Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the committee for this invitation to speak.
My name is Katheron Intson, and I'm the CEO of Sentinel Research and Development, based in Hamilton, Ontario.
Sentinel is a venture capital-backed composites manufacturing company, and our first product is a vertically integrated, 25-kilogram, fixed-wing, payload-agnostic and attritable UAV designed and built here in Canada.
In 1917, before satellites and sensors and before software-defined battlefields, a Canadian engineer with a talent for physics quietly changed the art of war. At Vimy Ridge, he neutralized the German artillery by knocking out 83% of the enemy's artillery guns before the first wave of infantry left their trenches. Using wire tangles and microphones, Major-General Andrew McNaughton's innovations in sound ranging and flash spotting transformed artillery from blunt instrument into surgical tool. His work not only shaped the allied playbook; it proved that Canada, when called, could punch far above its weight in the high-stakes theatre of war.
Did you know that we also invented long-range artillery and the first robotic system used on crewed spacecraft? Today, we produce some of the best robotics, AI and aerospace engineers in the world, and they are ready to get to work, but the world they are building for is very different from the world we inherited.
Industrial capacity, not just military capability, is now one of the leading indicators of national security. The battlefield is being reshaped by autonomous systems and attritable platforms. UAVs have almost entirely replaced artillery and other tactical norms. They inform reconnaissance, strike targets with precision and scale in numbers that no traditional platform can match. These systems are transforming traditional military roles.
For example, we hold much pride in the proficiency of our Canadian snipers; our global records are only surpassed by the Ukrainians. Now, many functions historically associated with sniper units—long-range target acquisition, precision engagement and covert reconnaissance—are today being performed by low-cost, first-person view drones.
I have every confidence that the CAF will meet this moment. International partners never fail to praise our members as highly competent, capable and collaborative. However, a critical question remains: In the process of this retraining and rearmament on drones, who will Canada choose to enrich? Will we depend on low-cost, imported systems from adversarial states; will we purchase secure but high-cost systems from allied suppliers; or will we choose to support our homegrown, scalable and attritable innovation to build sovereign manufacturing capacity and capability in systems that we can export to NATO and scale into the commercial sector? That is the inflection point we are now standing on.
The government and the public cannot withstand another Avro Arrow-scale failure. Many of my colleagues will tell you that Avro was shuttered because our own administration made a backdoor deal with the American government to suppress Canadian innovation, but the truth is that, firstly, we made a highly sophisticated product that failed to address the transitioning threat from missiles to bombers and, secondly, the company lobbied Ottawa so successfully for funding that the product's international market was never validated. Therefore, in the rush to deploy 2% of our GDP on defence spending, I urge you all to consider the following.
One, government's largest defence investments must go to companies with validated international markets. The CAF alone cannot sustain or scale a modern defence manufacturer. If public dollars only support companies serving Canadian procurement, we are funding industrial dependency, not capability.
Two, governments should also prioritize supporting companies building original Canadian IP, not just those that assemble or produce foreign tech. Canada does not need more assembly lines for foreign-designed systems. We need anchor firms developing new platforms and technologies that Canada owns, controls and exports.
Three, government-backed venture capital must stop excluding defence. Many of the venture funds that receive public money have formal or informal policies against investing in defence even when those companies serve national priorities and have export potential.
To give one example, the MaRS investment accelerator fund, whose capital comes largely from the Government of Ontario, informed Sentinel last week that they decided not to invest because we were a defence-first company. Most of Sentinel's funding has come from U.S. investors who offer founder-friendlier terms and understand the sector. The result is simple: We are exporting ownership of Canadian IP because our own public capital will not invest in it.
Thank you very much.