You might think U.S.-based Lockheed Martin would put Canadians to work singing the praises of its F-35. After all, the advertising campaign aimed at promoting sales of the jets to the Canadian Forces is all about... jobs for Canada!

Heavy Turbulence for Canada's F-35 Fighters Buy read more

Announcements, Events & more from Tyee and select partners This Moment Calls for More Independent Journalism. We Need Your Help to Deliver It We can’t let journalism fade away. Contribute to The Tyee so we can add to our team.

But no, that campaign is being run out of New York, despite the fact that a high-end Ottawa-based agency has in the past handled Lockheed Martin public relations on this side of the border.

The ads, appearing right now in Canadian print and online publications, highlight aerospace jobs instead of the warplane's (unproven) military prowess. If you don't look hard at the ad, you might even miss the small picture of the warplane.

Gone is the Top Gun-inspired shot of fighters banking through the clouds, replaced by a main photo of a guy in blue-collared coveralls and safety glasses plugging gizmos into a giant circuit board. The message, in case you missed it from the photo, is spelled out in the ad copy for you: "Job Security for Me, National Security for Canada." Clever, eh?

But this sales pitch for the F-35 doesn't pass the smell test for so-called "truth in advertising." If you read the fine print, you might be reminded of that Conservative government advertising blitz to promote the benefits if its national jobs program -- a program that, as it turned out, doesn't actually exist.

"It brings billions of dollars in job-creating contracts to over 70 Canadian companies," boasts Lockheed Martin's ad.

Really? First of all, Canada has not bought the planes yet, so saying it "brings" contracts is inaccurate. A more accurate sales pitch would say it "might bring" contracts to Canada, if Lockheed Martin executives decide to send a few deals our way.

You see, Lockheed Martin has been clear that without an order for aircraft, Canada shouldn't be expecting any investment or contract bonanza in Canada. And even if we decide to buy F-35s, there are no investment or job-creation guarantees.

And what about this promise of "billions of dollars" in contracts? That's pure speculation too.

As a partner country in the U.S.-led F-35 project, along with seven other countries vying for contracts from the American builder, Canada agreed to forgo the usual dollar-for-dollar requirement for foreign defence suppliers to invest an amount of money in Canada equal to the value of the contract. Big mistake.

New kind of US-friendly deal

This is a plane built on an assembly line in Fort Worth, Texas, which was touted to the U.S. government as the first international defence project without guaranteed industrial commitments to participating partner countries.

Even Harper's Cabinet Minister Tony Clement always chose his words carefully when talking about the prospect of jobs and the F-35.

The industry minister at the time the Harper government announced its choice of the F-35 to replace its CF-18s, back in 2010, only talked about "an estimated $12 billion in potential industrial opportunities for work on the aircraft platform"(emphasis added).

As aerospace analyst and former Defense News editor Giovanni de Briganti sees it, "The F-35 is the only international aircraft program in recent history to guarantee no industrial benefits whatsoever to its partners." He concluded that "It is clear that the F-35 partner nations accepted a very bad deal."

Lockheed Martin, and the government, will be quick to point out the estimated $350 million in contracts already won by Canadian firms for F-35-related work.

Maybe, but exact figures have never been released. One of the often touted Canadian F-35 success stories, Bristol Aerospace, actually received its contract to build F-35 parts from the British company Bae, not Lockheed Martin.

So, the new ad campaign from New York City promoting jobs in Canada gets low marks for accuracy.

But that other New Yorker, comedian Stephen Colbert, might give it high marks for its "truthiness." That's the term he coined to describe a fact that is put forward because it sounds right on a "gut level," but that has not a shred of hard evidence to back it up.

And if Lockheed Martin doesn't use a Canadian public relations agency to sell us on the F-35, why should anyone believe a single claim they might make for jobs in Canada?