Science and Research Committee on May 25th, 2026

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

I don't want to leave out geologists and geochemists, because I know they're very excited about the samples you bring back. There's lots of great Canadian research in that regard, especially with small organic molecules and what was happening with them.

My other question is about those partnerships as we roll out the defence industrial strategy and satellite technology. As we are increasing our surveillance, we know that things are changing, particularly through the Arctic. There are lots of different options around remote sensing and data collection.

I'm wondering what sorts of partnerships or discussions you might have under way not only with defence but also with the Canadian Geological Survey, which I think has great capacity with expanded satellites and data collection.

[Lisa Campbell]

Most space technologies are dual-use in the sense that they can do both things. If you put a platform in space to observe for environmental and natural disaster purposes, it could probably detect heat. Infrared technology in space can also see what's happening on the ground. If you look at the utilization of our current satellite, the RADARSAT Constellation Mission, 50% of the data goes to the Department of National Defence, and that's always been the case. It makes sense as a country that if we have that capacity, we use it for all of our needs and for security purposes as well.

We remain a civil space agency. On the other hand, we are also happy to help grow a Canadian space sector that can then meet the moment. If there is a need to invest in security in the north and in the Arctic, there are also a number of space applications that can help with what we want to do in that regard.

I also mentioned how space has become increasingly populated. Land, sea and air used to be the war-fighting domains; now, space is one of those domains as well. It means that we've had to increase the cybersecurity posture of our spacecraft constantly and invest in resilience. We operate them civilly, but we are under no illusion that they are under constant threat so we watch that very carefully.

With the rest of the world, we are trying to make sure that there are rules and norms of conduct in space that everyone follows so that we don't make it even more dangerous. Space is hard enough. It's lethal for humans, and debris poses a serious problem. We're trying to keep it safe for everyone.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

I think what I heard there is that it's the final frontier.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

The time is up.

We will start our third round with MP Holman for five minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming to this committee.

First of all, I want to echo what my colleagues on the committee have said: Congratulations with regard to Artemis II, and especially on the success of Mr. Jeremy Hansen orbiting the Earth. I know he is an inspiration to Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

My first question is with regard to the International Space Station. Yes, billions of Canadian tax dollars have been put into the International Space Station. I still remember being a young lad when the pieces were being launched up in the late 1990s, and mankind started to orbit in the International Space Station in the year 2000, as it continued to be built.

The reason I bring it up is my concern for the planned de-orbit of the International Space Station as of 2031. I was wondering what the CSA's position is on that. Has there been any discussion to extend the usage of the International Space Station beyond 2031?

Thank you.

[Lisa Campbell]

Thank you for the question. It's a live one for all of us in the space community. It is humanity's precious microgravity laboratory, but it's getting older. There's a leak in the Russian module, and our Canadarm is constantly doing repairs. We've put out solar arrays to keep fuel and power going, but with the stress and orbital mechanics on it, at some point, it will have to de-orbit.

The United States had plans for commercial space stations. Those have evolved a lot, partly as companies realized how difficult and how expensive it would be. There are a few companies that will launch much smaller modules, but for the moment, the only alternative is China's small space station in low-earth orbit. It's about a third of the size of the ISS. Other countries, like India, and Europe are talking about having a low-earth-orbit space station.

We're very worried about the loss of all of that expertise if that stopped. We are very hopeful for some form of continuity to keep the ISS going as long as possible, because it's so precious. It teaches us so much. We're in active discussions with partners around the world. What can we do to make sure that there's some form of public platform for space science and for astronauts to go to? We learn so much from it and from keeping a continuous human presence going, as you mentioned, for 25 years.

We want to keep that going, but right now it's not obvious what the successors will be. It would be a big leap, if that stopped, to go from there to deep space. You'd want to keep that know-how and muscle memory going as long as possible.

It's also very beneficial to our companies. We launch science experiments from there so that they have access to space science.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

To follow up on that concern with regard to the International Space Station, what is CSA's official position? Is it to prolong it or to de-orbit it in 2031?

[Lisa Campbell]

The Canadian Space Agency received additional funding to participate up until 2030, and we're very grateful for it.

At some point, with spacecraft.... As you heard my colleague mention, we've kept some of our satellites for 23 years. We have a mission life of five years, but we keep them for much longer, which we're very proud of. That might sound responsible in terms of a return on investment. The only issue is, increasingly, we need to plan for de-orbit and save enough fuel so that we can do a controlled re-entry, just as we saw with Artemis II. Their re-entry was controlled. They reached 3,000°C as plasma burned up around them, and there were parachutes.

It's the same thing with the International Space Station. We have to make sure that there's enough control over the International Space Station to be able to de-orbit it responsibly. You may have seen some of the issues with space debris lately, so a controlled re-entry is the most important thing.

Will the structure last that long? I mentioned the persistent leak in the Russian module. That's a problem. We're doing what we can to maintain it. Will other issues arise as the structure ages? We hope not. We're doing preventative maintenance, but it is already reaching beyond what we anticipated when we first launched it.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Are you aware of any third alternative solution, not just an international space station and not de-orbiting it in 2031? Has private enterprise inquired with the CSA, NASA or any other international space agency to keep the ISS up there in space?

[Lisa Campbell]

I remember, since 2020, commercial organizations have been active in either using a portion of the International Space Station to create something else or launching their own space stations. There have been a number of proposals. None of them have gotten very far. We may see some changes this year with much smaller modules launched, but not a full station.

We haven't seen the idea of creating something like the International Space Station at that size yet. It's been on a much smaller scale. Often, where they have difficulty is with the business plan. Who will the market be? Is it government? Is there a private market for this? At the moment, it's still very expensive, so they seem to be wrestling with that. India has spoken about launching its own space station and welcoming international partners. Europe has spoken of that as well, but it is a complex endeavour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you. The time is up.

We will proceed to MP Eyolfson for five minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Like many, at the age of six, I watched the first human moon landing, and I was very excited to see a Canadian on a mission towards the moon. NASA has said that they are planning crewed missions to the moon again. I don't necessarily mean committing astronauts, but is the CSA participating in the development of these missions to land crews on the moon?

[Lisa Campbell]

We are part of something called the Artemis Accords, which is a political agreement among 66 countries for deep space. Canada is one of the first countries. We also hosted the second workshop on the Artemis Accords, and now 66 countries are planning for a permanent presence on the moon.

The moon is a challenging environment. There's a dust called regolith that gets in absolutely everything. It can be -200°C or 100°C. There's planning for the batteries and trying to survive a lunar night, which can be 14 days at -200°C. Canadians are pretty good at that, but the moon is a whole different story.

It's an unforgiving environment. There's also really rough terrain. We're constructing vehicles that can go down into canyons and not tip over. Then there is actually achieving a lunar landing. There have been some commercial entities that have tried, and some of them have crashed into the moon. Slowing down enough so that you can do a soft landing on the moon is very challenging.

Yes, Canada is very much part of that. We're sought after for our robotics. We've been investing for years in surface mobility, so we're ready for this now. We've engaged with three companies for the mission concept and five companies for the science we would do on the moon. NASA is very much looking for international partners, not only because they want it to be an international endeavour but also, quite frankly, for financial reasons. They need the contributions of other countries.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Thank you.

Further to that, once we're actually there, is there a plan for what kind of research is going to be done on the moon? What are the possible scientific and industrial potentials of such research?

[Lisa Campbell]

We're all very interested in the south pole of the moon because we think there's water ice there, which we could use to live and also convert to hydrogen to go further into the solar system—to Mars and beyond.

Geology was mentioned earlier. The moon used to be part of earth. We can learn a lot about earth from studying the moon. You might have heard, if you listened to the Artemis II crew, that they saw parts of the moon that human eyes have never seen. They saw micrometeorites hitting it. There is a tremendous amount of science.

There are also resources. There are companies and countries that are very interested in the resources on the moon. We're doing our very best to make sure that it's a collaborative endeavour with interoperability. That will be important.

I don't know if my colleagues have anything to add regarding the science aspect.

[Jean-Claude Piedboeuf]

You covered it.

[Lisa Campbell]

That's fine.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

I will cede the rest of my time to Madame Brière.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, MP Eyolfson.

Thank you very much for all those answers. You've opened the door to what I wanted to talk about.

The Université de Sherbrooke is working on a major project: a small, astromobile vehicle. However, the mission was cancelled. It was to be part of the first of three planned launches, the second with Canadarm3 and the third with the lunar utility vehicle.

Isn't it unfortunate that after all of Canada's efforts and investments at this stage, funding was withdrawn? You said we should go and explore the lunar south pole region. Will Canada lose some of its leadership at the international level?

[Lisa Campbell]

It's always sad when you have to make difficult decisions such as stopping or not continuing a project.

However, we're very aware this is taxpayers' money and that it must be used responsibly. As I said earlier, we were asked to find $41.3 million in savings. We did that by stopping this project, since there were signs it would be difficult to complete on schedule and within the budget. Given that and the request to reduce the budget, we did what had to be done.

That said, scientific development will go on. As I said earlier, there are some great companies in Sherbrooke doing extraordinary scientific development. I'm thinking in particular of SBQuantum, which uses the earth's magnetosphere to create very specific maps. It's extraordinary. I had the opportunity to visit the company earlier, and what they do there is magnificent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

The time is up. Thank you.

With that, we will proceed to MP Blanchette-Joncas for two and a half minutes.

Please go ahead.

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

Thank you. You said I had two and a half minutes, Madam Chair. Isn't it six minutes now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

No. We are into the third round, so you will have two and a half minutes.

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

Okay, thank you.

Ms. Campbell, the Canadian space project CASTOR, the advanced cosmological survey telescope working in the visible and ultraviolet ranges, is touted as a historic opportunity for Canada to lead a major international space mission.

Does the Canadian Space Agency support this project and formally recommend the government invest the necessary $20 million to launch the project's A+ phase?

[Lisa Campbell]

We're faced with a dilemma. We support this project. It's a great project. Obviously, if funds were unlimited, we'd go ahead. However, we're also interested in two other projects. One is called LiteBIRD, which would be done with Japan—