Industry and Technology Committee on Nov. 19th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Good afternoon, everyone. I hope you had a good few days in Ottawa.

Hello, everybody. I hope you've had a good start to the week.

We are here for one of our final meetings on the defence industrial strategy, which has been a fascinating and insightful couple of months of discussions for us.

We have three witnesses with us here today. As a friendly reminder to members and witnesses, should your earpiece not be in use—plugged in but not on your ear—please make sure to place it on the sticker in front of you to protect the health and well-being of our interpreters, who work so hard on our behalf.

There are three individuals in the room with us today. From L3Harris Canada, we have Richard Foster, the chief executive and vice-president. From the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, we have Michael Langlais, the vice-president, risk development. From Quantum Industry Canada, we have Lisa Lambert, the chief executive officer.

Witnesses, you'll each have up to five minutes. I try to be generous if you go over, but if we start getting into the six- or seven-minute range, I may flag you down.

Following your five-minute introductory remarks, there will be a line of questioning from our colleagues around the table here. It's pre-assigned based on the number of seats allotted to recognized parties in the House of Commons.

With that, colleagues, we will get going.

Mr. Foster, I'll turn to you first for your introductory remarks. The floor is yours.

[Richard Foster, Chief Executive and Vice-President, L3Harris Canada, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.

The government's commitment to work more closely with Canadian industry and to promote it to help develop a stronger defence industrial base is a welcome step.

After “Our North, Strong and Free”, I do not believe there has been an updated policy statement or other document on defence that outlines Canada's ambition from a defence perspective. Given the announcements on increased spending, I would expect such a document to guide how any defence industrial strategy would unfold and would assume that this is being completed in parallel. One should follow the other.

I have five recommendations on the defence industrial strategy that I believe are relevant to Canadian industry.

First, the Canadian government should commit to a 20-plus-year strategy that will survive election cycles. Companies need predictability in future contracts to enable corresponding investment risk and long-term viability. It is a long game, with long horizons. To diversify supply chains and build up domestic capacity will take time. It took our company over five years to set up our factory in Katowice, Poland, as we looked to compete in the European market.

We cannot forget our North American defence supply chain, as it is deeply integrated with many small and medium-sized enterprises dependent on larger primes or OEMs. Many of our suppliers have five-plus-year contracts to ensure predictability and stability.

Second, Canada should continue to develop strategic partnerships with trusted companies to enable sovereign readiness. “Sovereign”, to me, means being able to defend your country when you need to, with the right equipment to meet the threat and with the right personnel trained for the mission.

The “right equipment” does not necessarily mean it is Canadian, but rather that there is enough logistical support— spares, maintenance, knowledge—to enable the equipment to be used when we decide to use it and for it to be kept operationally relevant. To make this occur, Canada should look at certain companies to help ensure sovereign readiness. A strategic partnership is based on proven capability, trust and demonstrated performance.

A strategic partnership should last beyond the life cycle of specific equipment and enable future development of its replacement. In this way, industry and government can appropriately plan future supply chains, assist with transition planning, conduct longer-term R and D and mitigate risk to operational capability.

A strategic partnership should work both ways: Industry is welcomed into the tent, but is also prepared to open its accounting books for full transparency while still being allowed to make reasonable profit to incentivize performance. Similarly, off-ramps for poor performance should be baked into these contracts.

Third, Canada should always negotiate—always—in-service support on major equipment at the time of acquisition to include directing OEMs to use identified strategic partners and their suppliers when it is in the national interest and enables sovereign readiness.

In doing so, Canada will have more leverage on the OEMs to secure the necessary access to IP and technical data. In doing so, trusted strategic partners will also help to enable Canadian supply chains to be better developed. In doing so, Canada can work with industry to better focus on the next capability to be supported, invest in R and D early and plan for efficient transitions, rather than simply holding a competition for the next platform and starting over.

Fourth, Canada should identify where in the global export market Canada has a competitive advantage that supports the future defence industrial base and commit to developing it. Ninety-eight per cent of the revenues for two of our Canadian companies here comes from exports. Working with industry to transparently decide where our competitive advantage lies is something that should be entrenched in the strategy. We need the government to aggressively advocate for Canadian companies, like other countries that use their defence attachés, trade commissioners and other government officials.

Fifth, Canada should embed an industry-focused force development structure into the Canadian Armed Forces requirements organization. The CAF requirements remain a priority to ensure that our men and women have the right technology to defend our sovereignty. Having a more systematic approach to force development that looks at future requirements against Canada's industrial strengths and helps identify where Canada could have a competitive advantage so that we invest early and appropriately would be of benefit.

A defence industrial strategy for Canada is a long game with long horizons, one that will require a long-term commitment and closer engagement with industry to be successful.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Foster.

Mr. Langlais, the floor will be yours for up to five minutes.

[Michael Langlais, Vice-President, Risk Development, Canadian Corps of Commissionaires]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for this opportunity to appear as part of this extremely important study.

My name is Michael Langlais. I'm an executive with the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, and I'm also the managing partner of the resilience fund, which is our national vehicle for making large-scale investments in Canadian small to medium-sized businesses providing critical national security capabilities.

Commissionaires Canada has over 20,000 people in over 1,200 communities across Canada, including most federal government facilities and Canadian Forces bases. I'm here to underscore the importance of protecting our critical infrastructure and industrial base within the context of the defence industrial strategy.

Defending our nation necessarily requires national security. The former is impossible without the latter. In making investment decisions for the Canadian Armed Forces, it is important to look at home, as well, for the vulnerabilities in our communities using the exceptional talent pooled in Canadian small to medium-sized enterprises working in defence and in security.

A greater proportion of the globe is now subject to active conflict than at any time since the Second World War. Conflict rates have doubled in the past five years. Between 2023 and 2024 alone, conflict event rates grew by over 25%. At the same time, hybrid warfare threats are actively probing our defences. In 2025, drone incursions interrupted commercial flight operations in Denmark, Norway, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Sweden and the United Kingdom, and they prompted Poland to invoke article 4 of the NATO treaty—and the year is not yet complete. In the United States alone, 411 illegal drone incursions have been recorded near airports this year to date, forcing 11 aircraft to take evasive action.

Both the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the chief of the Communications Security Establishment publicly stated at the 2025 Ottawa Conference on Security and Defence that we are under attack every single day in cyberspace and that the volume and severity of these attacks continue to increase.

While the threats in cyberspace are well known, they sit at an intersection between security and defence, the public and private sectors and institutional and individual actors that is difficult to define and coordinate. These efforts must be greatly accelerated and supported by a defence industrial strategy that recognizes cyberspace as a domain of war that reaches deeper into our very homes than has ever been the case in Canadian history.

Finally, our communities and critical infrastructure are physically vulnerable. CSIS has publicly stated that it has deterred lethal Iranian actions on Canadian soil and warned of Russian and Chinese espionage activities in the Arctic. The experience with the former Nortel campus starkly illustrates how pervasive the threat of technical surveillance really is both in industry and in government. Just this week, vital Polish rail links with Ukraine were directly targeted with explosives.

To put it very bluntly, Canada and its allies are currently the targets of a hybrid war that continues to escalate in the context of a level of global conflict unparalleled in 80 years. Time is of the essence. We have an exceptional pool of talent and expertise in Canada that we can deploy against these threats, which is concentrated in Canadian small to medium-sized enterprises that have struggled to put their skills to work in service of the public sector.

Making use of these SMEs will require three things: simplified and accelerated procurement policies delegated to the lowest possible operational level; direct and continuous communication between actors in defence and public safety without fear of creating compliance issues; and clear mandates, guidelines and instructions for resilience in business continuity measures for the private sector to follow in parallel with the government.

Our allies are already being materially impacted by these threats. Let us learn from their experience. All of us in the defence and security communities, including the commissionaires, are willing to step up in service of our country. Use us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Langlais.

Ms. Lambert, five minutes go to you.

[Lisa Lambert, Chief Executive Officer, Quantum Industry Canada]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today.

I'm here on behalf of Quantum Industry Canada, or QIC for short. It's the national consortium representing more than 70 quantum firms and strategic partners across the country. Our aim is to translate Canada's remarkable quantum strengths and strategic advantage into commercial success.

Let me begin with something essential. Quantum is not a single technology. It's an emerging platform that will reshape our economy, security and defence. This platform spans sensing, communications, computing and the enabling systems that make quantum devices possible. Together, they form the foundation of the next technological era—and defence will feel the impact first.

Quantum is no longer theoretical. Some capabilities are already being deployed; others are advancing faster than expected. They're enabling entirely new ways to sense, to navigate, to secure and to interpret the world, unlocking dual-use capabilities that today's systems simply can't match.

Unlike many technologies that mature in civilian markets before reaching defence, quantum is moving in the opposite direction. Defence will be the earliest adopter because the missions demand it and the advantages are too significant to ignore.

The countries that act with urgency to develop and deploy these capabilities will shape the next era of economic and strategic power.

Canada enters this moment with real advantages. We recognized the quantum opportunity early, invested, built world-class institutions, trained top talent and commercialized quantum before most countries even recognized its importance. Because of those early bets, Canada now has one of the strongest, most complete quantum ecosystems in the world. We have the second-highest number of quantum SMEs globally and the highest number per capita. Our companies routinely compete against far larger, far better-resourced players.

Quantum is an extraordinary national asset, but early leadership is not the same as lasting advantage. If we do not convert Canada's quantum strengths into deployable capability and industrial scale, they will be captured elsewhere, along with the talent, IP and economic value that follow.

The global quantum race is accelerating. Quantum is being hard-wired into both defence and industrial strategies. Allies and competitors alike are standing up defence innovation units, securing supply chains and using strategic procurement to expeditiously pull technologies into deployment.

The economic stakes speak for themselves. A study referenced in Canada's national quantum strategy estimates that quantum could contribute more than 3% of GDP by 2045, which is roughly the size of Canada's aerospace sector today. Global estimates run into the trillions. That value will be captured somewhere. The question is whether it will be captured here, for the benefit of Canadians.

Quantum's defence relevance is profound. Quantum sensing can detect what current systems cannot, including submarines beneath Arctic waters or stealth aircraft. Quantum navigation provides precise positioning without GPS, which is essential in contested environments. Quantum communications make command and control harder to disrupt and easier to trust. Quantum computing will transform materials discovery, logistics, advanced cyber-operations and complex decision-making. These capabilities will determine quite literally who can see first, who can act first and who can stay secure under pressure.

This brings me to the new defence industrial strategy. The DIS is a generational opportunity, not only for military capability but for Canada's industrial future.

Canada's quantum sector is built on SMEs, which are fast, innovative and globally competitive. With defence as an early partner and first customer, these firms can grow into neo-primes, next-generation integrators and future anchor companies. However, they cannot reach that scale through Canada's traditional approaches to public-private partnership and legacy defence procurement, which is built for large incumbents and moves far too slowly for frontier technologies.

If the DIS is to meet its ambitions, it must create modern partnership models that let DND and the CAF work directly with emerging industries like quantum—validating capabilities early, reducing friction and scaling sovereign technologies at the speed of relevance. This is how Canada strengthens both prosperity and protection: It's by ensuring the technologies that secure us also build our economic future.

Canada is unusually well positioned to do this. Through QIC, the quantum sector is already coordinated, making engagement simpler and more strategic.

Quantum is at a hinge moment and so is Canada. With the right approach, the DIS can turn Canada's early leadership into critical capabilities, ensuring advantage while helping homegrown SMEs grow into tomorrow's industrial champions.

Quantum Industry Canada and our community stand ready to help.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Ms. Lambert.

Colleagues, we'll enter into our line of questioning.

Mr. Falk, the floor will be yours for six minutes.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for coming to committee this evening. It's very interesting testimony.

Mr. Foster, I'd like to begin with you. First of all, thank you for your service and thank you for your presentation.

My understanding is that your company, L3Harris, has the current maintenance contract for much of our air fleet for DND. How long have you had that contract for?

[Richard Foster]

We've been in service for over 50 years. We were originally Canadair. If you know the Snowbirds aircraft that's flown by the aerobatic team in Canada, we're the original equipment manufacturer. We still hold all the drawings. We still repair them. We have the major structural contract on the F-18, which we've done for over 40 years.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Do you know how much of our CF-18 fleet is currently airworthy?

[Richard Foster]

I couldn't give you the specific numbers, but I believe it's probably over 80.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

We currently have around 80 of them that are operational.

[Richard Foster]

It is about 80 aircraft, yes.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Okay. How difficult was it to secure that contract?

[Richard Foster]

The F-18 contract...?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Yes.

[Richard Foster]

We just renewed it about a year ago. I can tell you that the contractual negotiations with the government are very intense, to the point where we almost walked away, because it was coming to the point that we weren't going to make a profit. When you look at the strategic partnership and trust that we've developed with the Canadian Forces and the government over years, we can come to an agreement where they see the kind of profit that we're making and they can allow us to make a profit that will incentivize us to be more efficient. It's a continual renewal and evaluation of performance.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

When there's a change order outside of regular maintenance, how difficult is it for your organization to get a change order approved?

[Richard Foster]

It's not that difficult. We own all the IP and data rights, which we bought in the 1980s, which is different from the model we use today. That is why I think it's important for Canada, when it negotiates for major equipment, to negotiate the in-service support up front to get as many IP and data rights as it can.

From a structural improvement capability, we are better than Boeing at the moment. Boeing is looking to us to export some of our structural engineering capability to other F-18 fleets around the world as they sunset.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you.

You've also been named as a strategic partner to collaborate with the Government of Canada in the F-35 joint program office and also on defining requirements for the F-35 maintenance repair, overhaul and upgrade facility. How far along is the development of this sustainment ecosystem, as well as specific economic opportunities that you see such as work packages, long-term jobs and North American sustainment roles? Do you expect some of that to emerge in our Canadian aerospace industry?

[Richard Foster]

Yes, I do. We've contacted the joint program office. This is a good example of a strategic partnership. After it was announced last November, in six months, we started working directly with them to get a contract through the joint program office working with Lockheed Martin. We're at the point now where today, actually, we received the facility requirements document that outlines what is required in our facilities to upgrade them to accept an F-35. We expect that evaluation to be done at the end of March.

We have started discussions with Investissement Québec.

That's to look at how we would finance those improvements. I've asked the engineer who is in charge of the global sustainment for all of the depots around the world what it would take to upgrade our facilities. Would it be a lot? She said no.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Some of those upgrades have begun already, at least in Cold Lake. That is my understanding.

[Richard Foster]

We're not part of that. That's a separate contract directly with the Canadian Forces. My understanding is that Bagotville is farther along than Cold Lake in developing the infrastructure for those aircraft.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

In the last week or so, there have been discussions emerging about the Gripen aircraft as an alternative to the F-35. What are your thoughts on that?

[Richard Foster]

I'm worried that the Canadian government is making a hasty decision. If we go to a mixed fleet, our concept of having a regional depot that would service not only Canadian but U.S. F-35s or NATO F-35s would be diminished. The likelihood, then, of our achieving that are less, to the point that we would probably lose about 1,600 jobs in the Quebec region, 500 direct and 1,100 indirect.

On the back side of that, if they choose to go with 88 aircraft, we figure we will have about 5,000 jobs in Quebec—1,500 direct and 3,500 indirect—over the course of the sustainment of those aircraft over 20-plus years. If you look at the production side, you would have to ask Lockheed Martin, but by my estimate, looking at the numbers across Canada in Winnipeg and British Columbia, is that those numbers are well over 5,000 now in terms of what we're producing for the F-35.