Science and Research Committee on June 1st, 2026

[Kate Kaminska]

We certainly have set specific key performance indicators for ourselves. One of them is benchmarking ourselves against what the current programming timelines are and aiming to accelerate those timelines.

I'll give a specific example of the call for proposals for the quantum and uncrewed systems defence innovation secure hubs. We launched the call for proposals in February. The proposals—and we received well over 100—were evaluated by a large contingent of subject matter experts and Canadian Armed Forces members within a period of two weeks, which is much faster than the standard review process for a project of that scale, and we are getting ready to announce the winner so that the work can start.

That is one tangible example, one small indicator. Certainly the timelines from idea to implementation are well known among the suite of government programs that exist, so we will be working with our partners to ensure that we streamline processes, that we lower the barriers to entry for folks who apply to these calls for proposals and ultimately get there faster.

Another key component, of course, will be how we tie into procurement. That is still an active area of work, and, again, we're working with the appropriate procurement authorities to do that, whether they be procurement authorities within the department or the newly established Defence Investment Agency.

Those are the types of metrics that we are after.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Defence Research and Development Canada has $4.23 billion in North American Aerospace Defense Command's science and technology investments over 20 years. Where exactly does BOREALIS fit, and how are you making sure that it adds value where DRDC currently can't?

[Kate Kaminska]

That's an excellent question, and thank you for it.

This is the value of BOREALIS being based in Defence Research and Development Canada, because we are co-located with the same colleagues who are working on the NORAD modernization science and technology initiative.

In fact, working on our first maritime defence innovation secure hub pilot, we're using that pilot to accelerate the delivery of some of the capabilities that were under the NORAD modernization science and technology initiative, specifically accelerating the development of the next generation of underwater sensing technologies in partnership with the industrial partners and the academic partners that we have in the DISH.

BOREALIS is serving as a mechanism to accelerate the impact of that investment.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Hadwen, the defence industrial strategy is committing $6.6 billion over the next five years to grow defence R and D by 85% by 2035.

What incentive structures or accountability measures are being put in place so procurement officials are rewarded for speed and innovation?

[Wendy Hadwen]

We're working closely with all procurement partners in the research and development space. We have the advisory committee and consultative committee I already talked about. You can already see different announcements, including from the Minister of Industry and other ministers of the Crown, to deliver funding associated with the defence industrial strategy.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Tony Baldinelli]

Thank you.

With that, we're going to end this round of questioning and this panel with our final MP.

Go ahead, MP Blanchette-Joncas.

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

Ms. Hadwen, how will you ensure that small and medium-sized universities, colleges and college-level technology transfer centres receive a fair share of new investments in defence research—rather than seeing funds concentrated in a few large institutions?

[Wendy Hadwen]

The defence industrial strategy provides an opportunity for all of Canada to bring partners together around a very important and urgent mission. Our sovereign capabilities statement outlines our priorities. That doesn't prevent all universities and industries from helping us implement this mission to provide Canada with capabilities, which is an advantage.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Kaminska, regarding BOREALIS, several stakeholders tell us that at times, Defence Research and Development Canada and the National Research Council of Canada operate primarily on a program-based rather than a results-based approach. They reportedly have difficulty collaborating with universities, colleges, college technology transfer centres, and even small and medium-sized businesses.

How will you avoid working in silos and collaborate effectively with all other partners in the research ecosystem?

[Kate Kaminska]

Thank you very much for the question; it is a very pertinent one.

The one difference we're trying to make with BOREALIS is to focus our partners on missions. It's a mission-based approach to innovation, as opposed to a project-based approach to innovation. For example, in the maritime defence innovation secure hub, we're supporting the NORAD modernization mission set. We are finding, through that experience, that the mission-based approach serves to coalesce stakeholders around a common goal and a common objective. It is not a bunch of small projects but rather a large mission set with different contributors.

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

If you'd like to expand on this topic, please feel free to do so in writing. It is important that we fully understand.

I have one final question.

How will you measure success?

Will it be measured by the number of programs launched, or by technologies that have actually been tested, integrated or adopted by the Canadian Armed Forces?

[Kate Kaminska]

It's all of the above.

Because BOREALIS is still new, we have established some baseline key performance indicators. However, as I mentioned, we're working with a crawl-walk-run approach. As we develop BOREALIS further and learn from early implementation activities like the maritime defence innovation secure hub, we will certainly endeavour to develop more targeted key performance indicators along the lines you described. It is still very much a work-in-progress.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Tony Baldinelli]

Thank you for that.

That ends the first hour and 15 minutes of questioning.

I'd like to thank our witnesses for taking the time to be with us this afternoon.

With that, I'll suspend.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Tony Baldinelli]

I call the meeting back to order.

Welcome back.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and the members. First, 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 for interpretation: floor, English or French.

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

I would like to remind witnesses that committee members may ask questions in either French or English. If you will need interpretation, please take a moment now to prepare your earpiece and select the listening channel you need in advance to take full advantage of the time allotted for questions and answers.

I would like to welcome our witnesses.

From Cambrian College, we have Dr. Mike Commito, director of research and innovation, by video conference. From the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, we have Dr. David Perry, president and chief executive officer. From the Canadian Shield Institute, we have Dr. Matthew da Mota, research director of emerging technology and national security. From the Université de Sherbrooke, we have Wendy Therrien, associate vice-president of government relations, and Alexandre Blais, scientific director of the Institut quantique.

Dr. Commito, we will start with you. You will have the floor for five minutes. We will then go to Dr. Perry, Dr. da Mota and, finally, Ms. Therrien.

You can begin.

[Mike Commito, Director, Research and Innovation, Cambrian College of Applied Arts and Technology]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the invitation to appear today.

I am Dr. Mike Commito. I am here on behalf of Cambrian College in Sudbury, Ontario, where I serve as director of research and innovation.

Cambrian is a college with deep roots in northern Ontario's industrial economy. Our work is closely tied to mining, critical minerals, applied research, workforce development and the practical challenges that come with operating in remote, harsh and technically demanding environments. That foundation shapes how we see this study.

Cambrian is already active in areas that matter to Canada's dual-use and defence-related innovation agenda. We are not starting from scratch. We are already working with industry, training the workforce and supporting the applied research and testing that help move technology from an idea into something that can actually be used.

One example is our centre for smart mining, where we support industry-relevant research and technology development in real operating conditions. That includes underground environments that are highly useful for testing technologies in GPS-denied, low-visibility and communication-constrained settings. Those are conditions that matter for mining, but they also have clear relevance for autonomous systems, remote operations and other dual-use technologies.

We also have strengths in electrification and battery-related testing through our Vale electric vehicle lab. That work supports performance validation and helps industry better understand how vehicles and systems will perform in demanding environments. As Canada looks at next-generation platforms, electrification and resilient supply chains, that kind of applied capacity becomes increasingly important.

Cambrian's success in this space comes from the role colleges play in the research landscape. We work at the applied end. We help companies solve operational problems, test technologies, train talent and adopt new tools and systems. We are often working with small and medium-sized firms that need a practical partner, access to facilities and a team that can move quickly.

That role is important, because Canada does not struggle only with generating ideas: We often struggle with adoption. We have world-class researchers, capable firms and strong institutions, but many promising technologies still face a difficult path between early development and real-world use. Canadian colleges help close that gap. We do that in a few ways.

First, we train the people who make innovation usable. Technicians, technologists, operators and other skilled workers are essential to any serious industrial or defence capability. In sectors such as critical minerals, advanced manufacturing, electrification and remote operations, that workforce is central.

Second, we give companies a place to test and validate technology in real conditions. That matters, because end-users need confidence. A technology that works in theory still has to prove itself in the field.

Third, we help connect regional strengths to national priorities. In Cambrian's case, that means bringing northern Ontario expertise into conversations about critical minerals, supply chain resilience, autonomous systems and domestic industrial capacity. This matters for Canada's broader research and innovation system.

Colleges are sometimes left out of the discussion when people talk about science and research, but they are a key part of how research becomes usable. Universities, companies, government labs and colleges play different roles. Canadian colleges contribute through applied research, industry collaboration, technology validation and workforce development. That is especially valuable in dual-use sectors where technologies need to work in real environments and be supported by a skilled labour force.

Cambrian's opportunity is clear. We have existing infrastructure. We have industry relationships. We have the relevant expertise. We operate in an environment that reflects many of the conditions Canada needs to be able to work in, especially in the north and in resource-based sectors. There is real value in making fuller use of that capacity.

From our perspective, the question is not whether colleges belong in this conversation; they clearly do. The question is how Canada can make better use of institutions that are already helping to train people, support firms and validate technology in practical settings.

Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Tony Baldinelli]

Thank you.

We're going to go on to Dr. Perry.

[David Perry, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Global Affairs Institute]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the invitation to appear today.

In my opening remarks, I'm going to concentrate on three issues: the need for clarity, priorities and pathways to capability.

On clarity, it's welcome to see the various movements, some of which you've just heard about from national defence in the prior session, including BOREALIS and the creation of DISHs, as well as wider efforts at the National Research Council, regionally and in other academic pursuits.

Recognizing that this is still early days—only 104 days, by my count, since the industrial strategy was introduced—it will be important to articulate clearly the intent of these respective lines of effort, what they're all intended to do and how they're supposed to connect and complement each other.

Similarly, with increased interest from Canada's post-secondary institutions and ongoing interest in and enhancement of the industrial technological benefits policy and other industry-focused measures, the wider research and development effort in defence is spread across government research, industrial R and D, and academic activity.

Who is doing what in Canada and what the intended relationships between these efforts are will be important to sort out as well.

Finally, looking internationally, Canada has signed multiple new agreements for enhanced defence and security co-operation in the last year, often with associated research agendas. How these international collaborations connect to domestic ones will be important to clarify, too.

The key here will be aligning these new ventures with our long-standing defence research and development partnerships with the United States of America, which has given Canada unique access to much of the world's cutting-edge innovation and helped foster a four-generation-old North American defence industrial and development ecosystem.

Across the Canadian defence landscape, 1,000 flowers have been planted. Some are already blooming, but we need to know what the overall garden is supposed to look like.

With respect to priorities, in my view, a weakness of our defence innovation ecosystem, historically, has been an overly broad focus relative to our resource commitments. In the past, we've both underinvested and also spread what we have committed too far, too broadly. We are planning very consequential increases in defence R and D, which is welcome, but some of that has been directed, as you've heard, to new initiatives that will dilute some of this effort.

Beyond that, the existing agenda was already expansive, with the Defence Research and Development Canada organization itemizing 16 high-level priority areas, including science and technology for NORAD modernization.

It's not yet fully clear how Canada's sovereign capabilities will change those priorities, but those 10 high-level capability designations, and more than 30 subcategories, give ample opportunity to lengthen an already long list of priorities.

Lastly, as the committee's last session heard, the term “dual use” is quite broad, even though it's very much in vogue. There's little consensus around what that term does or should mean with any level of precision, which further complicates efforts to focus. The contours of what counts as “dual use” need better clarity. Overall, greater prioritization to areas of real importance would maximize our potential return.

Finally, amidst all of these efforts, we need to ensure there are credible pathways for turning research, development and innovation into actual Canadian Armed Forces capability. That's long been a deficiency of our system.

The draft legislation proposed for the new Defence Investment Agency proposes a means of procuring, without competition, defence supplies or services that have received federal funding for research, development and innovation, which is welcome. It's been a long-standing source of frustration for participants in initiatives such as the DRDC IDEaS program that they could be highly successful at solving a defence problem yet unable to sell the Government of Canada that solution. This measure, which would allow for purchasing successful measures that were funded by the Government of Canada, would go a long way to fixing this, if it is successfully implemented.

The pathway between innovation and capability would be further complemented by enhancing the minor capital portfolio at DND. My colleague, Alex Salt, and I just published a paper, which is available on the Canadian Global Affairs Institute website, arguing that increasing the funding available for smaller projects and making it easier to move more of that money quickly would significantly help. It would get innovation into the hands of the military on one hand, and provide more contracting pathways for small and medium-sized enterprises on the other. We think it's a win-win proposition to get more of the smaller firms that can truly drive innovation into the Canadian research and development ecosystem, while quickly equipping the CAF.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Dr. Perry.

We're going to go on to Dr. da Mota for five minutes.

[Matthew da Mota, Research Director, Emerging Technology and National Security, The Canadian SHIELD Institute for Public Policy]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and the members of committee, for having me.

I’m Matthew da Mota. I'm research director of emerging technology and national security at the Canadian Shield Institute for public policy. We work on creating solutions to enhance Canadian economic and digital sovereignty.

Defence spending, generally, is a notoriously poor long-term economic investment, though it is important and essential for national security. The real value we're going to get out of the promise from the defence industrial strategy has to do with how we leverage dual-use technologies, multi-use infrastructures and spillovers into other sectors. That won't happen by accident.

The risk in not delivering on that is that we spend to meet our targets of 2% and 5% of GDP on defence spending without building anything lasting or durable. A further risk is that in rushing to meet those targets under external pressure, we damage an already strong research ecosystem, which has deficiencies and issues around IP and other areas but is nevertheless world class.

What we need is an ecosystem where non-military research thrives freely, defence needs are communicated clearly and the pathways between them are well defined, focused on investing in deep tech and broadly dual-use technologies, with targeted defence-specific investments where needed and where essential.

Regarding readiness, firms and institutions need to be equipped with the right governance tools and expectations to be able to meet this need. This requires a clear definition of what dual use actually means in the context of Canada's strategic goals. We've heard general definitions, but we need a very specific one about what we're trying to achieve. Without it, we risk over-designation, which might lead us down various negative paths.

This also means developing a readiness assessment framework so that labs, research centres and SMEs understand the research security, cybersecurity and other requirements for dual use and defence work. Institutions also need increased capacity for tech transfer and greater strategic guidance from government to meet the complexity of what is expected.

Finally, Canada needs to close the gap between ideas and production. Co-locating manufacturing with innovation infrastructure is the precondition for spillover to actually happen. Manufacturing infrastructure has its own gravity, pulling in supply and value chains and expanding the ecosystem where technology can be developed, commercialized and scaled, and where good jobs are actually created. The greatest opportunity for this is in high-tech areas like quantum.

Regarding IP and intangible assets, Canada’s difficulties commercializing the vast amounts of money we put into R and D are well known. Fixing this requires IP guardrails attached to public funding and institutional capacity to mobilize intangible assets on behalf of Canadian firms, both defensively protecting IP and helping smaller companies compete against foreign competitors wielding large patent portfolios as moats.

Regarding standards, standards shape what gets built, by whom and under what conditions. Canada largely adopts the standards others set. A dedicated standards office capable of coordinating across defence and dual-use domains and positioning Canadian innovations as reference points in allied processes, particularly in NATO, is essential.

In dual-use domains specifically, we need standards that govern how technologies pass between defence and civilian contexts so that firms and institutions understand how this movement should be happening, defining the appropriate controls, data handling, levels of research security and so on required at each stage. These practices currently exist in many fragments. The requirements of the DIS mean we need to make sure we have a more coherent and clear framework for institutions.

It's my recommendation that the committee should recommend an operational definition of dual-use tech geared towards deep tech investment, procurement and R and D decisions; co-located manufacturing alongside every DISH and every hub we built to serve the DIS's needs; an innovation asset collective to mobilize and protect IP, specifically in defence and dual use, with guardrails attached to public funding to ensure that we capture IP and leverage it properly; a readiness infrastructure and a readiness framework covering assessments, research security support and capital access for smaller firms; and a calibrated designation policy that protects what needs protecting without undermining Canadian innovators or the independence of the research ecosystem.

The Canadian Shield stands ready to support the committee and the government, if needed, on any of these issues at any request.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Tony Baldinelli]

Thank you, Dr. da Mota.

Finally, we have the Université de Sherbrooke.

[Alexandre Blais, Scientific Director, Institut quantique, Université de Sherbrooke]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.

Members of the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this discussion.

I am Alexandre Blais, scientific director of the Quantum Institute at the Université de Sherbrooke.

The Université de Sherbrooke ranks among Canada's research-intensive universities and is recognized for its collaborative research model. We are also a founding partner of the Quebec innovation zones in quantum science and microelectronics—strategic ecosystems at the heart of today's security and technological sovereignty challenges.

Today I will argue that fundamental research is a strategic contribution to Canada's defence objectives, and that investments in research universities should be recognized as part of Canada's effort to meet its NATO commitments. Research universities like the Université de Sherbrooke not only produce knowledge; they build strategic capacity for the country.

I would now like to expand on three important points.

Firstly, there is fundamental research. When we talk about dual-use technologies, attention often turns first to their applications. While these applications are essential, we must recognize that investments in fundamental research contribute just as directly to the security of Canada and its allies.

Quantum technologies offer a particularly clear example. Quantum sciences have civilian and military applications in computing, sensing and communications. But key challenges remain unresolved. We still need to understand how to make these systems more reliable, more robust, more integrated and more useful.

This is why fundamental research is indispensable. Companies play an essential role in developing products and scaling them up, but they depend on universities to solve the scientific and technological bottlenecks that remain unresolved.

This is not unique to quantum science: In the life sciences, fundamental research protects against biological threats and strengthens public health; in the humanities and social sciences, it sheds light on social acceptability and the effects of disruptive technologies on conflict dynamics.

Focusing solely on ready-to-use technologies would make us dependent on other countries for the foundational building blocks of our own security.

This is why investments in research—from fundamental research to applied research—in strategic sectors should be recognized as a legitimate component of Canada's efforts to meet NATO targets—particularly through funding for the three granting councils and the Canada Foundation for Innovation, in order to preserve our long-term strategic autonomy.

For emphasis, let me repeat that focusing solely on ready-to-use technologies would make us dependent on other countries for the foundational building blocks of our own security. This is why investment in fundamental research in strategic sectors should be recognized as a legitimate component of Canada's efforts to meet NATO targets, particularly through funding for the three granting councils and the Canada Foundation for Innovation, in order to preserve our long-term strategic autonomy.

The second point is partnership-based research and company creation.

The defence industrial strategy and budget 2026 rightly recognize the role of small and medium-sized enterprises, SMEs, in strengthening Canadian defence supply chains. However, a key lever of this strategy lies within our universities. Most SMEs do not have the capacity or the long-term horizon required to conduct advanced R and D on their own. By connecting them with university research capabilities, we can accelerate their technological development and their integration into defence supply chains.

Universities also generate new companies and new innovation ecosystems. In disruptive sectors, these companies often emerge from years of research, training and shared infrastructure.

For the last ten years, the innovation–partnership–entrepreneurship program at the Université de Sherbrooke has demonstrated the effectiveness of this model. Deployed at the national level, with a defence and dual-use technology component, it would concretely accelerate the R and D capacity of Canadian SMEs.

The third point is obviously talent. Allow me to emphasize a fundamental point: Everything depends on talent.

Canada's ability to develop science and technology for its security depends entirely on the women and men who choose to dedicate their careers to research—to discovering new knowledge and applying it in service to Canadians.

In this regard, the decisions recently taken by the federal government—particularly the indexation of scholarships and investments in research chairs—are steps in the right direction.

Canada must now consolidate this effort through predictable support for the people and the research environments that train them.

Regardless of whether innovations emerge from a university, a national research centre or a company, they will be built on the people trained in our universities.

In conclusion, for Canada to respond effectively to its defence commitments, it must recognize that universities are not peripheral to this effort: They are a strategic pillar. Investing in science, in partnerships with SMEs and in talent development is not an academic luxury. It is an essential condition for Canada's national security.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Tony Baldinelli]

Thank you to the witnesses.

We're going to begin our first round of questions of six minutes each. We'll begin with MP DeRidder.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to everyone for coming today.

Dr. Perry, I'm going to start with you. I have a couple of questions on procurement.

I align very much with what you said about needing to have our procurement process updated for the current ecosystem we see today. One of the things I've been saying, over and over, is that we need to get out of 1999 and update our procurement processes to ensure that innovation and small business can be at the forefront of helping with our R and D and dual-use technology.

You're an expert in defence procurement. What struggles or failures have you identified in Canada's defence procurement today?

[David Perry]

I'll touch on two.

One is the lack of clear pathways that I touched on earlier, particularly for smaller companies and innovators in the Canadian ecosystem. They basically have two bookends. You can get access to innovation funding with no clear procurement pathway at the end of that, or at least no easy one, through programs like IDEaS or innovative solutions Canada. For big projects, which are generally won by large primes, often foreign, you can be involved in the supply chain, but that's an indirect route. We need something more in the middle—a bridge between early-phase research and a stepping-stone pathway to something larger.

More broadly, there's a big challenge you're going to have with the industrial strategy, writ large. For a whole host of reasons, over time, a system has emerged that tries to minimize risk—technological risk and delivery risk. If we really want to drive innovation and foster more of that, the whole system needs to change its mentality to be less averse to things that are less well tested or clearly defined, because that's how you get innovation at the end of the day.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

An idea that has come across my desk, in having this conversation, is us going to industry with a problem, instead of industry trying to sell to government what they think is a problem to solve.

Would you agree with that approach?