The committee studied Canada’s defence industrial strategy, hearing from Richard Foster of L3Harris Canada, Michael Langlais of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, Lisa Lambert of Quantum Industry Canada, James Fergusson of the University of Manitoba, Hugo Hodgett of H2 Analytics Inc., and Robert Huebert of the University of Calgary.
Richard Foster recommended a 20-plus-year strategy that survives election cycles, strategic partnerships with trusted companies for sovereign readiness, negotiating in-service support on major equipment at acquisition to secure IP and data rights, identifying areas of global competitive advantage for exports, and embedding an industry-focused force development structure in the Canadian Armed Forces. He warned that a mixed fleet of F-35s and Gripens would diminish the viability of a regional F-35 depot in Mirabel, risking about 1,600 jobs in Quebec, and that the F-35 offers a much larger global market than the Gripen.
Michael Langlais emphasized the urgency of protecting critical infrastructure, noting that Canada and its allies are targets of hybrid warfare with escalating cyber and physical threats. He called for simplified and accelerated procurement policies delegated to the lowest operational level, direct communication between defence and public safety actors, and clear mandates for private-sector resilience. He supported focusing on small and medium-sized enterprises to address workforce imbalances, including for women-owned businesses, and criticized the current ITB framework as "Byzantine."
Lisa Lambert stressed that quantum is a platform technology with defence as the earliest adopter, and that Canada has a strong ecosystem but risks losing advantage without converting strengths into deployable capability. She recommended modern partnership models for DND to work directly with emerging industries, clear demand signals from defence, an industry-led refresh of the national quantum strategy, and an advanced manufacturing strategy to build fabrication and secure supply chains. She noted that budget 2025’s $334 million for quantum is about an order of magnitude less than peer countries.
James Fergusson argued the strategy must be based on a detailed map of the global defence industrial environment and a realistic understanding of Canadian capacity, which is mostly in the second tier and often foreign-owned. He warned that offsets increase procurement costs by roughly 20% and may not yield sustainable benefits, and that diversifying away from the U.S. market is risky unless European and Asia-Pacific partners provide direct procurement access. He strongly opposed reconsidering the F-35 purchase, calling it emotional nationalism, and noted the F-35 consortium provides access to a global market of over 2,500 platforms.
Hugo Hodgett identified three pillars—innovators, the Crown, and capital providers—that are misaligned due to institutional risk aversion in procurement. He recommended multi-year contracts for early-stage innovators, applying national security exemptions more readily to innovation contracts, and modernizing Treasury Board guidance to increase delegated and sole-source authority thresholds. He noted that small firms struggle to attract capital because contracts lack predictability, and that the Crown must be a consistent customer to enable growth and exports.
Robert Huebert argued that any defence industrial strategy is inherently political, not technical, and that decisions are driven by the Prime Minister. He criticized the focus on economics over strategic considerations, citing the Canadian shipbuilding strategy as an example of repeating boom-and-bust cycles. He emphasized that buying the F-35 is about strategic deterrence and interoperability with allies, especially given the growing Russian threat, and that resupply from Sweden would be unlikely in a conflict. He disagreed with concerns about U.S. control over F-35 software, arguing the U.S. has no motivation to cut off allies in a crisis.
During member questions, Foster noted that L3Harris almost walked away from the F-18 contract due to profitability concerns and that a mixed fleet would lose jobs and complicate training and infrastructure. Fergusson and Huebert both argued the F-35 is the only viable choice for strategic and industrial reasons, with Fergusson warning that buying the Gripen could anger the U.S. and risk access to its market. Hodgett supported the concept of a defence security resilience bank to attract capital. The committee did not debate procedural motions or votes.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.