Science and Research Committee on May 4th, 2026

[Karn Manhas]

Thank you. That's a great question.

One of the greatest capacities that Canada has as the second-largest country in the world is the ability for our lands to hold and sequester carbon in soil. Fifty-nine per cent all of life on the planet is actually in soil. It is the largest carbon sink that we have.

The difficulty is that we have a poor ability to understand what's actually happening in our soil. As we can start measuring soil health, and organic matter in particular, we have an opportunity all across Canada and in the north to look at the capacity of those lands to provide food—or not—as well as to provide resilience against major climate changes.

One concrete example is that for every 1% increase in the health of the soil, as measured by organic matter, every hectare of land will hold 200,000 litres more water. If we can measure the baseline of soil health and increase it by, say, 10%, that's two million hectares with 20 swimming pools' worth of water. If you think about that in terms of fires or droughts, it has a huge capacity there, as well as for productivity.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Some are going to say that this is really about improving food productivity and not necessarily about defence and dual use. How do you bridge that gap for folks who will say that this should be bucketed over here, rather than part of a dual-use opportunity for Canada?

[Karn Manhas]

A key thing is that being able to actually measure what's happening in our soils.... Biological systems are all connected. If there's an attack on soils, or a disruption to them, it affects the entire country and the ability for those lands to produce.

It's critically a defence capability. For one thing, it's food defence, but it's also resilience against disruptions. If we can monitor that in real time, it contributes to our ability. In the same way that measuring what's happening in our air is critical, so is measuring what's happening in our soil.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

This takes me to the whole question of agritech risk.

Obviously, your platform involves manipulating biological active ingredients at scale. Biotechnology as military applications sometimes complicates the dual-use dilemma, because the same infrastructure, the same tools and the same knowledge used to develop beneficial products can be used for harmful purposes.

What governance frameworks do you use? How does Canada's current dual-use oversight regime adequately address risks in the space of agritech?

[Karn Manhas]

It's a good question.

Regarding your last question and this one, a capability we have is to have, on one side, physical AI. We can actually measure what's happening in the soil and ask it questions. As we use these sensors and measure the soil, we can take the flip side of it and start asking, “What's going on here? Is there a contaminant present? Is there something else?” We can ask it the key questions.

The critical thing is who has access to that. That's an extremely powerful capability. It's extremely powerful for research at universities and for defence. If it gets into the wrong hands, you can start asking the flip question, which is, “Here's the quality of what's going on in the soil. How do I disrupt it?”

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting. The time is up. Thank you.

We will end this panel with MP Blanchette-Joncas for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Manhas, you said that food security is not part of the current defence strategy.

Given the fragile supply chain and dependence on foreign inputs, our understanding is that this is a weakness.

Is that not so?

[Karn Manhas]

Absolutely. That's why one of the key recommendations is to look at defence more broadly and with resilience first, just like in the U.K. With some of our European partners, it's specifically enumerated.

The Prime Minister called it out in the sovereign wealth fund. We also need to call this out specifically in the defence industrial strategy. As we think about dual use in terms of research, we need to call this out specifically because it's not just food. Like you said, it's resilience of the supply chain, it's energy systems and it's other systems that ensure we can actually function as a society in times of disruption.

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

That is well understood.

I therefore take it that agricultural and food technologies should be considered strategic dual-use technologies, as you just mentioned.

Let's talk concrete facts. Last January, the Liberal government announced the closure of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's research centre in Quebec City. That represents about 60 years of expertise.

In the context we just discussed, does it make sense to weaken our public capacity for agricultural research?

[Karn Manhas]

The critical piece is that we need to connect our research to our systems as well. We have a lot of research that is going on across the country. We also have a lot of users, farmers who are actually on the land every day.

We need to look at that as a strategic opportunity for ourselves and connect that data in a way that holds that data secure for the farmers and holds that data secure in Canada, but also benefits the country. It's not just that the research is held in one place, but that it's actually connected across, so researchers, farmers and the Department of Defence can all access that to be able to determine how to move forward in each of these areas.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

With that, this panel comes to an end. On behalf of all the members, I would like to thank all the witnesses for coming and providing important testimony as we start this new study today.

We will suspend the meeting for a few minutes so the witnesses for the next panel can join us.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call this meeting to order.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and the members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel: floor, English or French.

This is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

I would like to welcome our witnesses for this second panel.

We are joined by Mr. Richard Shimooka, senior fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

We are also joined by Dr. Paul Brett, deputy provost and executive director of professional and continuing education, from the Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland.

Our third witness for this panel is Edoardo De Martin, chief executive officer, representing Industrio AI Inc.

Welcome to all the witnesses.

All three are joining by video conference. Each witness will have have five minutes for their opening remarks, and then we will go to the rounds of questioning.

We will begin with Mr. Shimooka.

You will have five minutes for your opening remarks. Please, go ahead.

[Richard Shimooka, Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual]

Madam Chair, thank you for the invitation to speak to the committee.

Science and innovation are essential elements of the nature of war today. As it was made clear on the battlefields in Ukraine, the Middle East as well as potential ones in the Asia-Pacific region, the ability for a modern military to exploit technological advantages and to bring them into service rapidly can have a dramatic impact on operational outcomes.

Canada has had a strong legacy of scientific endeavours. This was particularly apparent after the Second World War, but its ability to effectively harness that capacity for the benefit of the Canadian Armed Forces has been much more limited.

Omond Solandt, the first chair of the defence research board, the predecessor to DRDC, made an observation after his time in office: Canada has never had an overall policy for the evolution of science and technology. From time to time, we have identified problems in this field and have tried to fix them, usually unsuccessfully because it was generally not understood that there were no quick fixes. A science and technology capability has to be grown and built over time, and shaped to a set of national goals.

Solandt's observation is just as apt today, especially in light of the current government's recent reforms and initiatives in this area. These include increased funding and new organizations, such as BOREALIS, which are to herald a new working relationship between the Department of National Defence and scientific centres around this country. However, to Solandt's point, most of these policies will not effectively address some of the underlying systemic problems. Much of the current effort simply relies on existing scientific capacities, which generally have a poor compatibility with the overall military innovations and procurement system.

While I think renewed focus is certainly welcome, there are real challenges that will limit the effectiveness. These challenges are not unique to Canada, either. Many of our allies struggle with them on a day-to-day basis. The challenges cover a wide range of topics. There are far too many to address in these opening remarks.

I'd like to cede the rest of my time to the members so that they may ask specific questions on avenues they may have interests in.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you for your brief remarks.

We will now proceed to Dr. Brett for five minutes.

Dr. Brett, the floor is yours.

[Paul Brett, Deputy Provost and Executive Director of Professional and Continuing Education, Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland]

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to contribute to your study on science and dual-use technology. My remarks will focus on how colleges and universities contribute to Canada's dual-use technology systems, and I'll use Memorial University's Marine Institute as a practical example of how federal science, innovation and security objectives are delivered on the ground.

Dual-use technologies, those with both civilian and defence applications, are now central to our research and innovation landscape. Technologies such as autonomous systems, subsea sensing, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and advanced marine engineering underpin commercial sectors, such as the offshore energy and transportation sectors, while also supporting defence readiness, Arctic sovereignty and protection of critical infrastructure. As a result, the line between science policy and national security capability has largely disappeared. In this context, the Marine Institute represents a distinct category of post-secondary institutions, one that complements traditional research universities by translating science into operational capability.

First of all, our institution contributes through mission-ready workforce development and workforce resiliency. MI delivers industry-driven programs ranging from technical certifications to graduate degrees with a focus on accelerated, competency-based training. This model is particularly relevant to dual-use sectors, where government and industry require graduates who can operate safely and effectively in high-risk environments upon entering the workforce. Here is a great example: MI trains mariners, marine engineers and technologists who routinely work and move between civilian shipping, offshore energy and public sector fleets, including the Coast Guard and our navy. From a public policy standpoint, this converts federal education and research investment directly into deployable national capacity.

Second, we play a critical role in applied research and technology readiness. Many dual-use technologies originate in fundamental research, but their value to the public depends on whether they can be tested, validated and hardened for real operating conditions. Our research model focuses on moving technology across the technology readiness levels through prototyping, simulation and harsh environment testing. Facilities such as ours, The Launch in Holyrood, Newfoundland, now part of NATO's DIANA, defence innovation accelerator for the North Atlantic, program, enable autonomous and subsea systems to be tested in near-Arctic conditions. It cannot be replicated through modelling alone. This de-risks adoption for federal departments and aligns directly with the federal objective of accelerating commercialization under the defence industrial strategy.

Third, the institute functions as a true ecosystem collaborator. Dual-use innovators require collaboration between government, industry, indigenous partners and international allies. We provide a neutral platform where these sectors can work together using appropriate governance, security and ethical frameworks. Its partnerships with global firms, small companies, indigenous organizations and federal departments illustrate how post-secondary institutions can anchor regional innovation while delivering national outcomes.

Fourth, we contribute to responsible and trusted innovation. Dual-use technology raises legitimate questions about safety, ethics, environmental impact and public confidence. By embedding regulatory literacy, cybersecurity awareness and indigenous partnership in both training and research, we ensure that technology developed with public support is socially legitimate and operationally credible.

A final consideration is geography and sovereignty. Canada's marine and Arctic realities require innovation to occur in real environments, not only in laboratories. As a near-Arctic institution with long-standing co-leadership relations with indigenous partners, my institution provides capabilities that are unavailable elsewhere in our national system.

In conclusion, the Marine Institute demonstrates how colleges and universities can function as the delivery infrastructure for dual-use technology and dual-use science. When institutions with applied mandates are fully integrated into federal policy frameworks, public investments are translated into trained personnel, validated technologies and measurable national capability.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Dr. Brett.

We will now proceed to Mr. De Martin.

You have five minutes. Please go ahead.

[Edoardo De Martin, Chief Executive Officer, Industrio AI Inc.]

Thank you, Madam Chair, vice-chairs and members of the committee, for the invitation to appear today. It is an honour to be in front of this committee at a moment when Canada is making generational decisions about the future of its defence industrial base and the role that Canadian technology companies will play in it.

I want to take a few minutes to share who we are, what we've built, why we've built it in Canada and what I believe this committee can do to ensure companies like ours scale here at home rather than someplace else.

Before founding Industrio, I spent more than two decades in enterprise technology. Before that, I worked in video games building start-ups and also worked for multinationals. Part of that journey was as general manager for Microsoft Dynamics, and I headed up the Microsoft Global Development Centre in Vancouver. I've had a front-row seat for the digital transformation cloud era and the rise of natural language processing in AI that is now driving much of the innovation we see today. I saw how critical knowledge had been fragmented across old systems, creating an intelligence gap in operations, and how we can take the latest advancements in AI to bridge this gap.

This is why my founders and I created Industrio. We are 100% Canadian-owned, headquartered in Vancouver, profitable and bootstrapped. Our IP is Canadian. Our team is Canadian. The choices we make every day are Canadian choices.

As to why data sovereignty matters, in a world where AI systems learn from the data, where the data resides, who controls it and which jurisdiction governs it, they are no longer technical questions. They are questions of national security, economic competitiveness and democratic accountability. When Canadian data and operational, defence, health care or critical infrastructure flows through foreign-owned platforms, Canada loses control of our sovereignty, and especially when our friends become unpredictable.

What we have done at Industrio is build a platform called Signal, a Canadian-built and –hosted platform that gives operations teams the intelligence they need to make faster decisions, run better processes and act before problems become crises, built specifically for how their organizations work on the infrastructure they already have.

Using our technology, we worked with the City of Vancouver to build them a common operating platform to support operations for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, one of the largest, most logistically complex multi-agency events ever hosted in our country: real-time coordination across venues, infrastructure, logistics, personnel and security, federal, provincial and municipal partners, and zero margin for failure.

This is why we are in the process of standing up Signal for defence. This is a great dual-use case. Our architecture, hardened for defence environments, is configured around two modules. One delivers real-time supply chain visibility across DND and CAF networks, identifying bottlenecks, integrity risks and sustainment gaps before they become operational failures. The other delivers a unified picture of personnel readiness, supporting force generation, deployment planning and base-level reporting. Together, the modules produce a base readiness intelligence layer aligned with the priorities of “Our North, Strong and Free”.

Industrio strongly supports the defence industrial strategy and the build-partner-buy framework. It signals to Canadian companies like ours that Canada will, where it can, build sovereign capability at home, partner where partnerships accelerate outcomes and buy where buying is the responsible choice. That sequencing matters. In particular, the designation of digital systems, including artificial intelligence and integrated command, control and communications as a sovereign capability area is a clear and welcome signal. It tells Canadian technology companies like mine that the front door is open and that Canadian IP, Canadian data residency and Canadian ownership are competitive advantages.

On scaling Canadian companies at home, I want to close on a question that I believe this committee is uniquely positioned to influence: How do we ensure that Canada scales its technology companies at home and keeps them here to build a strong and sovereign economy?

We lose our best companies because we cannot find their first serious Canadian customer fast enough, whether that's public or private. They get acquired. They move south. They scale someplace else. The defence industry strategy is an opportunity to break that pattern, but only if procurement moves at the speed of technology and only if the buy side rewards Canadian companies that have proven themselves. Three things would help.

First, accelerate the procurement pathways that already exist, including IDEaS, the regional defence investment initiative and other key procurement initiatives so that Canadian SMEs can move from proof to pilot to program faster.

Second, treat Canadian commercial deployments as legitimate proof points for defence and public safety procurement.

Third, anchor early defence demand in Canadian SMEs the way our allies anchor theirs so that Canadian capability has the runway to mature into Canadian sovereignty across all key areas of our economy.

We have the talent. We have the policy direction—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I apologize for interrupting. The time is up, so if you could, please wind it up in the next five or six seconds.

[Edoardo De Martin]

Thank you for the invitation, Madam Chair, and for the work this committee is doing.

I look forward to questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

With that, we will start with our first round of questioning.

We will begin with MP Baldinelli for six minutes.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

Before I begin, Madam Chair, it's my understanding that the clerk has provided you with an update on the status of our request to have the Minister of Industry, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement and the Secretary of State for Defence Procurement appear. This is a very important study. The government has committed $81.1 billion over the next five years in its budget. It has also introduced a Canada defence strategy.

We're hopeful on this side that we can get some ministers and departments to appear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

The clerk has sent me the status of all of the witness requests we have submitted. I have to review that email. After that, all of the information will be sent to the members.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

Can you provide that to us?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I have to review it. It's a long email.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

No. Tell us verbally.