Month: December 2025

A Day at Ontario Tech University

I spent a full day at Ontario Tech University in Oshawa a few weeks ago. It was my first time on campus, despite it being just over a 40-minute drive from Toronto, where I live. I arrived curious and left with a clearer picture of what they’re building.

Ontario Tech is still a relatively young university, just over two decades old. What’s less well known—and something I didn’t fully appreciate before the visit—is how quickly it has grown in that time, now serving around 14,000 students, and how deliberately it has established itself as a research university rather than simply a teaching-focused institution.

That research orientation shows up not just in output, but in where the university has chosen to build depth—areas that sit close to real systems and real constraints.

This came through clearly in conversations with Prof. Peter Lewis, Canada Research Chair in Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence, whose work focuses on trustworthy and ethical AI. The university has launched Canada’s first School of Ethical AI, alongside the Mindful AI Research Institute, and the work here is grounded in how AI systems behave once deployed—how humans interact with them, and how unintended consequences are identified and managed.

Energy is another area where Ontario Tech has built serious capability. The university is home to Canada’s only accredited undergraduate Nuclear Engineering program, which is ranked third in North America and designated as an IAEA Collaborating Centre. In discussions with Prof. Hossam Gaber, the emphasis was on smart energy systems, where software, sensing, and control systems are developed alongside the physical energy infrastructure they operate within.

I also spent time with Prof. Haoxiang Lang, whose work in robotics, automotive systems, and advanced mobility sits at the intersection of computation and the physical world.

That work is closely tied to the Automotive Centre of Excellence, which includes a climatic wind tunnel described as one of the largest and most sophisticated of its kind in the world. The facility enables full-scale testing under extreme environmental conditions—from arctic cold to desert heat—and supports research that needs to be validated under real operating constraints.

I can’t possibly mention all the conversations I had over the course of the day—it was a full schedule—but I also spent time with Dean Hossam Kishawy and Dr. Osman Hamid, discussing how research, entrepreneurship, and industry engagement fit together at Ontario Tech.

The day also included time at Brilliant Catalyst, the university’s innovation hub, speaking with students and founders about entrepreneurship. I had the opportunity to give a keynote on entrepreneurship, and the visit ended with the pitch competition, where I handed the cheque to the winning team—a small moment that underscored how early many technical journeys begin.

Ontario Tech may be young, but it is already operating with the structure and discipline of a mature research institution, while retaining the adaptability of a newer one.

Thank you to Sunny Chen and the Ontario Tech team for the time, access, and thoughtful conversations throughout the day.

P.S. If you enjoyed this blog post, please take a minute to like, comment, subscribe and share. Thank you for reading!

This blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. You are free to copy, redistribute, remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given.

Dual Use Is the Next Frontier of Deep Tech

I wrote my master’s thesis on Code Division Multiple Access, or CDMA, a wireless communication technology that originated from military needs in World War II. CDMA uses a technique called direct sequence spread spectrum, which spreads a signal across a wide bandwidth so that it appears as random noise. This made it far better at encryption, resisting jamming, and avoiding eavesdropping. Needless to say, it was perfect for military environments long before it found its way into everyday communication.

A startup company called Qualcomm was beginning to commercialize CDMA. I spent countless hours studying their technical papers, which demonstrated how a technology with military grade robustness could also be applied to large scale commercial mobile networks. Working on that thesis in the 90s was also the first time I encountered the idea of dual use, the concept of a technology that can be used in both military and civilian environments, and one that has existed since the post–World War II era.

Geopolitics Has Recentered Dual Use

Fast forward to today. Geopolitics has returned to the foreground. Defence budgets around the world are rising. Countries are rethinking supply chains and rediscovering the importance of technological sovereignty. The focus is no longer only on wartime capability but also on the resilience of civilian systems that society relies on every day.

In this environment, dual use has moved from the background to the forefront of national strategy. In the AI era we are in, governments everywhere are looking for new technologies that strengthen national security and economic competitiveness at the same time. Technologies that once seemed far removed from defence are now recognized as essential.

A Tailwind for Deep Tech

For Two Small Fish Ventures, none of this comes as a surprise. Deep tech has always lived at the intersection of what is scientifically hard and what is societally important. Today, it naturally lends itself to dual use.

Breakthroughs in the five areas that TSF invests in — vertical AI platforms, physical AI, AI infrastructure, advanced computing hardware, and smart energy — were never designed to be solely military. Yet many of these technologies have clear applications in resilience, cybersecurity, automation, sensing, communication, and energy stability.

In other words, dual use does not narrow a company’s mission. It broadens it. It is the rare case where one innovation can truly kill two birds with one stone.

Defence Technology Is Not Only About Weapons

There is a common misconception that defence technology refers only to weapons. That has never been true.

Most technologies are neutral. I am certain our national defence department uses Microsoft Office, for instance. This is a reminder that much of what defence departments buy is not lethal but operational.

To be clear, we do not invest in companies whose sole purpose is military lethal weapons systems.

Our focus remains on building companies in the areas where we believe the next frontier of computing is taking shape. When those technologies also support national resilience, that is not mission drift. It is simply the nature of deep tech.

Deep tech requires scientific and engineering breakthroughs that are difficult to copy. In a dual use environment, this becomes an essential advantage.

A New Frontier for Founders

Founders often think of defence as a separate world. That is changing. Defence is a complicated beast, and anyone who believes they can simply walk in will be disappointed. But for those who understand the landscape and can navigate it, this is a generational opportunity waiting to be captured.

When I first studied CDMA decades ago, I never imagined that a communication technique developed for the battlefield would become the backbone of commercial wireless networks.

Today, many deep tech founders are standing at a similar moment. For founders and investors in deep tech, this is the beginning of an important cycle. And we are excited to support the innovators who will define what comes next.

P.S. If you enjoyed this blog post, please take a minute to like, comment, subscribe and share. Thank you for reading!

This blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. You are free to copy, redistribute, remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given.

Geopolitics Now Matters to Every CEO

In October, at our Two Small Fish Ventures AGM, I had the chance to sit down with Benjamin Bergen for a fireside chat. At the time, he was still leading the Council of Canadian Innovators. None of us knew he would soon become the new CEO of the CVCA. Looking back, the timing could not have been better.

I have known Benjamin for many years. When I was CEO of Wattpad, I worked closely with him through CCI, which played an important role in advocating for Canadian scaleups. That experience gave me a front row view of how policy, talent mobility, capital, and global markets intersect. I did not expect that perspective to become even more useful on the investor side, but today it is proving to be exactly that.

At Two Small Fish, our portfolio founders often hear us talk about our full cycle view of company building. We have built companies, operated them at global scale, navigated regulatory and geopolitical realities, and now invest across deep tech. We have seen the journey from the very first product decision all the way to commercialization. That experience matters today because geopolitics is no longer something happening far away. It is showing up directly in the work of founders.

The World Has Changed Irreversibly

Founders do not necessarily always think about politics, especially geopolitics. I certainly did not in my early days as a founder. But over the past year, the global environment has shifted in ways that affect talent, capital, customers, supply chains, and data. These forces are becoming part of the operating conditions for every innovative company.

At the AGM, Benjamin and I spent time unpacking what this new reality looks like.

  • Talent We spoke about the growing brain drain and how global mobility is changing. The tightening of the H1B program in the United States has created a ripple effect across the entire talent ecosystem. Early stage companies are rethinking where they build teams, and immigration policy is becoming a strategic consideration rather than an afterthought.
  • Capital The rise of protectionism and shifting global alliances are affecting how and where capital can move. The changing dynamics among the United States, China, and Canada raise new questions for both founders and investors. Some are beginning to view geographic diversification as a practical response to political uncertainty.
  • Customers National preference policies such as Buy Canadian and Buy American are becoming more common. These policies may begin as political statements, but they influence real procurement and partnership decisions. For founders, gaining early customers is no longer just about product and timing. There is a political dimension that needs to be understood.
  • Infrastructure and Defense We also talked about how export controls and security requirements are expanding. Technologies that once seemed purely commercial are now viewed through a strategic lens. Even young companies are discovering that they may be operating in areas that governments consider sensitive.
  • Supply Chains Global supply chains have shown their fragility in areas such as semiconductors, rare earth materials, and energy. These vulnerabilities create friction but also open new opportunities for companies building more resilient and regional alternatives.
  • Data Sovereignty Data localization and national data governance rules continue to spread. More countries want their data stored and processed within their borders. For companies operating internationally, this introduces new architectural and operational decisions much earlier in the journey.

Benjamin also shared how CCI’s new advisory group, Signa Strategies, is helping founders navigate exactly these types of challenges. It felt like a natural evolution of the work he has been doing for years.

As our conversation wrapped up, I was reminded how valuable it is to have seen this ecosystem from both sides. As a founder, I saw how talent, markets, and policy could quietly redirect a company’s path. Through CCI, I saw how national priorities and regulation shape the environment innovators work in. These experiences feel especially relevant now. The geopolitical questions that once appeared at the edges are moving closer to the center.

This is the environment founders are building in today. And with our full cycle experience, we hope to help them navigate it with clarity, context, and confidence.

P.S. If you enjoyed this blog post, please take a minute to like, comment, subscribe and share. Thank you for reading!

This blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. You are free to copy, redistribute, remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given.

The AI Bubble That Is Not When Everyone Is All In

At the beginning of this year, I wrote an op-ed for The Globe about what many were already calling the AI bubble. Nearly a year later, almost all of what I said remains true. The piece was always meant to be a largely evergreen, long term view rather than a knee jerk reaction.

The only difference today is that the forces I described back then have only intensified.

We are in a market where Big Tech, venture capital, private equity, and the public markets are all pouring unprecedented capital into AI. But to understand what is actually happening, and how to invest intelligently, we need to separate noise from fundamentals. Here are the five key points:

  1. Why Big Tech Is Going All In while Taking Minimal Risk.
  2. The Demand Side Is Real and Growing.
  3. Not All AI Investments Are Created Equal.
  4. Picking Winners Matters.
  5. Remember, Dot Com Was a Bubble. The Internet Was Not.

1. Why Big Tech Is Going All In while Taking Minimal Risk

The motivations of the large technology companies driving this wave are very different from those of startups and other investors.

For Big Tech, AI is existential. If they underinvest, they risk becoming the next Blockbuster. If they overinvest, they can afford the losses. In practice, they are buying trillions of dollars worth of call options, and very few players in the world can afford to do that.

The asymmetry is obvious. If I were their CEOs, I would do the same.

But being able to absorb risk does not mean they want to absorb all of it. This is why they are using creative financing structures to shift risk off their balance sheets while remaining all in. At the same time, they strengthen their ecosystems by keeping developers, enterprises, and consumers firmly inside their platforms.

This is not classical corporate investing. Their objective is not just profitability. It is long term dominance.

For everyone outside Big Tech, meaning most of us, understanding these incentives is essential. It helps you place your bets intelligently without becoming roadkill when Big Tech transfers risk into the ecosystem.

2. The Demand Side Is Real

AI usage is not slowing. It is accelerating.

The numbers do not lie. Almost every metric, including model inference, GPU utilization, developer adoption, enterprise pilot activity, and startup formation, is rising. You can validate this across numerous public datasets. Directionally, people are using AI more, not less. And unlike previous hype cycles, this wave has real usage, real dollars, and real infrastructure behind it.

Yes, there is froth. But there are also fundamentals.

3. Not All AI Investments Are Created Equal

A common mistake is treating AI investing as a single category.

It is not.

Investing in a public market, commoditized AI business is very different from investing in a frontier technology startup with a decade long horizon. The former may come with thin margins, weak moats, and hidden exposure to Big Tech’s risk shifting. The latter is where transformational returns come from if you know how to evaluate whether a company is truly world class, differentiated, and defensible.

Lumping all AI investments together is as nonsensical as treating all public stocks as the same.

4. Picking Winners Matters

In public markets, you can buy the S&P 500 and call it a day. But that index is not random. Someone selected those 500 winners for you.

In venture, picking winners matters even more. It is a power law business. Spray and pray does not work. Most startups will not survive, and only the strongest will break out, especially in an environment as competitive as today.

Thanks to AI, we are in the middle of a massive platform shift. Venture scale outcomes depend on understanding technology deeply enough to see a decade ahead and identify breakout successes before others do. Long term vision beats short term noise. Daily or quarterly fluctuations are simply noise to be ignored.

5. Dot Com Was a Bubble. The Internet Was Not.

The dot com era had dramatic overvaluation and a painful crash, but the underlying technology still reshaped the world. The problem was not the internet. It was timing, lack of infrastructure, and indiscriminate investing in ideas that were either too early or simply bad.

Looking back, the early internet lacked essential components such as high speed access, mobile connectivity, smartphones, and internet payments. Although some elements of the AI stack may still be evolving, many of the major building blocks, including commercialization, are already in place. AI does not suffer from the same foundational gaps the early internet did.

Calling this a bubble as a blanket statement misses the nuance. AI itself is not a bubble. With a decade long view, it is already reshaping almost every industry at an unprecedented pace. Corrections, consolidations, and failures are normal. The underlying technological shift is as real as the internet was in the 1990s.

There is speculation. There are frothy areas. And yet, there are many areas that are underfunded. That is where the opportunities are.

⸻

History shows that great venture funds invest through cycles. They invest in areas that will be transformative in the next decade, not the next quarter.

For us, the five areas we focus on, including Vertical AI platforms, physical AI, AI infrastructure, advanced computing hardware, and smart energy, are the critical elements of AI. Beyond being our expertise, there is another important reason why these categories matter: Bubble or not, they will thrive.

We are not investing in hype, nor in capital intensive businesses where capital is the only moat, nor in companies where technology defensibility is low. As long as we stay disciplined and visionary, and continue to back founders building a decade ahead, we will do well, bubble or not.

After all, there may be multiple macro cycles across a decade. Embrace the bubble.

P.S. If you enjoyed this blog post, please take a minute to like, comment, subscribe and share. Thank you for reading!

This blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. You are free to copy, redistribute, remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given.