that paints the F35 in a very positive light. And You've got all these retired generals who appear in media broadcasts. Many of them have been, are connected to US companies or have been connected to US companies and they've been pushing for the F35.

[Imogen Burchard]

For now, the Carney government's review of the F35 purchase is ongoing.

[David Puglasi]

You have a Canadian military leadership that is so ingrained with their US counterparts, so connected, so integrated and Carney may want, you know, he may want to talk about buying non American equipment. But the generals keep coming back and you know, the Air Force for instance, wants the F35. You know, the army wanted HIMARS.

[Imogen Burchard]

HIMARS stands for High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems. These are American made long range rocket launchers. Just this month the Canadian government confirmed that they've bought 26 of them directly from the US government for $2.6 billion. And even when we're not buying stuff made in America, American defence companies have a huge presence here in Canada.

[Kelsey Gallagher]

If you look at the top 10 largest arms manufacturers in Canada, something like five out of 10 of them are American owned. They're American branch plants.

[Imogen Burchard]

This is Kelsey Gallagher. He's a senior researcher at Project Plowshares, a peace research institute with a focus on disarmament and international security.

[Kelsey Gallagher]

This would include manufacturers such as to General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, L3Harris.

[Imogen Burchard]

Back in March, Defense Minister David McGinty announced a $1.4 billion investment into domestic ammunition production. Some of that money went to a Canadian company based in Ingersoll, Ontario. A lot of it went to General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems Canada, a subsidiary of an American company in Quebec. Former Conservative leader Aaron o' Toole gave this announcement a failing grade. He posted on X this is not a sovereign solution at all. I saw him at Cansec, the giant defence industry trade show, and asked him how he thinks by Canadian should be defined.

[Podcast Narrator]

Having a wholly owned subsidiary of an American company is not enough for something to be Canadian. It has to be Canadian ideas, intellectual property, Canadian management and direction of a team here and then of course employment is part of it. So I do think this whole model of build which is Canadian partner, which does mean subsidiaries, I think the government responded to some of the criticisms and are really trying to get this right. I have a lot of respect for the fact that Prime Minister Carney came to Canzac. Even my Prime Minister that I served with, Prime Minister Harper didn't come. So it sends a real signal of confidence in Canadian industry. So I hope buy Canadian is not just talk. The world needs to see that Canada's buying Canadian before our Allies will buy Canadian. Imagine you've been charged with a crime and the only witness pointing the finger at you isn't even human.

[Imogen Burchard]

I remember thinking, are you serious?

[Podcast Narrator]

What is this thing? It's something artificial created by a mysterious Canadian and it's coming for all of us.

[Kelsey Gallagher]

A life defining technology, crime as we

[Podcast Narrator]

know it will never be the same. I'm like, oh my God, he's lying. From CBC's Uncover the Expert witness Listen

[Kelsey Gallagher]

ad free on Amazon Music.

[Imogen Burchard]

Carney's Defence Industrial Strategy was only released this year and it's working on a 10 year timeline. If its vision can be executed, it's not going to happen overnight. But there's just no way Canada's defence industry is going to grow the way Carney wants it to by simply selling here at home. That's why another aim of the Defence Industrial Strategy is to grow Canadian defense exports by 50%.

[Kelsey Gallagher]

So this increase is substantial. You know, if realized, this would be the most aggressive increase in Canadian arms exports in recent history. We've really never seen anything like this.

[Imogen Burchard]

So if we're increasing our defense exports by such a significant amount, who are we going to sell to?

[Kelsey Gallagher]

So as it stands right now, in most typical years, the United States is far and away the largest customer of Canadian weapon systems.

[Imogen Burchard]

Carney is big on diversifying trade and has talked about how other NATO allies like those in the EU are also increasing their defense budgets. He sees opportunities to increase exports there. But in Gallagher's view, all things considered,

[Kelsey Gallagher]

particularly the structure of the Canadian defence industry as well as the sort of integrated nature of the Joint North American Defence Industrial Base, it is most likely that this increase in arms exports by 50% if realized, will drive arms exports through the path of least resistance, which is to the United States. So why is that problematic? It is problematic because we have recently seen the US utilize Canadian technologies in very problematic operations.

[Imogen Burchard]

President Trump announced late today that the

[Anita Amand]

United States has sunk a boat after

[Imogen Burchard]

it left Venezuela carrying drugs. For nearly a year now, US President Donald Trump has been ordering airstrikes against boats in the Caribbean Sea. His administration claims they are striking terrorist drug smugglers as a matter of self defense, but has provided no evidence. Critics have called the attacks, which have now killed over 200 people, war crimes. Last September, Trump released videos from four of the strikes on Truth Social.

[Anita Amand]

President Trump celebrated the attack by releasing this video which shows the moment a boat was blown up in the southern Caribbean. Eleven on board were killed.

[Imogen Burchard]

Administration According to Gallagher's research, a high tech Canadian made camera system was used to track the boats in at least two of these deadly strikes.

[Kelsey Gallagher]

And these operations were described as leading human rights and humanitarian monitors as instances of extrajudicial killings. Very, very serious allegations.

[Imogen Burchard]

The MX Series sensor system is made in Hamilton, Ontario by a Canadian subsidiary of L3Harris, one of the largest defense contractors in the United States. L3Harris told CBC that, quote, as a matter of practice, we do not comment on military missions. And Global Affairs Canada told CBC that Global Affairs Canada is aware of the US operation and is monitoring the situation. Canada is party to the UN Arms Trade Treaty and that treaty obliges Canadian officials to not authorize arms exports if there's a substantial risk that the arms could be used in violations of human rights or international, international law. But because of Canada's long standing trade and defense relationship with the us the

[Kelsey Gallagher]

vast majority of Canada's arms transfers to the United States, there's no oversight by Canadian officials. These are not authorized by the issuance of a permit. There's no human rights risk assessment and therefore they're essentially allowed to be transferred to the US without any regulatory oversight.

[Imogen Burchard]

Earlier this year, the NDP attempted to pass a piece of legislation to change this, called the no More Loopholes Act. The government opposed it. Here's Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Amand.

[Anita Amand]

Mr. Speaker, actually the government opposes this bill. Canada has one of the strongest export regimes in the world, with human rights considerations applied to every single permit issued for military goods. The changes proposed in this bill would decimate Canada's defence industry, would weaken Canada's role in NATO and would jeopardize the capabilities of our Canadian armed forces. This bill does not close a loophole, Mr. Speaker. It creates new vulnerabilities. It is irresponsible to propose a bill like this.

[Imogen Burchard]

Fifteen Liberal MPs broke rank and voted with the NDP for the bill. And two high profile former Liberal cabinet ministers spoke out in favor of it. But it ultimately failed. At cansec, everyone I talked to was eager to describe the high standards they maintain for who they do business with. And it was clear that the US is still a valued customer.

[Robert Hewson]

There is a, it's kind of a long term, I would say, skepticism of the defence industry in Sweden. So it has to prove itself to be ethical to have value.

[Imogen Burchard]

Robert Hewson stressed to me that ethics were especially important to Saab. And I just wonder how Saab goes about ensuring ethics. When you're in the business of fighter jets and rocket launchers. This is stuff that is lethal. So how do you find those ethics and communicate those ethics to the Swedish people. And then to Canadians as well.

[Roman Shimonov]

Sure.

[Robert Hewson]

Well, I mean, at a basic starting point, it's hardwired, written into Swedish law. We are a defence company in a country where by law all defence exports are banned. So every time we want to sell something to any country, we have to go to an independent regulatory body and ask for permission and they say yes or no. Then beyond that, I mean, as a company, there are places where of course, we cannot and will not go. We lose out on a lot of business by simply saying, absolutely. Not the risk here, not even the reality, just the risk. The risk is too high. So that's a fundamental principle for us,

[Imogen Burchard]

The SOBSTAL to the us.

[Robert Hewson]

Oh, yes, yes, we do. We have quite a large business in the us. I mean, it's difficult for all non US companies to have a significant footprint in the US because they have such a large and well developed industry. But we are there, we are present and have been for many years, even

[Imogen Burchard]

under this administration, which is quite belligerent and has shown a lack of regard for international law. In terms of what you were saying about Sweden will not sell to a country where there's a risk. I feel like there's a risk with the United States.

[Robert Hewson]

Well, it's true that a lot of things that we took for granted have changed, but there is still a common purpose in providing defence and security for people, people and society. We take that quite secure, seriously. So, yes, you know, US is a customer. Canada is a customer, all of Europe, South America, Asia.

[Imogen Burchard]

Just this year alone, Donald Trump launched a military operation to capture the sitting president of Venezuela. He has started a war with Iran and threatened that their whole civilization will die. He has threatened to invade Cuba, to annex Greenland. I also talked to Roman Shimonov about his company's expedition standards. He's the founder and CEO of the Canadian company Rochelle. Rochelle has become one of the biggest private producers of armored vehicles in North America. They're based in Brampton.

[Roman Shimonov]

We have more companies that we would not sell to than countries that we will sell to. We have very certain and strict policy when it comes to the way we sell the vehicles. First of all, we don't sell anything through resellers, we don't sell anything through third parties. And this to ensure that the ultimate user will be the one that we got the export permit to.

[Imogen Burchard]

As we chatted, we were standing in front of one of Rochelle's armored vehicles.

[Roman Shimonov]

The vehicle behind me is the senator.

[Imogen Burchard]

And this senator, the CEO, explained to me how they could be kitted out with guns.

[Roman Shimonov]

Yes, all vehicles are designed to carry up to 30 millimeter weapon system. So the weapon system can be controlled remotely. So the person doesn't need to stand behind the machine gun, but person can sit in the protected capsule and to control the joystick and then sitting in the protected.

[Imogen Burchard]

So I asked him about a headline I'd seen at the end of last year about the $10 million ICE had earmarked for an order of 20 of Rochelle's senator vehicles as ICE detentions were surging and about a month before ICE officers shot and killed two people in Minnesota. Is this the vehicle that ICE bought?

[Roman Shimonov]

ICE didn't buy our vehicles. We sold vehicles to the U.S. government. We are working closely with the U.S. government

[Imogen Burchard]

critics. Concerns with exports to the U.S. go beyond how the U.S. might choose to use any of this equipment. There's also the matter of who they might pass it on to.

[Kelsey Gallagher]

Canada's failure to regulate its arms exports to the United States does not just, you know, raise red flags for how they could be used in US operations, but it also raises red flags for how these arms exports could reach third parties through the United States. Due to Israel's consistent failure to observe international humanitarian law through its conduct of hostilities, Canada paused new export authorizations to Israel in January 2024. This is nuanced. It does not include permits that were previously approved, for instance. It also doesn't include permits for the transfer of defensive goods that could be used in something like the Iron Dome. But all said that Canada, generally speaking, has stopped the authorization of new arms exports to Israel. This however, does not has not influenced Canada's indirect transfer of weapon systems to Israel, namely through the United States. A good example of this would be the F35 Joint Strike Fighter. Right. So the F35 is produced by Lockheed Martin in the United States. It is a 5th generation dual fighter bomber jet. And there is, according to Canadian officials, something like $3 million worth of Canadian technology in each of these aircraft. Israel is part of the small collection of countries that have procured this aircraft and Israel has used it throughout its bombardment of Gaza. We know this because Israeli officials, Israeli generals have actually been very forthcoming about this. But again, all of these aircraft include some level of Canadian components that have been filtered onto Israel through the United States due to Canada's failure to, to regulate these transfers.

[Imogen Burchard]

To be clear, it's not like Canada's building the whole fighter jet. It's just some parts that are manufactured here.

[Kelsey Gallagher]

That all said, despite how small or big these manufacturers are, they these aircraft do pose a significant risk to violating international humanitarian law. Right. So there is sometimes a perception that a component or a piece of a wingtip or something like that is not as dangerous as a rifle. And perhaps that could be true in certain circumstances. But it should be said that an F35 cannot conduct an airstrike in Gaza without its constituent components.

[Imogen Burchard]

The US Is the number one recipient of Canadian arms exports. Number two is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

[Kelsey Gallagher]

So in 2024, the value of Canadian arms exports to Saudi Arabia sat at about $1.3 billion, the vast majority of these being light armored vehicles, or LAVs, tied to a 2014 contract, the largest arms contract in Canadian history.

[Imogen Burchard]

Last year, in 2025, that number was lower, closer to 404 million, because that 2014 contract is starting to wind down.

[Kelsey Gallagher]

Saudi Arabia has one of the worst human rights records in the world. This is an authoritarian monarchy that not only brutalizes its own citizens, but also fails to observe its obligations under international humanitarian law and its conduct of hostilities.

[Imogen Burchard]

These light armored vehicles, or lavs, are really light in name only.

[Kelsey Gallagher]

And this is a major, major weapon system. This is an armored vehicle that does not really look like a vehicle that you would see on the road, but more a main battle tank. These vehicles can be used to transport small units of troops, and they can come with a series of armaments. So, you know, they could be, for instance, for command and control. They might not have a main weapon system, or they could have large caliber weapon systems that could, for instance, shoot through a house.

[Imogen Burchard]

Carney wrapped his speech at Cansec with this.

[Mark Carney]

Canada will be defined not only by the strength of our values, but also the value of our strength. Thanks to you. Thank you very much. Merci.

[Mark Rutte]

Beauty.

[Imogen Burchard]

It's a line he's been using a lot.

[Mark Carney]

In a more fractured and darker world, our leadership will not just be defined by the strength of our values, but also the value of our strength. Because this is the key point, I

[Imogen Burchard]

think it's fair to ask, as we seek to expand our arms exports by so much, will those values be tested? And as the government seeks to create 125,000 new jobs in the defense sector, what will those jobs be tethered to? Will it become harder to say no to a deal that comes into conflict with those values or to back out of a deal if those values are threatened? If we want, say, jobs at the new munitions factories to be long term, stable jobs, what kind of demand are we counting on to support the continued supply?

[David Puglasi]

This is a massive undertaking, and the underlying current to this is this kind of moving into a defense economy. And the problem with that is to be a defense economy, you need, I mean, this is the way the Americans work is you need to use your product and you use your product in a war.

[Kelsey Gallagher]

So the reason why Canada originally started exporting weapons to Saudi Arabia is because the General Dynamics plant, it was GM at the time in London, the orders for the US army and caf had dried up and so they were kind of scrambling to find some customer to, to keep the production lines open. And Saudi Arabia showed up. And this was back in the 90s and that relationship has persisted and now we've transferred thousands of labs to Saudi Arabia. So, yeah, I mean, hitching your wagon to arms exports as a mean to keep your domestic industry buoyant can have long term, very problematic side effects.

[Imogen Burchard]

The massive deal struck with Saudi Arabia in 2014 was not without controversy. When Justin Trudeau's Liberals took over from the Conservatives the following year, they were pressed by human rights advocates to cancel it. That pressure only increased as a Saudi led coalition battled in Yemen, killing thousands of civilians. And after the 2018 murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Turkey. In response to that pressure, Justin Trudeau said he was looking for a way out of the deal. But breaking the contract would have meant the potential for billions of dollars of penalties. And the LAV manufacturer in London, Ontario, warned it would have a significant negative impact on our highly skilled employees, our supply chain across Canada, and the Canadian defence sector more broadly. In April 2020, the Government of Canada published the findings of its review of export permits to the Kingdom. It stated that Canadian exports of military goods and technology contribute to regional peace and security. Later that year, a UN panel accused Canada of helping to fuel the conflict in Yemen. The exports continue. That's all for today. Front Burner was produced this week by Joyta Sengupta, Matthew Amha, Kevin Sexton, Kieran Oudshorn and Mackenzie Cameron. Our intern is Kristin de Jagger. Our YouTube producer is John Lee. Our music is by Joseph Chaveson. Our senior producers are Elaine Chao and me, Imogen Burchard. Our executive producer is Nick McKay. Blocos. Jamie will be back next week. Thanks so much for listening.

[Kelsey Gallagher]

For more cbc podcasts, go to cbc ca podcasts.