Science and Research Committee on June 1st, 2026

[Alexandre Blais]

I think it's all three.

I can run through the key points I mentioned.

At the field's core is fundamental research. Sometimes, we see examples like the one I just mentioned, with SBQuantum and its sensor technology currently in orbit taking measurements. For a number of technologies, including quantum computing, many technological bottlenecks still need to be resolved. Companies need research institutes. Fundamental research is absolutely crucial and should be done in Canada so we have that IP.

As for talent, if we're not developing it, companies have no reason to stay in Canada. Companies like Nord Quantique, which now employs 70 people, are part of the Canadian quantum champions program. The company is one of 11 in the world that were chosen by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA, in the U.S., to work with DARPA on developing a quantum computer for the agency.

If the Quantum Institute doesn't grow its capacity to train students, they will go elsewhere. Research institutes need to scale up that capacity, as part of the industry.

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

Canada is globally recognized for its quantum research, and you are the proof.

Are we not at risk of becoming a country that mainly produces breakthroughs, talent and patents for other countries?

Do we really have the conditions we need to develop companies and the industrial capabilities they provide domestically?

[Alexandre Blais]

That was our number one concern when we got the Canada first research excellence funding about 10 years ago. Our top quantum export in Sherbrooke was talent. We would train people, and then they would leave for the U.S. or Europe.

By establishing companies, by creating the right conditions for students to start businesses like SBQuantum, Nord Quantique and Qubic, and by attracting new companies, we make it possible for students to train here and stay here. The right conditions need to be in place. That comes back to supporting the ecosystem. Without support, those conditions disappear.

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

What are the biggest barriers that keep academic discoveries from becoming practical applications? I am referring to barriers such as prototyping, financing, access to government contracts, industrial partnerships and IP protection. Which of those barriers do you run into most often?

[Alexandre Blais]

They run the whole gamut. Obviously, a lot of what we do is pure fundamental research. At the end of the day, though, we also put satellites into orbit. As you can imagine, we run into those challenges throughout the innovation chain.

That brings me back to support for the ecosystem. We talked about the strategy and intellectual property. That's not my area of expertise, but I can tell you that right now, every institution has its own strategy. There's no doubt that innovative solutions are falling through the cracks.

Having a Canadian strategy and focusing on the best way to protect our quantum IP could give our companies an edge. It could also encourage students to pursue more start-ups, because they'd have the IP to do it. I think the whole gamut matters, all the things you mentioned.

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

Thank you, Mr. Blais.

Ms. Therrien, I'm going to turn to you now. The ecosystem in Sherbrooke shows that a world-class science hub can develop outside a major urban centre and that the federal government should invest more in regional ecosystems.

I'd like to hear more about how you were able to create what you have in Sherbrooke. It's clear that most of the funding goes to big universities, which are in big cities.

[Wendy Therrien]

I think it really comes down to two things.

The first is a policy decision. Forty years ago, Université de Sherbrooke decided to invest in quantum science and technology, with no guarantees that it would result in the ecosystem we see today. That decision made it possible for us to really develop that expertise.

The Government of Quebec's decision to create innovation zones came later. Sherbrooke isn't Montreal. It isn't Quebec City. The decision to create innovation zones in a place like Sherbrooke was highly strategic, because it concentrated the expertise that attracted companies and led to more companies being created, as Mr. Blais just explained. That crucial $750 million we received at the time was the key that unlocked what we built.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Tony Baldinelli]

Thank you so much for that.

I'm going to the second round of questioning.

MP Ho is next.

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

Thanks, Chair.

My questions are for Dr. da Mota.

The government keeps using buzzwords and empty Liberal rhetoric like “sovereignty”, “buy Canadian” and “defence industrial strategy”, but your work has raised a concern that some of the early spending is going to Canadian subsidiaries of foreign multinationals. When we look at the buy Canadian label that the Liberals define, it does not require the vendor to hire Canadian citizens or permanent residents, or require Canadian ownership. For example, you mentioned that nearly 25% of the Liberals' $6.6-billion industrial strategy funding went to local subsidiaries owned by foreign multinationals within a week. That's over $1 billion. The Liberal government is asking Canadians to treat them as authentically Canadian companies under their vague buy Canadian label.

Is it really a Canadian defence industrial strategy if the company may have a Canadian address but the ultimate ownership, profits, intellectual property and strategic control sit outside Canada?

[Matthew da Mota]

We're talking specifically about the ammunition capacity that was being built up. The criticism there was that in certain areas, partnering with foreign subsidiaries made sense because they had the expertise. Specifically for nitrocellulose, which is a capacity that Canada does not have and which these other companies do not have in Canada right now, it would have made more sense to partner with a Canadian company. We have plenty of wood pulp companies and underused capacity that can basically be channelled into that production.

I think the definition is still in flux. It's still being developed. I would like to see it privilege Canadian companies more than it has so far, but we also have—

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

The definition is still in flux, and billions of dollars are out the door already. Wow. That's incredible. Only under the Liberal government's watch can that happen.

Canada has a long-standing problem whereby public tax money supports research and development, but the intellectual property and commercialization benefits end up outside the country. More than 50% of the intellectual property generated through industry-directed Canadian university research—taxpayer-funded research—is ultimately scooped up by foreign companies.

Is the Liberal government repeating the same mistake in defence procurement by failing to put strong enough terms and conditions on IP ownership and downstream economic value?

[Matthew da Mota]

I think there could be a risk for that, but national security has always had very different terms around IP. So far, from what I've seen of the plans from BOREALIS, it seems promising. We'll have to see, but there will have to be significant structural shifts around retaining and mobilizing IP in order to fix those problems, and it's going to need a whole-of-ecosystem approach.

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

The Liberals appear to be branding procurement as Canadian in name only. Some of the production or the final assembly may happen here, but the ownership may not be and strategic benefits of taxpayer-funded investments may flow elsewhere.

For example, you mentioned earlier that the Liberals announced a $300-million rifle order with Colt Canada, and Colt Canada is owned by the Colt CZ Group. It's a Czech multinational, but the Liberal government is going to say this qualifies as buy Canadian because it's under its vague influx definition.

Is there a risk that the Liberal defence industrial strategy will become a capture mechanism for established foreign multinationals, rather than establishing a real launch pad for Canadian-owned firms?

[Matthew da Mota]

I think every part of our economy has been at risk of being captured by foreign companies for a very long time under multiple governments. This is obviously at risk as well.

For guns, it's a complicated question. I don't think we're looking to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in building up sovereign assault rifle capabilities or new companies. I think emerging technologies and dual-use technologies are the areas where we really want to be partnering and making sure that we're building up Canadian capacities and Canadian research to succeed here.

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

The Liberals seem to treat the defence industrial strategy as a bureaucratic exercise, like everything else. There are new strategies, new agencies, new frameworks and new acronyms. We've seen the Liberals establish a new bureaucracy, the so-called Defence Investment Agency, and appoint a Liberal insider CEO who stands to make up to $900,000 a year. He happens to be an investment banker colleague of the Liberal Prime Minister from when they were at Goldman Sachs.

Is one of Canada's core problems that we need more bureaucracy, rather than actually building factories, supply chains and platforms and hiring Canadians?

[Matthew da Mota]

One of the main issues with Canada's defence industrial policy up until the DIS was that there were too many cooks in the kitchen. Multiple people have said that. There were multiple different ministers and ministries in charge, and that's been the case for decades.

I think what the defence industrial strategy does.... It's not perfect by any means, but I think the Defence Investment Agency, BOREALIS and some of these other institutions are, hopefully—the signal seems to be moving in the right direction—going to consolidate this authority under one body.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Tony Baldinelli]

Thank you for that.

I'm going to MP Eyolfson.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, all, for coming. This is very valuable information.

I have way more questions than I can ask in my five minutes.

Dr. Commito, regarding Cambrian College, you have a great record. You've developed a lot of applied research knowledge in mining, mining technology and manufacturing, and a lot of these advanced innovations, as you said, already have potential for dual use with our defence sector.

What would your recommendation be? What federal programs and supports would you need to help Cambrian College?

[Mike Commito]

I think one of the greatest barriers, especially to continuing the work that colleges like Cambrian and CEGEPs across Canada are doing on the applied side, is access to funding. For us to do the work with small and medium-size enterprises that are Canadian-owned and operated and part of the larger defence supply chain, it's about having access to R and D-funded dollars so that they can de-risk these ventures, work with the college and have access to our specialized equipment, our student researchers and our engineering staff.

In order to do that, we need to have a steady and stable supply of funding to help the colleges do the work they need to do in order to help these companies take their innovation to the next level, commercialize it, bring it to market and then look for the next thing to do that could ultimately make them more successful and profitable in Canada.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

You're based in Sudbury, which we know has had a very established mining industry for quite some time. With your work and these programs, do you think Sudbury can build on the established mining hub expertise to become a major hub of applied research?

[Mike Commito]

Absolutely. Sudbury has the world's largest integrated mining complex. There is nothing like it in the world. We have nine operating mines within our city limits. There will be 15 by 2030. We have over 100 years of capability in building ruggedized equipment that is meant to operate in harsh environments, environments with high salinity and environments that are GPS-denied. We have this existing capacity in the bedrock of our community.

Through our partners, which are also quite innovative in a mining industry that is innovative, there's a real opportunity now to leverage that expertise and see how we can deploy it in dual-use and defence applications. That's without even getting into our capacity and our expertise when it comes to critical minerals.

Sudbury has eight of the 34 critical minerals that have been defined by the federal government. Certainly, there's no shortage here in Sudbury of those key minerals that we need to do the work we need to do to keep pace and keep ensuring that we are leaders when it comes to mining, dual use and defence.

We are poised to seize the opportunities before us right now, and the work we've been doing is now increasingly important as we think of it as a national security question.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

I took particular interest in what you were saying about working in remote and harsh environments. I'm an emergency doctor, and for 13 years, I flew with an air ambulance company that serviced northern Manitoba. We had many of the same issues. We flew to very remote places and sometimes had to provide advanced medical care with no contact with the outside world. We were also working in very hard conditions. It's not easy to find a transport ventilator that works in -40°C, and those sorts of things. That's very pertinent experience that I've had.

Are there things that you're working on or have established, for instance, in rescue or something? I would imagine that in remote mining, there would have to be some technology for rescue that works in these areas. Do you have technology already that could be applied by the defence sector?

[Mike Commito]

Yes, absolutely. We were actually working with a local partner in Sudbury called RufDiamond, which was founded by a CAF veteran. He has partnered with a company out of Quebec called Zeal Motor, and they make the Fat Truck platform, which is an amphibious, all-terrain vehicle that can go through swamps, muskegs and waterways. It's a perfect dual-use application, because it's been deployed for civilian uses, such as search and rescue, remote forest fire suppression and mineral surveying.

They've been looking to develop new technology that could be onboarded onto this unit and be deployed for far and remote applications, whether it's Arctic sovereignty or any actual defence applications. Working with that company, they've been able to access our resources at Cambrian to then come up with the next service offerings that could be provided potentially—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Tony Baldinelli]

I'm going to have to stop you there, but thank you for that answer.

I'm going to MP Blanchette-Joncas for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Blais, the government says it wants to create Canadian champions in strategic sectors like quantum science.

Should those champions come solely in the form of companies, or should they also come in the form of strategic ecosystems capable of producing talent, IP, start-ups and industrial benefits?