The committee has been examining Canada’s dual-use and defence research ecosystem, with a strong focus on how to translate domestic innovation into operational military capabilities. A recurring theme is that Canada has no shortage of research or innovative firms, but struggles with slow adoption, fragmented procurement, and a lack of clear pathways from lab to deployment. Witnesses from industry, academia, and defence repeatedly called for faster, more integrated procurement processes, with several pointing to the gap between technology validation and commercialization as a critical bottleneck. The need for a clear definition of “Canadian company” and “Canadian value” in procurement—centred on intellectual property ownership, management control, and domestic manufacturing—was raised by multiple witnesses, including James Yurichuk and Daniel Perry.

The committee heard from a wide range of constituencies. Industry representatives from Bombardier, Wuxly Defence, and the Council of Canadian Innovators emphasized the economic scale and export potential of dual-use firms, while also noting that many sell abroad before finding a Canadian government customer. Colleges and universities, represented by Niagara College, Cambrian College, Memorial University, and the University of New Brunswick, stressed their role in applied research, workforce training, and harsh-environment testing, and argued they should be fully eligible for federal defence research funding. The National Research Council and Department of National Defence officials described existing programs like IRAP, BOREALIS, and the defence innovation secure hubs, while witnesses from NATO DIANA and the Canadian Global Affairs Institute urged clearer connections among these initiatives.

There were notable areas of disagreement. On procurement strategy, Richard Shimooka argued that Canada’s defence industrial strategy starts with industrial objectives rather than military needs, and warned against buying immature Canadian solutions, while others like Sonya Shorey and Ken Doyle advocated for demand-pull models that start with military challenges and pull existing innovations toward them. On the role of fundamental research, Alexandre Blais argued it should count toward NATO commitments, while other witnesses stressed the need for applied research and prototyping to close the technology readiness gap. The committee also heard divergent views on whether Canada’s defence R&D spending is too broad or too narrow, with David Perry warning it has been spread too thinly and others calling for dedicated dual-use funding streams.

Over the course of the hearings, the committee’s focus shifted from broad ecosystem mapping to more specific institutional and procedural recommendations. Early meetings emphasized the need for a national inventory of capabilities and clearer definitions, while later sessions drilled into the mechanics of procurement reform, the role of technology access centres, and the importance of co-located manufacturing with defence innovation hubs. Witnesses increasingly stressed the urgency of action, with Ken Doyle proposing a first wave of dual-use technology assessments by the end of 2026 and Marc Nantel noting that new college programs in defence systems engineering will launch in fall 2026. The committee also heard from the Chief Science Advisor and the NRC President on broader research policy issues, including stable funding, data sovereignty, and the need for permanent legislative status for the science advisor role.