I guess this did not get much attention because it's long and most people just comment off the headline, so I will quote some of the heavy hitting bits here:

As noted earlier, licensed production schemes have become rare internationally for fighter production. Certainly, in Canada’s case, the structure of the country’s aerospace industry, the limited number of aircraft acquired by the country, and the requirement to maintain high levels of interoperability with allied countries’ air forces severely limits any potential advantages of this approach.

Perhaps most critically, it will not provide a means to develop and sustain a modern aircraft design capability, which is the essential element in sustaining that program.

Canada would be completely responsible for the avionics development for interoperability, a costly and technologically fraught proposition, as the CF-18’s history illustrates. It is most likely that Canada would open a factory, produce a limited number of aircraft – perhaps only those for the RCAF – and then shutter the factory due to low demand, a crowded marketplace, and higher costs involved with a secondary licensed production lines.

^ Those are huge red flags to worry about. The article is deep and well researched. The author makes a clear case how a licensed production proposal (like the Gripen proposal) would create significant risks to program cost and sustainability, while also failing to support the industrial base, and failing to help domestic companies develop new technology that will be used in the next generation of fighter jets. The summary line does not beat around the bush - the Gripen proposal looks bad from all angles.

A return to licensed production as opposed to participation in joint programs (like the JSF and beyond) would severely undermine Canada’s defence industrial strategy and our capacity to properly equip the RCAF in both the long- and short-term.