This House of Commons committee meeting on the Industry and Technology study examined Canada’s defence industrial strategy. Witnesses included Christian Leuprecht (Professor, Royal Military College and Queen’s University), Katheron Intson (CEO, Sentinel Research and Development Inc.), Ben Hendriksen (Mayor of Yellowknife) and Stephen Van Dine (City Manager of Yellowknife), Philippe Lagassé (Associate Professor, Carleton University), Kevin Reed (President, Defence, Security & Resilience Bank Development Group), and Richard Shimooka (Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute).
Christian Leuprecht argued that Canada’s sovereignty is under existential threat because it has lost the initiative and is increasingly alone among allies, requiring a transformation of the civil service, economy, and knowledge infrastructure to deliver on defence priorities. He recommended that Canada export liquefied natural gas and critical minerals to Europe to generate revenue for defence investments, pay down debt, and support the energy transition, framing this as a grand bargain that would also reinforce European democratic institutions and stop subsidizing Russia’s war. He emphasized the need for a multipartisan approach in Parliament to forge a broad consensus on a multi-year defence industrial strategy.
Katheron Intson stated that Canada must prioritize building sovereign intellectual property and scalable manufacturing capacity for defence, rather than depending on imported or foreign-designed systems, to avoid another Avro Arrow-scale failure. She recommended that government investments go to companies with validated international markets and that government-backed venture capital funds stop excluding defence, noting that her company was denied funding by a public fund because it was defence-first, forcing it to seek U.S. capital and export Canadian IP. She also urged learning from Ukraine’s rapid procurement and prototyping marketplaces to adapt to the fast-changing battlefield.
Ben Hendriksen and Stephen Van Dine presented Yellowknife as a strategic asset for Arctic defence, citing its existing logistics hub, cold-weather testing conditions, skilled workforce from mining, and strong partnerships with Indigenous governments. They recommended federal investment in dual-use infrastructure such as the Arctic economic and security corridor, dependable power, and climate-proofed facilities, arguing that northern infrastructure serves multiple purposes including community resilience, economic development, and sovereignty. They noted that the last major northern infrastructure investments were in the 1950s and 1960s and that the region’s critical minerals and diamond mining workforce are ready to support defence projects.
Philippe Lagassé highlighted the trade-offs between alliances and operational advantage versus sovereignty and industry, noting that moving away from American capability will likely reduce interoperability and result in less advanced capabilities at higher cost. He recommended a balanced approach focused on missions for the defence of Canada, such as maritime and Arctic surveillance, radars, and ammunition, while acknowledging that sustaining a domestic industrial base may require buying capabilities the military does not need or selling to regimes that may not share Canadian values. He argued that Canada must work with allies on cutting-edge technology like sixth-generation fighters and that the defence industrial strategy must be guided by a clear national security strategy.
Kevin Reed proposed the creation of a multilateral development bank for defence, security, and resilience, structured as a sovereign-owned, AAA-rated institution to unlock private capital for defence SMEs and supply chains. He recommended that Canada lead the charter negotiations and host the global headquarters, which would create 3,500 defence finance jobs, and noted that contributions would be treated as capital assets and count toward NATO commitments. He stated that the bank would address the lack of credit for defence firms, which has been exacerbated by ESG policies and Basel regulations, and that Canadian pension funds and commercial banks could be brought in to provide financing.
Richard Shimooka argued that the defence industrial strategy must be subservient to defence policy, not the other way around, and that decades of inattention have left firms specialized as subcomponent suppliers rather than finished-system producers. He recommended a two-pronged approach: acquiring capabilities now to address immediate gaps while pursuing longer-term industrial development where warranted, and warned against trying to achieve both at once. He also called for a fundamental overhaul of the procurement system to create clear lines of accountability, a more flexible intellectual property regime, and a reformed innovation system to bridge the gap between technology development and fielding, noting that Canada’s innovation cycle is far too slow compared to peer competitors.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.