Industry and Technology Committee on Nov. 19th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

You have 45 seconds.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

I can just skip, then. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Ste‑Marie, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Foster, given that the CF‑18 fleet is aging, there will be less and less maintenance. L3Harris has a structuring project to become a heavy maintenance centre in northeastern North America for F‑35s. This would help create jobs.

The government may opt for the Gripen aircraft rather than the 88 F‑35s. In this case, there would no longer be any structuring project for maintaining current jobs. We could lose 500 jobs. However, if the government goes ahead with the F‑35s, there could be additional hiring. Is that right?

[Richard Foster]

Yes. That's right.

As I said, if Canada decides to proceed with the 88 F‑35s project, we would consider hiring 1,500 people. In addition, 3,500 jobs would be created by our suppliers. We're already assessing how we could work with our suppliers, especially our Quebec‑based suppliers, on cybersecurity and logistics. We're also determining what type of infrastructure would need to be built. Lastly, we're looking at other aspects.

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

You said that your facilities would need to be modified in order to service F‑35s. You also said that you were carrying out a study on this matter. However, this will all depend on the government's decision. You must wait for the government's decision before taking action. Is that right?

[Richard Foster]

We're still going ahead with our study. We just received some documents from Lockheed Martin through the American Joint Program Office, which is responsible for the F‑35s. We expect to finish our study by late March. This study will help us figure out how much it will cost to upgrade our facilities. Since structures are already in place for F‑18s and security is quite high, the cost could be lower.

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

This makes it an economically sound choice in terms of jobs and cost reduction, given that you already have the site. The government would need to make its decision before March 2026, since you're currently carrying out a study. Is that right?

[Richard Foster]

That would indeed be helpful.

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

It would help improve predictability.

Does the government—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Unfortunately, your time is up, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

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

I had many more questions, but I would like to thank the three witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you.

Mr. Guglielmin, you have five minutes.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Lambert, from your perspective, what's still missing in Canada's approach to move quantum from lab outcomes to consistent purchases and field use? How should responsibilities be divided between multiple departments so that hand-offs don't stall projects?

[Lisa Lambert]

It's a really good question. I think one thing that's missing, and I touched on it before, is having clear demand signals. As I mentioned, this is going to be a defence-first application in most contexts, so knowing what capabilities the CAF and DND are going to need would really help. This is tough to do for emerging technologies. If you went back to the 1900s and asked people what they wanted, they would say a faster horse. They wouldn't ask for a car or know that they could get a Ferrari. In this case, we need to figure out some new ways to do this. The traditional way of working with requirements doesn't tend to work very well for frontier technologies. They move too quickly. There are challenges in working with that.

I also think it would be encouraging for Canada to put forward a concrete mission, something like Canada being one of the best in the world for deploying quantum and frontier technologies for Arctic and maritime conditions. Something that aligns very much with our geography and what our needs are would be helpful on that side.

The other thing, too, is looking at the industrialization piece and having an advanced manufacturing strategy to look at what would be needed to build this out. This could be done in collaboration with industry and aligning it with what their needs are. It would help to look at how we build this ecosystem out. These are things that will take time as well. It would help them with their planning and their predictability as they move forward. It would also give confidence to investors and help crowd some private capital into the space to help accelerate it forward.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

In a Globe and and Mail op-ed, you argued that Canada must industrialize quantum by building fabrication, integration, secure supply chains and deployment at scale, not just by funding research. Can you expand a little on your thoughts on that?

[Lisa Lambert]

I think this is something that's even more urgent right now. We're seeing this in other areas. The U.S. has an advanced manufacturing strategy. Europe is developing its advanced manufacturing strategy. We're seeing this across Asia as well. It's something that's lacking here. We're moving from a research space into, for a lot of these companies, a manufacturing game, going forward. How we go and build this out is also integral to introducing us and integrating us into global value chains.

No one company, let alone one country, is going to be able to do quantum on their own. It's too complex. There are supply chains, not just a supply chain for quantum. They're still emerging, and they're more complex than semiconductors. Having those plans also allows us to negotiate and partner with allies and figure out what parts of the ecosystem or which parts of the supply chain we are going to own, that we are going to specialize in, and then we can better co-operate with our allies in this space.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Foster, you spent some time talking about the F-35s, and you've warned previously that anything less than 88 F-35s or a mixed fleet will put Canadian jobs at risk. I think you've highlighted that quite well here.

Yesterday, Minister Joly said that Canada didn't get enough industrial benefits from the F-35 procurement and wants more jobs created, which is why they're looking at going a different way. I was just wondering if you could expand your thoughts a little further on that.

[Richard Foster]

From my understanding, the competition for the F-35 was done a little differently. I know that Lockheed Martin came up with a different way of doing the ITB process and still won. I know that our Canadian companies around Canada have competed and won the right to produce products for the F-35, and we continue to compete. If Canada was to decide to go to another fleet, when those competitions come up for renewal, I would be afraid that we'd probably lose more jobs on the production side.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Can you briefly define what role L3Harris was going to play in the planned F-35 centre at Mirabel?

[Richard Foster]

We believe that Canada needs a sovereign capability for its F-35s to make sure that, as I said in my remarks, when you need an F-35 to do an operational mission, it's ready. We've done that for over 40 years for the F-18. We're part of the team that ensures that, when you need an F-18, it's ready to go. If you don't have that depot, that means you're relying on another depot in another country to make sure your F-18 gets the service it needs.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

If the government delays or reopens parts of the fighter plan, how long do you think it could push back the start of the full rollout in operation at the Mirabel sustainment centre? What does that mean for the CF-18 transition, for instance?

[Richard Foster]

I guess we could keep the F-18 going longer. We have the structural capability to do that, and it certainly is as capable as the Gripen. The longer we wait.... We think that the Americans are getting at capacity in their two depots. We're offering the flexibility for the U.S., specifically, to have an overflow capability to put their F-35s in our facility. At the same time, Canada would provide a national sovereign readiness capability for our own F-35s.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Guglielmin.

Ms. O'Rourke, you have the floor for five minutes.