Science and Research Committee on May 4th, 2026

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for coming. This has been fascinating testimony. I'm reasonably new to this committee, and I'm already learning a lot of new information.

My first question is for Mr. De Martin.

You're probably aware that, in our defence industrial strategy, we want to support Canadian companies and scale dual-use technologies. How would you describe how current federal investments are helping companies like yours scale operational intelligence platforms using AI that would work for both defence and civilian applications in Canada?

[Edoardo De Martin]

There is no help at the current moment. The help is to actually work for defence and have a contract. The industry strategy is relatively new, so I suspect that's coming through procurement.

How it would help me is that I have clients in the private sector who are benefiting from our technology. That technology creates a platform that I can use in defence. What I create in defence is slightly nuanced, but the technology is all the same. We're creating better technology by having more customers and building to different use cases. That allows my company to say, “We're going to sell this outside Canada now.” I can sell that technology in the private sector. I can sell it maybe to our friends through NATO on the defence side of things. It really helps a company like ours to stand up and have the use cases.

The first thing people ask when you try to export is, who is using this in Canada? Normally, in my business, the response is, “A few people are, but most of my clients are in the U.S.” What I'd like to say is, “Everyone in B.C., a bunch of people across Canada and the public sector are.” The people go, “Wow. Okay. Now you have a proven technology and a platform that I'm interested in buying because you have all the use cases there.” That's how I start to leap-frog other people.

It's competition. We need to compete in the world and we have to compete on our own turf first.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Would you say that you are now in a better competitive position?

[Edoardo De Martin]

If we can procure quickly, as I said in my remarks, we will be, yes, 100%.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

I'm in Winnipeg where it's currently snowing, so I listened to your initial remarks with great envy. In Winnipeg, we have quite an extensive defence infrastructure. We have a major air base and also quite a large aerospace industry.

How could a region like ours, that has all this infrastructure already, better connect with a company like yours to create local jobs?

[Edoardo De Martin]

That would be amazing. We can exchange our numbers after.

Honestly, what I've been doing as of late is... I'll be at CADSI in a month. My organization was at CAF Outlooks earlier gathering information and trying to make connections. These kinds of conferences are where we start to knock boots as an organization. I never knew about these conferences until this year. With this policy in place, with this push to buy Canadian, the connections are now happening. That would certainly be the right place for us to connect with folks in Manitoba.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Given what you're saying, would you agree that the current push to rely less on foreign partners and to encourage the development of businesses in Canada is going to help with that?

[Edoardo De Martin]

Yes. We're starting. Absolutely, there's no doubt.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Thank you very much.

Dr. Brett, you're working with—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, but your time is up.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed to MP Blanchette-Joncas for two and a half minutes.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Shimooka, I would like to come back to the issue of planning.

Quebec accounts for more than 60% of aerospace manufacturing in Canada. Greater Montreal is recognized as one of the few hubs in the world—along with Seattle in the United States and Toulouse in France—where a complete value chain exists, capable of designing and producing an aircraft from start to finish.

Do you believe that a credible defence industrial strategy should also include an aerospace strategy, with measurable objectives, contracts and economic benefits?

[Richard Shimooka]

I think there are two components to that. There is the base funding. The science and research development hub that Montreal consists of.... Frankly, it's highly integrated, not only in the province, but also in the United States. Winnipeg was just mentioned. That portion of it, funding the baseline, the people who can undertake that kind of research and support those industries, is critical. If you look at some of the great hubs like Seattle in the U.S., or Tokyo and Nagoya in Japan, you see that level there.

On the overall level, Canada has to be careful with the capabilities we pick. We were talking about airborne early warning, which is an area where they have done significant work with Saab. They have several programs with the United States Army on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems, or ISR. In having or supporting these kinds of contracts, Canada makes it an actual objective to identify these.

I think that is a credible area, but it really requires a careful understanding of the military requirements and whether this is going to be operationally relevant. In the past, we have funded some capabilities, and they didn't turn out nearly as well. The Canadian Armed Forces were the ones who essentially bore the brunt of operating a system that was not effective.

In a lot of these cases, it's not going to be a purely Canadian solution. In Bombardier's case, they are going to provide the aircraft, but the systems integration, the mission system specifically, and some of those capabilities are probably going to be provided by an American company or a foreign company. We don't have the technical knowledge or the IP to do so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed to MP Ho for five minutes, and then we will end the panel with MP Deschênes-Thériault for five minutes.

MP Ho, please go ahead.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Shimooka, the Liberal government has poured billions into so-called defence innovation with an “Ottawa knows best” approach. It has picked winners and losers under the guise of buy Canadian. It has been reported that, under the Liberal government's definition, it can use the buy Canadian label even if it buys from a company that's foreign owned. However, the Canadian Armed Forces continue to face capability gaps and delayed procurement, despite all the Liberal bureaucracy and all the Liberal insiders hired to staff these brand-new bureaucracies.

In your assessment, is Canada seeing this increased spending without tracking corresponding outcomes? What does that say about the effectiveness of these Liberal policies?

[Richard Shimooka]

Certainly, there are areas where in Canada we could do better to support industry. Space is an area where we have a natural development. The nuclear industry is another area. I could go on and on.

However, since we have been buying only foreign systems and don't have an ecosystem in Canada—and I would make the point to the other panellists to tag along with that—the reality for a lot of major defence capabilities is that many Canadian firms have looked at the United States as a better partner. The United States government is a better area to sell their equipment because it has a large scale. It has a greater ability to identify and talk to people in government to get the requirements. It's a much better relationship.

The reality is that we haven't invested in these areas, so we're not going to get military systems any time in the next five to 10 years in a lot of key cases without significant sustained investment.

In my personal view, I would argue that we probably need a two-stage system. If we are identifying certain capabilities we want to develop and acquire, we should be taking a long-term view while immediately dealing with a lot of critical security challenges we face and addressing them quickly, not only by buying off the shelf from other countries but also by having investment behind them. Maybe we could do co-production with other countries.

If we immediately jump—and there has been talk about this—to try to find an immature Canadian solution, it's not going to end well. We're going to get the Ross rifle of today or other capabilities that are not mature enough and not capable. Again, the Canadian Armed Forces will suffer as a result.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Madam Chair, I would like to use the rest of the time we have to resume debate on the motion that was moved on April 27. It is the motion that was put on notice on April 24.

We saw the Liberal members of this committee vote down our ability to have cameras on and move to other business on April 27—to shut off the cameras and not have the Canadian public able to see—

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

If we're going to have this conversation, it's important that we state what the facts are. Mr. Ho is misrepresenting what actually occurred. I wasn't at the meeting, but from what I watched, this is a misrepresentation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

That is not a point of order. This is getting into debate.

MP Ho.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

The effect of this was that we couldn't continue the debate, so I would like to resume debate using the time we have in this meeting.

I would like to speak in support of my motion. It was put on notice on April 24. That's a fact. It was moved on April 27. I want to speak a bit about my support for this motion.

It's about the study of the $200-million space port, which, as we've seen, turned out to be a big gravel pit, with Liberal insiders connected. It's just another procurement disaster. There has been one after the other. It's a pattern. They call it a new Liberal government, but it's not really new at all. It follows the same playbook of the last Liberal government under the former Liberal prime minister of overpaying, using taxpayer dollars and getting a lot less.

This is the Standing Committee on Science and Research. We're supposed to examine things like public policy and how to strengthen science. By shutting down a study like this, members who voted against it are anti-science by connection. We want to study science. We want to support science and research. We want to support Canadian innovation and Canadian technological capacity.

The Liberals use a lot of rhetoric. They're laughing, but they use a lot of rhetoric and spend a lot of taxpayer money with very little outcome. On paper this government is spending $200 million for an agreement concerning this space port in Nova Scotia. Again, when you look at the pictures, it's just a gravel pit that should cost a fraction of the money. On paper they say that it's about space exploration, something that we should endeavour to do. It's about launch capacity. Again, it sounds good on paper. We are having trouble getting the national defence minister. It is about national defence too, and Canada's future in the space economy, which is so very important. It's a matter we're discussing in this committee. These are serious subjects, and they deserve the scrutiny of committee members.

As committee members, we're not here to defend and excuse failure. If there is something that has gone wrong, it is our job, as committee members, regardless of party, to get to the bottom of the issue. That's the difference between the legislative branch and the executive branch. The Liberal MPs think they're part of the executive branch and can do whatever they want. They seem to blur the lines. We live in a country that has three branches of government. There is a separation of powers. That's one of the fundamental cornerstones of our democracy.

Getting back on the topic, of course we support that. Space matters. It matters for defence. It matters for things like Arctic sovereignty, which the Liberals talk about a lot. It matters for communications and things like weather forecasting, disaster response. We know there have been a lot of disasters under this Liberal government. It matters in agriculture, navigation, telecoms, national security. National security is something the Liberals don't take very seriously. Space is something that is the next frontier for economic competition. It's not going to stop at our borders, and it certainly will not stop because the Liberals want it to stop. Canada should have ambitions about space. This is something worth pursuing.

This project seems great on paper, but we want to dig into the weeds and look at the paperwork, the agreements that were signed, and find out which Liberal insiders are getting rich.

The Liberals are rolling their eyes. Are they the ones getting rich? Who knows? We want to get to the bottom of this.

Canada has a proud history in space. The Canadarm is not just another piece of technology. It was a symbol of Canadian ingenuity when we had a country that could still build things. We're now a country that is building at unimaginable speeds—building unimaginably slowly in things like housing, infrastructure and energy projects. Canadian astronauts have inspired generations of Canadians, students and young people. This Liberal government has continuously let down young people over and over again. Space has inspired Canadian engineers, researchers, machinists, technicians and scientists.

Canada has always punched above its weight, so again, before the Liberals accuse Conservatives of talking down on Canada, we're not talking down on Canada. We're not talking down on Canadians—

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

The Harper government cut the space program every year—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

One person at a time—

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

We're just talking about how the government is letting down Canadians. That's what we're really talking about.

This is a motion that is pro space. It's pro science. You can vote against it if you're anti space, you're anti science and you're anti taxpayer. We just want to get some accountability and some results out of this motion. That's why we're talking about this today.

We can't have this space ambition—and this launch pad is a symbol of Canadian ambition—without the accountability of the vision that it's trying to carry out. Without accountability, this is just another vanity project. We've seen the Liberals pursue ideological vanity projects over and over again. They have not stopped short of doing that. Since this new Liberal Prime Minister has taken office, a lot of their bills have been ideological projects. He has proven that he's not just a new prime minister; he's just another Liberal.

Parliament has a duty to ask questions, and Parliament asks questions through the committee, through the subject matter of the committee. This is the science and research committee. Of course, when we're talking about space and there's a gravel pit that the Liberals are calling a space port, this committee is where we would study it.

I just don't see which other committee would be studying something of this nature. These Liberals want Canadians to believe that this is some bold national investment, and of course they're going to wrap it in their slogans. We know how much Liberals love slogans like “build Canada strong” and all that. Then they say they want to launch rockets at home, which is an endeavour that is worth pursuing in its vision, but again—

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Why did the Harper government cut space funding every opportunity they got?