As Canada prepares to significantly increase its defence spending, local defence tech entrepreneurs are expressing frustration with the country’s focus on “dual-use” technologies. This term, which refers to products with both civilian and military applications, has become a buzzword in Canadian defence circles, but some founders argue it’s being overused to the point of losing its meaning. They believe that Canada’s fixation on dual-use is limiting innovation and misdirecting resources.
## What Dual-Use Technology Actually Means
The concept of dual-use technology suggests that certain innovations can serve both civilian and military needs. Historically, many technologies now part of everyday life began with military applications, such as GPS, initially developed for missile guidance, or duct tape, created to seal ammunition cases. The current Canadian narrative, however, pushes for technologies that can be simultaneously marketed to both sectors, a strategy that some argue could stifle targeted innovation.
Paul Ziadé, CEO of North Vector Dynamics (NVD), articulated this frustration at the Arctic Edge conference. He emphasized that while dual-use is a legitimate concept, the Canadian approach to developing these technologies is flawed. Ziadé believes that insisting on dual-use from the outset creates unnecessary complications, as many successful technologies were originally developed with a singular focus.
## Competitive Context and Industry Challenges
The push for dual-use technologies is partly driven by venture capitalists (VCs) who find it an attractive selling point to their limited partners (LPs). However, this approach has not universally translated into success for Canadian firms. As Eliot Pence, CEO of Dominion Dynamics, pointed out, the obsession with dual-use might be more about crafting an appealing narrative than fostering genuine technological advancement.
Canada’s defence tech sector is still catching up to global leaders like the United States and Israel, where defence innovation is more mature and often supported by government initiatives. The current dual-use focus might be an attempt to differentiate Canadian firms in a crowded market, but it risks leaving them unprepared for the specific demands of military contracts.
## Real Implications for Founders and Engineers
For founders and engineers, the dual-use debate is not just academic. It influences funding opportunities, project scope, and potential market strategies. Entrepreneurs like Ziadé and Pence suggest that focusing too heavily on dual-use technologies may lead to diluted efforts and missed opportunities in specialized defence applications. They argue that a more effective strategy might be to develop robust military-first technologies and then identify potential civilian applications.
This approach could streamline development processes, reduce regulatory hurdles, and ultimately lead to more successful innovations. For engineers, this means focusing on solving specific defence problems first, rather than trying to fit their solutions into a dual-use mold from the start.
## What’s Next for Canada’s Defence Tech Sector
As Canada continues to ramp up its defence spending, the debate over dual-use technologies will likely intensify. Startups and established companies must decide whether to pursue the dual-use narrative or concentrate on single-purpose military innovations with potential civilian applications down the line.
For founders, this means critically evaluating market demands and their own capabilities. Engineers should focus on developing technologies that meet specific military needs, potentially leading to more effective solutions and successful commercialization in civilian sectors. Investors, on the other hand, need to consider the long-term viability of dual-use strategies versus more focused defence applications.
