Industry and Technology Committee on Nov. 5th, 2025

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Let's talk briefly about artificial intelligence-enabled autonomous weapons. Ethical frameworks will help us make decisions in this regard as part of the military arms production strategy.

At what stage do the conversations need to happen? Is that done by the government as it develops the strategy? What are the red flags? We know that private investors want to make a profit. What are the guidelines? These questions should not be asked after the fact.

Mr. Reed, environmental protection is part of our discussion, since we're talking about ethics.

I'd like to hear your opinion on that.

[Kevin Reed]

Dominique, my translation was not working. My apologies.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

That's okay.

I'm just asking about where the ethics and the red lines fit into this conversation, especially when we're going to be talking about AI and autonomous weapons. Where are the guardrails? Who decides those? These are not things we can do after the fact. Monsieur Lagassé spoke to values: What frame guides us here?

[Kevin Reed]

I can say from a financing perspective that the guidelines for us to maintain an AAA are things like nuclear and biological types of weapons. Certainly, things that are not part of various treaties are things that the bank could not participate in, or else we wouldn't get our AAA rating.

AI is a whole different category. The rules are being written every week. Where's the financing framework on that? That's still to be determined, not only in Canada, but within our allied nations.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Lagassé, what do you think?

[Philippe Lagassé]

First, we have to start with the rules on armed conflict. I believe this was also mentioned by another of your witnesses, Michael Smith, who worked for the Office of the Judge Advocate General. As for the rest, this is an issue that has to be managed at the international level. Canada cannot develop its own policies on these weapons while operating abroad or working with its NATO allies. This must also be done within NATO, with our allies, so that a common arms framework can be established.

Once again, I'm going to come back to necessary connection with industrial policy. Let's be clear: Canada must sell defence equipment if it wants to support its industry. We need to make sure that our allies and other states have the same frameworks as Canada. The conversation has to take place at the international level and among our allies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you.

Unfortunately, your time is up, Ms. O'Rourke.

Mr. Ste‑Marie, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Greetings to the three witnesses, and thank you for being here. What they told us was very interesting.

Mr. Lagassé, I'm going to pick up where you left off.

In the last part of your presentation, you gave the example of France. If I understood correctly, you said that, to support industrial development, we have to be prepared to buy equipment we don't need and sell equipment to countries that are not allies.

Can you expand on that?

[Philippe Lagassé]

I'll give you an example. How is France able to maintain its production of Rafale fighter jets? Sometimes they have to pay Dassault Aviation to build only one plane a year. That is part of France's sovereign policy. It's accepted. Are Canadians prepared to do that from time to time? Are we prepared to tell the industry that the production chain is so important to our nation that we are prepared to pay them to build a little less equipment and move more slowly?

I do a lot of research in France, and I can tell you straight off that we can't have a defence industry without exports. It's essential. It is essential for France, and it is also essential for us. There's no denying it. You have to be willing to accept that. This goes back to a comment that was made in the last panel: We also need all parties in Canada to agree on guidelines regarding foreign arms sales. We have to agree on the guidelines and the framework. Otherwise, there will be scandals and controversies, and projects will fall apart. As a result, the industry will not want to invest more.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

That's very interesting.

The gist of your presentation was about tradeoffs, which means finding a balance in relation to the opportunity cost. You gave some examples.

Do you have any potential solutions to offer the government when it comes to arbitration or balancing the strategies and policies you talked about?

[Philippe Lagassé]

I think what's critical about Canada's defence policy is finding a balance between Canadian sovereign capabilities and Canadian industry. However, I think we have to recognize that, when it comes to operating abroad or overseas, especially in competition with China and Russia, we will very likely have to work with our allies to develop capabilities.

For example, Canada is not in a position to develop a sixth-generation fighter on its own. It has to work with Great Britain, Italy, Japan or the United States. We have choices to make. We have to recognize that, to be on the cutting edge of technology, we have to work with our allies. That might mean a little less investment within Canada, but it also means more advanced operational capabilities.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

In that case, the proper balance and the tradeoffs would be at the expense of domestic industry, so as to ensure greater international collaboration.

Do you think it could be profitable for the Canadian industry?

[Philippe Lagassé]

It could be profitable.

Canada has made a lot of investments in the F‑35 jets. The same goes for the P‑8 jets, where a lot of investments have been made in Montreal, through Boeing. As you see, there are opportunities.

I think the key question for this committee is this: What does Canada want to be able to do on its own? We can always co‑operate with other countries. However, what should we do to autonomously defend Canada and its interests so that we don't have to depend on other countries?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

What might those capabilities be?

[Philippe Lagassé]

Think of maritime surveillance and surveillance in the Arctic. Also think of radars, ammunition and territorial control, not to mention what we have to do in the event of natural disasters.

We need to look at what capabilities are critical to Canada's sovereignty.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

That's very clear.

My last question is not on the same topic, but it has to do with arbitration and tradeoffs.

Do you think that joining in on the golden dome for protecting North America would be a good tradeoff?

[Philippe Lagassé]

It could be. If the United States were to say that we only need American capabilities to contribute to the so-called golden dome, I think the Government of Canada would absolutely have to stand up for the interests of Canadians. It should say that we are ready to do our bit as partners, with our own capabilities. The United States cannot tell Canada that it must acquire only American capabilities.

In my opinion, if that were to happen, Canada should stand its ground and refuse.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

That's very clear. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you.

Ms. Borrelli, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Kathy Borrelli, Conservative, Windsor—Tecumseh—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Shimooka, you've been very critical of our procurement processes over the years. You've written a lot about it. Just very simply, what are the key things that you would suggest, that you would recommend, be implemented into our new DIA?

[Richard Shimooka]

I think the thought behind the DIA, which is basically developing an interparliamentary team that's going to subsume a lot of the responsibilities that exist underneath in the six or however many groups or agencies involved in any defence procurement, is the right impulse.

I don't know that how it's been structured necessarily is the best way. I would prefer to see a more fundamental reform. We don't need to have another structure to try to achieve this effect, but rather that the departments themselves, the agencies, have a clear line of accountability, so that that you have one person who is basically responsible for a procurement program and has the authority to implement it through.

A lot of the reforms of our allies have gone down this route. It's not to add another group, but to actually make it much easier to run a procurement where you have clearly defined requirements and you know exactly what are the defence industrial capabilities within the country. Potentially, you will source within the country and then go for it and actually procure a system.

I think the current system just has too many voices in it and, basically, that really affects its actual outcomes.

[Kathy Borrelli, Conservative, Windsor—Tecumseh—Lakeshore, ON]

I understand that there are about six levels of agreement or six different ministries that have to agree to procure one item.

[Richard Shimooka]

At any one time, you're probably going to see the services define the requirements. The Department of National Defence is involved. You have Justice, which is going to give you a legal opinion. You have ISED, which is going to give the technical option. You have PSPC, which is going to be the agency that's responsible for it. On top of that, you're going to have Treasury Board, which is going to have the financial aspects. That is true for most of the large procurements.

[Kathy Borrelli, Conservative, Windsor—Tecumseh—Lakeshore, ON]

This question is for any of the gentlemen. Would it make sense to actually build requirements into the DIA that Canadian small and medium-sized enterprises would get the work first, before it would go out to any foreign country?

[Kevin Reed]

I know that SMEs are vital to the future of our job creation, our intellectual property and where we stand in sovereignty as a nation. We also have to stand up with our SMEs to provide the technical capability to deliver that, which I believe we have. My job is to find them the money to be able to do that, and that's what we're doing.