Skip to main content
RBC Thought Leadership Article Page 5

A growing opportunity: Indigenous agriculture in Canada

Content Type: Article

WP Menu

wp-menu

Momentum is building across Canada for Indigenous-led agriculture production and food processing. This was on full display in Regina at the recently-concluded Canadian Western Agribition, Canada’s largest livestock show, where the National Circle for Indigenous Agriculture and Food (NCIAF) hosted the Indigenous Agriculture Summit, attracting more than 400 attendees.

Three takeaways from the summit:

1. Shifting demographics sparks skills development

Canada’s total farm population decreased by 3.5% between 2016 and 2021.1 Its workforce is also getting older, with the average farm operator now 56 years old. In contrast, the Indigenous farm population is growing (+6%), with average Indigenous male farm operator aged 34 and 39 for female operators.2

Agriculture’s relatively young and growing Indigenous population can potentially help the sector meet its rising demand for highly skilled talent. It could also support services gaps, including business and finance advisory, agronomic and technology support, and environmental and management planning services.

Indigenous training programs are growing at college and university campuses across the country. In some cases, the offerings are highly specific. For instance, Suncrest College, which operates nine locations across Saskatchewan, launched an Indigenous-led canola crushing program earlier this year. The 12-week program prepares students for careers in the oilseed crushing industry.3 Assinobione Community College in Manitoba is also strengthening Indigenous students’ access to agri-food training and skills by providing tuition-free programs like horticultural production for off-reserve learners, funded by partners like the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.4

2. Expanding Indigenous engagement in production and land management

First Nation reserves across the prairies are home to 1.5 million acres of cropland—and growing. In Saskatchewan, Indigenous reserve land has nearly doubled since 1992—currently 8,234 square kilometres—due in part to the Treaty Land Entitlement (TLE) and Specific Claims process. The TLE and Specific Claims are Canada’s avenues for fulfilling promises to First Nations, addressing land owed from historical treaties or breaches of obligations of assets (Specific Claims). Cropland on reserves in Saskatchewan increased by roughly 10% over the same period and now covers roughly 43% of reserve land in the Prairie provinces– below the provincial average of cropland accounting for 63% of Saskatchewan.5

With expanded reserve lands and a growing movement to build food sovereignty, Indigenous communities are reintroducing or advancing their community food production systems, focusing primarily on gardens and raising animals on a small scale for local consumption. Fox Lake Cree Nation, for example, reintroduced fruit, vegetable and poultry production for the community, situated 750 kilometres northeast of Winnipeg. On a larger scale, 4C Farms Ltd., on Cowessess First Nation, is an example of an Indigenous owned commercial agricultural production operation, growing grains and oilseeds, and managing a herd of 125 Angus cattle. The farm includes more than 2,500 acres of pasture and hay land, and 2,000 acres of croplands in Saskatchewan.6

Access to processing infrastructure and navigating supply chain logistics and food standards can be barriers to bringing food products grown on reserve to market. To address these barriers, Indigenous communities are working to shorten their supply chains so that they can sell more directly to retailers or customers. Mistickokat Nehiyawak, located about 120 kilometres north of Saskatoon, is a community leading wild rice production and processing initiatives to expand market access for wild rice.

3. Regenerating bison populations

Across North America, roughly 30 to 60 million bison roamed before European colonization led to the expansion of settler communities and agriculture production.7 At the summit, Dr. Leroy Little Bear, elder of the Kainai First Nation and professor emeritus at the University of Lethbridge, shared how restoring bison populations can be a path to Indigenous reconciliation and regeneration.

Indigenous communities are developing approaches to reintroduce bison on reserve land. And it’s paying dividends. The Blood Tribe (Treaty 7) is leading a project to reintroduce plains bison through enhanced land management that includes restoring native grasslands and revitalizing cultural approaches to building a healthy ecosystem, including prescribed burning of grasslands for regrowth. The Blood Tribe now has a 96-animal herd, providing cultural and environmental benefits, and employment opportunities for the band. Overall, the bison population in Canada, primarily concentrated in Alberta and Saskatchewan, has grown by 25% to 150,000 head over the past five years.8 And Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s recent three-year, $5-million investment further supports the restoration of bison in collaboration with Indigenous communities across the region.9 This funding was announced at the summit, and will support capacity building in the bison sector, regional learning herd networks to share knowledge and skills, and foster collaboration among communities.

Lisa Ashton is RBC Thought Leadership’s Director of Agriculture Policy.

WP Menu

wp-menu

The Canada-Alberta Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) sets the stage for the province to become a continental energy superpower across both traditional and non-traditional energy forms. A key piece of the MoU centres around a bitumen pipeline project provided Alberta proceeds with several low-carbon projects and programs in parallel.

As it stands, the province’s major projects inventory consists of almost 1,000 projects valued at $167 billion. Incorporating a new major bitumen pipeline, plus meaningful growth in data centres and accompanying power generation and distribution, could raise that figure to more than $400 billion.

Here are five themes that stood out to us from the MoU:

1. A clear roadmap: The level of specificity within the document gives the MoU teeth. Unlike most MoUs that usually focus on outlining broad contours of areas of co-operation, this MoU sets out clear guidelines and targets.

2. Tight deadlines: The accelerated timelines suggest an urgency that puts the onus on Alberta to deliver, quickly, on several climate policies in order to secure expansion of its fossil fuel sector. Most of the key action items required on the Alberta side (carbon pricing equivalency, methane equivalency, tri-lateral Pathways MoU) have an April 1, 2026, deadline. It also brings an urgency in British Columbia where Premier David Eby would have to make some quick decisions on a new pipeline (and the proposed expansion of Trans Mountain pipeline) across his province.

3. A new bitumen pipeline: The success of the MoU, especially in the context of a new, large bitumen pipeline, revolves around the historically challenged duty to consult and the Build Canada Act to bypass future legal challenges, which at this point appear almost certain.

4. A 700,000-bpd proposition: The Alberta government is expected to remain the central pipeline proponent until all parties—including Indigenous groups— are on board to reduce the possibility of delays and cost overruns that has plagued past pipeline expansions. In the nearer to mid-term (next five years), pipeline expansions across Enbridge’s Mainline and the federal government-owned Trans Mountain will add up to 600,000 to 700,000 barrels per day in added capacity, which should be enough to support growth for the remainder of this decade.

5. Low-carbon boost: The space given to non-oil and gas commentary such as a substantial expansion of power generation for traditional heavy industry, but also around data centres, interties, and domestic supply chain capture (e.g., Canadian steel and pipeline), suggests that the federal government is creating linkages to ensure a potential Alberta boom cascades across industries and provinces.

What’s being overlooked:

  • The increase in Alberta’s TIER price to $130 per tonne does not specify a date. The Canadian federal benchmark was set to cross that threshold in 2027/2028. Current Alberta TIER prices have since risen to $25-27/tonne (from $17-18/tonne just a couple weeks ago) according to RBC’s Environmental Markets trading desk, implying a 5x return if prices reach the threshold level;

  • The MoU makes specific reference to include enhanced oil recovery (EOR) as part of an extension of existing federal investment tax credits for carbon sequestration, utilization and storage (CCUS). The economic uplift from the ability to monetize the additional oil stream can be meaningful. According to a University of Calgary study, certain Alberta EOR-CCUS reservoirs are economically viable at a carbon price of $60/tonne. In comparison, a Colorado School of Mines study suggests that in the U.S. allowing EOR within the 45Q tax credit— designed to accelerate carbon capture, utilization and storage—could provide an additional economic benefit of between US$95-$120 per tonne of CO2e.

  • Both the construction of a bitumen pipeline and construction of the oilsands-led Pathways carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) project are preconditions of one another. Yet, that precondition is dependent upon the commencement of ”Pathways Phase 1 Projects” (22-million tonnes out of Pathways’ total 50-million tonne capacity). It’s unclear if that references the sequestering (12 million tonnes) or emissions reductions (10 million tonnes) initiatives.

    Shaz Merwat is Energy Policy Lead at RBC Thought Leadership

WP Menu

wp-menu

This op-ed originally appeared in the Toronto Star

Canada has entered a new space age.

The Carney government announced a historic commitment of $528.5 million to European Space Agency (ESA) programs, all of which will return to Canadian companies, enabling them to build deeper partnerships with European space and defence projects and companies.

It also says to the world that Canada wants to be a serious space player again, and to partner with plenty of allies beyond the United States.

One big step for Canada, yes, but compared to the even larger new space investments that other countries are making, it is still only one small step for humankind. To be a major global space player again, Canada needs to do much more, and do it quickly. To thrive in this new space age, we will need far more private capital and entrepreneurs than we’ve ever seen in our country. We need to attract and keep space investors (and there’s far more than Elon Musk out there), and ensure they’re generating capital, ideas, technology and high-value jobs in Canada — something other emerging space powers, from India to Japan to Germany, are already doing.

Our new report, A Higher Orbit: How Canada can build and finance a bolder space strategy, recently published by RBC Thought Leadership, lays out this new space imperative for Canada. It can’t be overstated: our sovereignty, Arctic defence, tech capabilities and economic prospects are all at various degrees of risk. Indeed, at a time when Canada is looking north, west and east, we need to look up, too — with much more ambition.

Let’s start by reconciling with the ground we’ve ceded. Canada was the third nation to go to space, in the 1960s, and for decades a pioneer and partner for our allies. Then we lost our way. Over the past decade, our space spending flatlined and were surpassed by numerous other countries.  Today, even the Netherlands spends a greater percentage of GDP on spacethan Canada.

Budget 2025 aimed to relaunch Canada’s space ambitions, quite literally. In addition to the ESA announcement, the budget allocated $182.6 million for domestic orbital launch capabilities, most likely to build two Atlantic Canada spaceports. Little else matters if we can’t launch our own rockets and vehicles into space, which is the case today. Until we do, we will be a passenger on SpaceX and other countries’ rockets — and beholden to their laws, timelines, and priorities.

Once we have Canadian controlled launch, we see a bold decade ahead in which Canadian satellites can join the front of the pack in earth observation and communications. Those will be our eyes and ears on the Arctic, and for Canadian interests everywhere. They also will be critical to our evolving security alliances and protecting our sovereignty. This is where elbows up needs to become heads up.

Beyond national defence, our research shows significant economic potential, touching pretty much every sector. The global space economy, led by the U.S. and China, is on course to triple in value to $1.8 trillion (US) over the next decade. Japan, Germany, India, South Korea and the United Arab Emirates are all gearing up national space programs to capture their share of that prize.

Corporate Canada needs to look up, too. As the saying goes, every company is now a space company. So, too, is every digital citizen. Whether you know it or not, your data travels, on average, 40 times a day through low orbit — and right now, that’s not secure as recent research indicates that satellites may be broadcasting up to half of their traffic through unencrypted channels.

Modelling from RBC Thought Leadership shows the need for roughly $12 billion in new capital for Canadian space ventures over the next decade, which in turn can generate more than $20 billion in annual industry revenue.

To get there, we will need a bolder strategy. That starts with a procurement pathway that says to the world what we’re willing to spend over the next five-10 years. If Canada commits 5 per cent of our enhanced 5 per cent NATO commitment to space, the government will be able to map out $7.5 billion a year in space spending — that’s enough to catapult Canada back into the peloton of advanced nations, less reliant on the U.S. and China. Without long-term commitment, global investors — the ones who can multiply that public investment — will not see Canada as a serious player.

Next, the upcoming Defence Industrial Strategy needs to lay out which sectors within space are top priotities. Much of this can be technologies that we are already excellent at – such as synthetic aperture radar and space robotics – but it will need to include new areas, such as counter-space systems, as well.

In addition to security and economic benefits, space monitoring technologies are critical to mitigating climate change, from melting ice conditions to changing water systems and shorelines. Quite urgently, space tech needs to play a leading role in our ability to predict, prevent and fight wildfires — a capability we can export to our allies, too.

Then there’s the Buy Canadian mandate. We can actually do more, and faster, in space than on Earth. We have globally respected companies, from big players like Brampton’s  MDA Space and Telesat in Ottawa to fast-growing innovators like Toronto’s Kepler and Montreal’s GHGSat, which can all scale more rapidly for global markets.

Recently, at SpaceBound, the annual forum organized by Space Canada, we were encouraged to hear Defence Minister David McGuinty and Industry Minister Melanie Joly share more of the government’s ambitions for space. Both ministers along with senior military officials carried that message to the Halifax Security Forum.

In Ottawa, we also convened a private roundtable with companies and investors who said much more needs to be done. Canadian investors — from private equity to pension funds — need to sharpen their space skills, as we’re seeing instutional investors do in the U.S. and Europe. Federal financial institutions like Export Development Canada and Business Development Bank of Canada need to make space a greater priority within their new strategies for defence finance. And our colleges and universities — long champions of space innovation — need to up their games in both the commercialization of research and training of a new generation of space pioneers.

The moment for that is now. When Jeremy Hansen joins the Artemis II mission to the moon this winter, he will be the first non-American to ever leave Earth’s orbit. It can be a defining moment, to all Canadians, to say to outselves and to the world: we’re going to make a lot more space for Canada. Just look up.

Authors

Alexander MacDonald, Former Chief Economist, NASA
Jaxson Khan, CEO, Aperture AI | Senior Fellow at University of Toronto
John Stackhouse, Senior Vice President, Office of the CEO, RBC

WP Menu

wp-menu

Artificial Intelligence is poised to reshape how value is created across Canada’s economy. To understand that shift, RBC Thought Leadership interviewed more than two dozen firms that are on the frontlines of building or deploying AI for Bridging the Imagination Gap: How Canadian Companies Can Become Global Leaders in AI Adoption. The report distilled the patterns that emerged from those conversations.

Building on that report, the series of case studies go a level deeper: following one company’s journey through specific problems, pivots and opportunities, helps illustrates the strategic choices and policy conditions that turn technical promise into economic and societal value.

Summary

Internal validation matters. Schneider Electric proved AI’s value both internally and in customer offers. Starting with supply chain projects that freed up millions to invest in predictive tools that reduced downtime. This internal credibility gave the company the confidence to embed AI directly into products and services.

Governance can be an advantage. By treating the EU AI Act as a design specification rather than red tape, Schneider built compliance into its MLOps machine-learning pipeline. This not only eased adoption internally but also created a “trust premium” with customers.

Centralization drives scale. A 350-person AI Hub concentrated scarce expertise, standardized tools, and linked directly to executive decision-making, turning AI into a repeatable capability rather than scattered experiments.

Future readiness requires sovereignty and edge leadership. Focusing on trust and compliance, Schneider is positioning itself to thrive in a world where data localization and sovereignty increasingly shape industrial competition.

When most people picture electronics manufacturing, they think of smart chips, GPUs, CPUs and capacitors. But it’s the hidden circuitry under the hoods that makes our world hum efficiently : a lattice of switches, sensors, drives, control panels, and interconnected IoT systems that silently, safely and reliably switch on lights, move elevators and keep servers cool.

Schneider Electric, the 189‑year‑old French manufacturing group, is the giant behind that invisible architecture. With €38.2 billion in annual revenue,1 177,000 employees, and operations in more than 100 countries, it manufactures the circuitry and control systems that power buildings, factories, grids and data‑centres.

2Schneider has maintained operations in Canada3for more than 100 years, with roughly 3,000 individuals across 10 provinces. Its products are featured in 40% of residences and 50% of commercial buildings in Canada.4

Schneider’s value to the global economy is twofold: it supplies5 the hardware and software that makes modern life possible and shepherds one of the world’s most distributed industrial supply chains6.

Yet even Schneider was not immune to the pandemic’s shock waves. By late 2020, COVID-19’s stop-start demand swings left warehouses bulging with unsold stock while plants struggled for parts. Across a network of 162 factories7, roughly 300,000 stock-keeping units (SKUs)8 and around revenues fell 6.4% organically9 in the first quarter of 2020, year-on-year, putting billions at risk.

Faced with this disruption, Schneider had to decide whether to keep tweaking legacy systems or take a chance on machine learning. They chose the latter.  Starting small, at one its North‑American switch‑gear plants, Scheider’s AI team trained a gradient‑boost model on three years of order history, macro indicators and pandemic mobility data. Six weeks later, there were double‑digit gains in forecast accuracy, safety‑stock days fell by a third, and the pilot resulted in considerable savings. The result became the catalyst for further exploring AI capabilities, that delivered great results in the energy management space. The strategic move to scaling AI initiatives globally resulted in creating Schneider’s centralized AI Hub.  

How did Schneider Electric transform multiple AI pilots into a global capability, and lead in enterprise AI deployment? To find out, RBC Thought Leadership sat down with Cédric Bureau, Senior Principal Product Manager for Artificial Intelligence at Schneider Electric, to unpack four key strategies the company implemented while scaling its AI capabilities, and the insights they offer today.

Insight 1: Dual‑Track AI

It clicked when we saw an internal AI pilot’s results. We weren’t just solving problems—we were building something that offered new opportunities for us and our customers — Cédric Bureau

Internally, under Schneider’s AI-at-scale program, the company rolled out machine-learning models across supply-chain planning and the factory floor; computer-vision and vibration analytics began feeding AI information and predicting failures, lifting throughput and uptime, and enhancing energy efficiency. In parallel, Schneider put AI into everyday enterprise support tools—HR and engineering chatbots and copilots, and enhanced energy-efficiency software—so teams had working tools, not just pilots.

The step-change came when those capabilities moved into customer offers. An anomaly-detection model first used to monitor building thermal performance and detect abnormal energy use now powers Schneider’s bespoke EcoStruxure Building Advisor10, which flags abnormal consumption and tunes HVAC automatically. By shifting from manual, Excel-based reporting to AI-powered building energy modelling, customers have achieved measurable benefits—including considerable operating cost savings across 50 sites and 2–5% reductions in energy consumption.

The two tracks now reinforce each other. Schneider’s AI-at-scale strategy sets the playbook—how pilots move to shop floor, enterprise tools and into products—and a centralized AI Hub runs it, rotating experts across projects, standardizing tooling and governance, and building enterprise-wide AI know-how. That pairing makes the hand-off between AI development and the factory floor routine: models that prove themselves are industrialized, documented and shipped into offers, while product telemetry feeds fresh data back for the next round. Internal efficiencies realized fuel further R&D, with every factory win becoming a candidate feature in a future product.

Takeaway: Use the enterprise as a live test bed and consistently build both technology and human capabilities to innovate with AI. When an AI solution delivers value inside the business, it provides credibility and de-risks similar use cases. Being able to claim “we run this at scale ourselves”improves sales prospects with cautious customers.

Insight 2: 350 Experts Feeding One Big Brain

“AI is now past the hype cycle inside the company—it’s part of daily work habits”—Cédric Bureau

Scattered pilots could never keep pace with a network of 162 factories across five continents. So, in late 2021, Schneider launched a global AI Hub11—across three locations: Boston, Paris and Bangalore. Within 12 months the hub grew to around 350 data scientists, machine learning operations (ML Ops) engineers, product managers and an in‑house compliance squad. To ensure the hub can move at pace with technology development trends, it’s headed by a Chief AI Officer who reports to the executive committee, ensuring strategic bets on AI are scrutinized at the C‑suite level.

By elevating AI initiatives into a standalone enterprise function, Schneider pulled them out of isolated IT corners and gave them the strategic visibility needed to reach production. This centralized, AI-first organizational design enabled four key advantages:

1. Hub-and-spoke coordination: The centralized AI Hub supplies the technical backbone—algorithms, data infrastructure, compliance tools and features a team of AI product managers, each dedicated to a set of business units to work with marketing managers with clear understanding of local and/or industry specific challenges. This split of roles prevents duplication, ensures solutions are tailored to operational needs, and speeds up the rollout of AI projects across the enterprise.

2. Paved-road development: All AI projects share the same basic set of tools and processes—like standard methods to gather data, store and organize models, and perform quality checks. Think of it like using a standard recipe: following it takes some extra work at the start, but once you’ve done that, making adjustments or improvements becomes simpler and faster. Because as these processes are consistent across Schneider, teams don’t have to constantly reinvent the wheel. Netflix and Spotify use a similar concept, calling it a ‘paved road’, meaning a clear, straightforward path that makes developing technology quicker, safer, and easier.

3. Talent attraction and retention: The AI Hub offers a compelling career path and collaborative environment. Schneider can recruit top AI talent from Big Tech companies and retain skilled experts significantly longer than comparable industrial organizations.

4. Built-in compliance capability: Schneider’s compliance experts are integrated within the AI Hub. Every AI project undergoes a standardized risk assessment and bias testing before deployment, ensuring adherence to regulations such as the EU AI Act and laying the groundwork for the ‘compliance-by-design’ approach detailed further in the case.

Schneider is not alone in this architecture. Bosch’s Center for AI and the Siemens AI Lab follow a similar hub‑and‑platform pattern

Takeaway: Success comes from treating AI as a core enterprise function—appointing clear leadership, concentrating expertise, and serving business units as internal clients.

Insight 3: Turning Regulation into a Feature

“While talent solved capacity; trust solved adoption. When Brussels drafted the world’s first horizontal AI law, Schneider decided regulation would be a design spec, not a hand‑brake.” —Cédric Bureau

When the draft EU AI Act first circulated, many industrial peers froze projects, waiting to see how onerous the rules would become. In contrast, Schneider’s AI Hub embedded a ‘compliance squad’—lawyers, data‑privacy officers, risk engineers—directly into ideation and sprint teams. Every new use‑case begins with a 10‑question risk‑rating questionnaire that maps potential AI applications to the Act’s taxonomy (minimal, limited or high‑risk). Proposals assessed as high risk trigger up‑front data‑anonymization, mandatory human‑oversight12 plans and bias‑test requirements before development begins.

Schneider’s AI deployment pipeline itself enforces the law. Schneider’s AI policy requires that all use cases undergo a two-stage compliance review. First, use cases are scanned for risks across ethics, design, IP, data security, and governance. Then, those risks are mapped into a treatment plan—identifying owners, setting mitigation actions, and tracking accountability—so that compliance is not just a checklist but a living process. This AI Policy ensures alignment with EU AI Act Articles 1013 (data & bias), 11 (technical documentation) and 14 (human oversight). Once a model is live, the platform’s monitoring dashboard logs performance drift and automatically opens an incident ticket if thresholds are breached, satisfying Articles 72‑73 of the act on post‑market surveillance.

By having compliance experts on the team, Schneider’s engineers treat concerns like bias mitigation, data anonymization, and cybersecurity—as design inputs, not obstacles. This is an organizational cultural shift—developers are guided to think about ethical/legal constraints from the start rather than scramble to retrofit fixes later.

These extra steps yielded  three commercial dividends:

1. Faster sales cycles :Clients in heavily regulated industries often demand proof of AI governance; handing them an ‘AI‑Act‑ready’ dossier trims procurement reviews.

2. Trust premium: Positioning Schneider’s solutions as ‘regulation‑ready’ differentiates them against rivals who still treat compliance as paperwork to be done later. 

3. Build once, comply everywhere: Treating EU standards as the floor cuts duplication across markets and future‑proofs the portfolio against new laws—Canada’s Bill C‑27 included. As it stands, Schneider maintains compliance with standards across the world, including the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE14), International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC15) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD16).

Take‑away: By baking the rulebook into the codebase and deployment processes, Schneider converts the cost of compliance into a strategic advantage.

Insight 4: Transparent deployment review process

“We knew we’d succeeded when operators started asking us for AI models, not because management pushed them, but because workers saw firsthand how they improved their jobs.” — Cédric Bureau

With Schneider’s talent (AI Hub) and compliance guardrails (compliance by design) in place, it established the four-gate funnel to manage ideas. Every AI use case, from factory forecasting to customer-facing microgrid control, flows through the same four stages. At each gate, a go/no-go decision is made based on business case and feasibility. Pet projects without ROI, or projects deemed too high-risk are stopped early. Winners move quickly, because approval chains, tooling, and documentation are built in from the start.

Gate 1: Data owners co-develop a one-page problem brief with the AI Hub—qualifying return on investment (ROI), carbon impact, and passing a 10-question risk scan. Key technical challenges are identified, and sandbox phase on masked data with built-in bias and robustness testing is done to evaluate feasibility and to assess the best technology to overcome such challenges.

Gate 2: A Minimum Viable Product development and real-life deployment. Plant operators co-design dashboards and evaluate the solution in as-close to real-life-conditions as possible. Critically, the funnel separates trying from scaling—preventing the common trap of endless proof-of-concepts.

Gate 3: Solutions are hardened for production: user interfaces, documentation, and business integration. Models are migrated onto the Hub’s MLOps platform, and the compliance team completes the EU AI Act technical dossier.

Gate 4: Live dashboards track ROI, drift, and incident logs. Red flags auto-escalate to both the site lead and AI product team. Some models retrain automatically based on performance thresholds.

Takeaway: Human-centric design extends through the development, implementation, and operational phases of AI applications—Schneider doesn’t treat business stakeholders as merely AI end-users. They’re co-owners of AI solutions.

This cultural strategy scales, too. As small tools proved helpful, trust grew. Engineers adopted AI as naturally as any other tool. Plant managers began expecting data-driven insights in meetings. Executives used AI dashboards to spot margin opportunities. The result wasn’t just tech fluency—it wasa mindset shift. People no longer see AI as opaque or threatening—they understood where it fits, and how it can help them do better work.

Internally, Schneider backed this shift with a firm-wide initiative to elevate the AI knowledge of all employees through awareness/training programs, regular data & AI webinars, and the publicly available AI at Scale podcast.

Choosing the Next Play

Schneider Electric has thrived under Europe’s regulation-first approach, aligning early with the EU AI Act and embedding compliance into its operating model. This strategy has given it a competitive edge: customers see its solutions as “regulation-ready,” and regulators view the company as a trusted partner.

But the future of regulation may expose the company to competing paradigms, in which the EU resides in the middle. In the United States, a market-led approach prioritizes rapid innovation, with looser rules and fewer documentation burdens. China, meanwhile, pursues a state-steered model, demanding tight government oversight and strict localization of data. Each system pulls global players in different directions, and supply chains are increasingly split along regulatory lines.

Numbers

€38.2 b 2024 revenue
€4.3 bNet 2024 income
177 000 Number of employees
162Number of manufacturing sites, globally
1836Year of founding, in Le Creusot, France
100+Number of countries Schneider Electric maintains operations in     
5%Portion of revenue invested in R&D
20,000Number of active, global patents
1stRanking in Corporate Knights Global 100 most sustainable corporations

Download the Report

Project Lead

Reid McKay, Director Technology Policy, RBC Thought Leadership

Contributions

Special thanks to Janice Stein, Founding Director, Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy and Nicole Harris, Graduate Student, Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy.

WP Menu

wp-menu

Compromise.

That’s how the world’s leading news organizations summed up COP 30, the United Nations climate conference that just ended in Belém, Brazil. A sampling;

“A climate compromise” — Le Monde (France)
“Mixed verdict” — The Times Of India (New Delhi)
“Fragile deal” — The New York Times
“Historic finance boost” — O Globo (Brazil)
“Progress on money, standstill on oil, gas, coal” — DER SPIEGEL (Germany)
“Vulnerable nations decry lack of fossil-fuel phaseout” — Al Jazeera Media Network (Qatar)
“Multitrao consensus, showcasing unity” — China Daily (Beijing)

The mutirão spirit, or working together, was as good as the conference could get, given it had compromise at every turn. Here’s what mattered most in the end:

  • Commitment to a Just Transition facility, aimed at supporting groups and communities most impacted by climate action

  • Commitment to triple adaptation finance, although no clear path to do so

  • 80 counties called for a roadmap to phase out fossil fuels, fewer than expected

  • New push for oceans-based solutions

  • New emphasis on “information integrity” to combat disinformation on climate

  • No significant agreements on deforestation, a setback for many given the summit’s location in the Amazon basin.

COPs (or Conference of the Parties who signed the UN climate framework) tend to end in a mix of commitment and disappointment. This one was no different — although given its milestone status and location in Brazil, home to the first Earth Summit in 1992, it fell short of most expectations. Perhaps that’s not surprising, given the state of geopolitics and the global economy.

Turkiye will host COP31 next year, while Australia will lead the negotiations. Both countries were vying for the lead role, and agreed to share the spotlight.

Another compromise!

John Stackhouse, Senior Vice-President, Office of the CEO, RBC

WP Menu

wp-menu

➔ Mark Carney’s Climate Competitiveness Strategy spotlights critical minerals and tax credits

➔ What to expect at COP30

➔  Gates’ reboots his climate view

➔ Further reading: Unearthing Value: How nature can play a critical role in pro-growth agendas – RBC

Hot takes

➔ The fight for critical minerals is only heating up. Beijing and Washington may be on talking terms these days (unlike Ottawa and Washington), but the fight for rare earth supremacy will be this decade’s big battle. Canada has entered the fray with 26 new partnerships with 9 allied countries and has earmarked capital in the new budget (see below). Vivan Sorab, Senior Manager of Clean Tech, says Canada has the resources, the capital, and the intellectual property to start building a supply chain, but needs to mobilize at speed. That will involve (a) fast-tracking funding for rare earths, (b) guaranteeing demand for the minerals, and (c) building domestic processing capability. Read Vivan’s full briefing here.

➔ Across the pond, several EU members refused to agree to legally binding 2040 goals. Member states agreed to cut emissions by between 66.3%-72.5% by 2035 as part of a submission to the UN ahead of the COP30 Summit in Brazil. But several member states refused to agree to the legally binding 2040 goal unless significant concessions were made that would allow countries to claim 5% of their emissions reductions by selling international carbon credits. The EU also agreed to weaken other politically sensitive climate policies, including delaying the launch of an upcoming EU carbon market by one year, to 2028.

A climate competitive Canada

The federal budget promised to show how the Mark Carney government intertwines climate policy with its growth agenda. It’s early days, but as the federal climate policy takes shape it presents a fascinating trade—stronger industrial carbon pricing and clean electricity regulations for a likely end to the emissions cap and an extension of tax incentives for carbon capture. Let’s see what Alberta and Saskatchewan have to say. (read John Stackhouse’s view on the federal budget here.)

Here’s what caught our eye:

Industrial Carbon pricing: Canada needs robust carbon markets to support clean growth investments. The government plans to work with provinces to set a multi-decade industrial carbon price trajectory that targets net-zero by 2050. It will give businesses confidence. The plan is to fix the benchmark and harmonize across the country in providing a common, strong price signal. We wrote about the importance of harmonizing industrial carbon pricing last year. Expect Canada Growth Fund to continue to issue carbon contract for differences (CCfD) for projects.

Methane: The government aims to finalize enhanced methane regulations for the oil and gas sector and landfills, and work with provinces to negotiate equivalency agreements.

Oil and Gas Emissions Cap: The government plans to leverage technologies such as carbon capture and storage to lower oil and gas sector emissions, which means the Oil and Gas Emissions Cap “will no longer be required.”

Clean Fuels: The government plans to maintain the clean fuel regulations meant to help transition Canada toward less carbon-intensive gasoline and diesel, a rule that the Conservatives have criticized.

Tax credits: The government expanded pre-investment tax credits for green manufacturing, as well as carbon capture and storage (CCUS). Under the budget, the CCUS tax credit, which covers up to 60% of relevant investments, would extend the current rate until 2035.

Critical minerals: A $2-billion Critical Minerals Sovereign Fund will include equity investment, loan guarantees and offtake agreements. The $371.8 million First and Last Mile Fund aims to bring late-stage projects to production stage. Additional critical minerals, like antimony, indium and gallium, are now eligible under the clean tech manufacturing tax credit.

What’s at stake at COP30

It may be more low-key than previous years, but COP events always serve as a pulse check on the state of global climate action—or inaction.

Here’s what to expect from the event:

Belém, the host with the most (to lose): The north Brazilian city is the gateway to the Amazon region—known as the “lungs of the world” – as it produces 20% of the world’s oxygen. But the region is facing disturbances through land use, wildfires and climate-change fuelled extreme weather, plus the relentless march of industrial and commercial expansion. So Belém seems like a fitting, if far-off, location showcasing the ground realities of climate change, unlike the more convenient and glitzy financial hubs of New York and Dubai.

A decade after Paris. The world’s changed since 2015 – when virtually the entire world was united in its pledge to lower emissions. Now, not so much. Current mood: uncompromising. Commodity exporters are feeling emboldened, while climate litigation is at an all-time high.

A logistical challenge for a region with 18,000 rooms. Host Brazil expects 50,000 policy types to attend the negotiations, and has even suggested some delegates share rooms. Organizers are also arranging cruise ships, private properties and converting schools into hostels to accommodate climate-biz tourists. Last month, 81 countries were in negotiations with organizers over hotel rooms while 87 countries had already reserved accommodation, according to Brazil’s COP30 Presidency.

There may be a U.S.-sized hole at COP. The U.S., which is in the process of pulling out of the Paris accord, does not plan to send “high level“ representatives to Belém. Still, Washington’s shadow is expected to loom large over negotiations.Organizers have high hopes. COP30 delegates are pushing forward five key agenda items: (1) stronger national climate plans with clearer investment pathways, (2) mobilizing US$1.3 trillion for climate action, including US$300 billion for developing countries, (3) incentivizing sustainable and climate-aligned investment, (4) finalizing rules for an UN-backed global carbon market, and (5) a “fair and inclusive transition” away from fossil fuels, ensuring support for workers and vulnerable communities impacted by climate change. Let the negotiations begin.

Gates reboots his climate view

Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder who launched a successful second career as a climate tech financier, recently shared “some tough truths” about climate. His latest note has upset some but have been welcomed by others, including the U.S. President.

Beyond the headlines, his comments may be more nuanced.

Reframe the risk: Gates argues that while climate change will profoundly reshape global systems, it is unlikely to render the planet uninhabitable. His emphasis is on proportionality—recognizing climate change as a chronic, worsening challenge rather than an existential endgame. A new UN report on climate action now expects temperatures to rise 2.3-2.5°C, compared to 2.6-2.8°C in last year’s report, leaving the “world heading for a serious escalation of climate risks and damages.”

From temperature to welfare: Gates has urged that climate action should be evaluated not only by emissions avoided or degrees of warming averted, but also by how effectively it improves human welfare, particularly in vulnerable regions. It aligns with a growing call in development circles to integrate adaptation and poverty reduction within the climate agenda.

Innovate, innovate, innovate: Gates continues to position technological innovation—in clean power, industrial processes, and agriculture—as the decisive tool for decarbonization, suggesting that will drive lasting emissions reductions.

Avoid doomsday narratives: Alarmism may erode public trust and misallocate resources, Gates notes. Some might argue though that the continued focus on climate issues drove action and channelled trillions of dollars into energy transition.

The Institute in action

➔ John Stackhouse , Senior Vice-President, Office of the CEO, spoke to a G7 delegation, and advisers, ahead of a G7 Energy and Environment Minister meeting in Toronto last week, sharing insights on how RBC sees the world evolving. Read his keynote here.

➔ At the Toronto Global Forum on Oct 17, John held a main-stage conversation with Heather Chalmers, President and CEO of GE Vernova Canada, and was also part of a working session on skills and supply chain issues with Ontario’s energy minister Stephen Lecce.

➔ At the GLOBE Food Leadership Summit in Calgary the Canadian Alliance for Net Zero Agri-Food (CANZA) unveiled the Million Acre Challenge, a new initiative to scale climate- smart farming practices across Canada.

➔ At the Arrell Food Summit on Oct 21, Lisa Ashton, Director of Agriculture Policy, sat down with Rene Van Acker, President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Guelph, to discuss Canadian agriculture’s sustainable growth while addressing one of its most pressing challenges—the country’s growing innovation gaps in agri-food.

➔ Lisa also took part in a panel on climate-smart agriculture food systems at Simon Fraser University, Vancouver.

Curated by Yadullah Hussain, Managing Editor, RBC Climate Action Institute.

Climate Crunch would not be possible without John Stackhouse, Jordan Brennan, John Intini, Farhad Panahov, Lisa Ashton, Shaz Merwat, Vivan Sorab, Caprice Biasoni, Lavanya Kaleeswaran and Joelle Schonberg .

Have a comment, commendation, or umm, criticism? Write to me here (yadullahhussain@rbc.com)

Climate Crunch Newsletter

WP Menu

wp-menu

On the eve of Canada hosting the G7 Energy and Environment Ministers’ meeting in Toronto, John Stackhouse, Senior Vice President, Office of the CEO, RBC, delivered a keynote at the IEA Energy Innovation Forum 2025. He focused on three forces redefining how the world operates.  

As you all know, we live in a new era of urgency, in which ambitions are growing and horizons shrinking.

  • It took 15 years for the semiconductor to change the world

  • It took 5 years for the Internet to change the world

  • And it’s taken barely 15 months for Generative AI to change entire landscapes

I was reminded of these new forces of compression during a visit to Silicon Valley last week where a few major tech CEOs said the same thing: “Long term is now six months.”

Yes, we live in a time of unprecedented change and unprecedented compression. And we live in a world that’s being restructured, in our view, by three defining forces. These forces are converging to redefine how nations, markets and societies operate—and they are all connected by energy security.

The first mega force of the 2020s will not surprise any of you. It’s frontier technology. 

Roughly 45% of the S&P 500 today is comprised of AI Hyperscaler stocks. These hyperscalers are spending more than half a trillion dollars a year, collectively, and that’s rising. For 2025-2027, that could mean $1.5 trillion.

It’s a huge concentration of capital that towers over what now seems like a distant memory: the big capital swings that the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act unleashed just five years ago.

Energy is essential to that growth, as you don’t scale—let alone hyperscale—without a new quantum of energy. And it needs to be secure energy.

The second mega force are the growing geopolitical divisions over trade.

Global trade as a percentage of GDP grew steadily following the Second World War from 10% to reach roughly 60% at the onset of the Great Financial Crisis. It has since plateaued in the mid-50s. This likely falls further next year, with trade volumes expected to increase a meager 0.5% in 2026, much slower than global GDP growth of 2.6%.

We don’t see an end to globalization, but this new age of re-globalization will lead to further capital shifts and energy innovation, just as we saw a quarter century ago when China joined the WTO.

Why? Countries trading less will inherently need more of their own energy, or at least energy from a smaller range of suppliers. Bring on the innovation.

Third, we’ve entered a new security paradigm in which defence—including space—will make major claims on both public and private capital in this more fractured, uncertain and conflictual world. Increased defence and security needs are top of mind for most of our governments. And, as you all know, defence supremacy requires energy.

NATO countries are targeting spending on defence and security to be 5% of GDP by 2035. That’s an annual spend of $2 trillion–and this in rapidly aging societies that may have less productive capacity and greater social need.

This trio of global shifts—in technology, trade and security—will require capital and demand innovation. Critically, these forces point to a clear global need: low-cost, accessible, reliable energy.

You don’t have security in the 2020s without data, critical minerals and energy. Every major advancement in AI will rely on enormous computing power. By 2035, global data center power demand is expected to reach 1,600 TWh, that equals the current power needs of Germany, the UK and France.

Just this week, the U.S. government announced a massive partnership with Brookfield Asset Management, Cameco and Westinghouse Electric, to accelerate the deployment of nuclear power—in part because of America’s ambition of AI supremacy.

Nations and companies that secure abundant and ideally low-carbon power will own the digital future. I stress low-carbon power because renewables are still the cheapest form of electricity generation. Low-carbon power because nuclear is the most energy dense, and increasingly adaptable with the advent of SMRs. Low-carbon power because Big Tech remains committed to procuring affordable, reliable and clean over the medium to longer term. For the G7, low-carbon power can be a competitive advantage and key to a security agenda.

Nations that master the ability to generate, store and distribute these diverse power sources, locally, will also reduce security vulnerability. From drones, sensors and cyber defence–modern militaries are increasingly electrified and digitized. And in an economic environment that can feel more like a battlefield than a marketplace, energy self-sufficiency will reduce exposure to price shocks and geopolitical pressure. Nations that master next generation energy technologies—think large-scale battery storage, or carbon removal and storage—will govern the industries of the future.

This competition for those industries may be won by those that have secure, affordable access to data, energy, and critical minerals. And that competition will be shaped by the two great techno-powers, the U.S. and China. As I mentioned earlier, the new security imperative depends on three inputs—AI, energy and critical minerals. The U.S. has two of these three. China is well on its way to having three out of three. Through collaboration, the G7+ can have an overwhelming security of all three. But we need to be faster, faster and faster. Back to that Silicon Valley ethos of time.

For energy, faster means removing frictions in key inputs traded across our nations. And faster means removing our own internal frictions. Across the developed world, it simply takes too long to build major projects. We have not found a way to disrupt NIMBYISM.

If we do, removing these frictions can quicken development, reduce uncertainty, improve economics and unlock capital to move in both speed and scale. Faster, faster and faster.

This is what is needed to keep pace with the speed in which our energy systems are transforming. Systems that used to evolve over decades now need to reinvent themselves in just a few years.

Energy efficiency–the “first fuel”—has slowed in the past decade. Grid modernization, renewable integration and EV infrastructure must scale faster than any energy transformation in history. Supply chains for lithium, nickel and rare earths are being rebuilt in real time to reduce our dependence on China.

A collaborative approach to responsible resource development across the G7 could be streamlined, with common regulations, standards and financing to mobilize cross-border flows. But let’s not fool ourselves, retooling energy systems at breakneck speed is not cheap. Ten years ago, the economic conditions were, frankly, more accommodating.

  • Low-cost capital

  • More fiscal capacity for subsidies

  • More aligned policy support and favourable market conditions

All those made clean energy projects financially attractive and relatively low risk. Today, higher long-term interest rates, trade frictions, and inflationary supply chain pressures have made the same investment environment more challenging.

And that presents a dilemma. Sustainable energy investments for all of the above could require $2 trillion per year—globally. And that is at the heart of our collective energy innovation challenge. Venture Capital and Private Equity are needed to drive innovation and new technologies to proof of concept. But we’ve reached a point where demonstration projects are too expensive for traditional venture capital and too risky for mainstream capital. This is challenge known as the ‘missing middle’ of capital.

Yet this challenge, is an opportunity. While China has become a global trading nation and clean tech leader, the G7 still dominates capital flows. G7 currencies account for 85% of global foreign exchange volume and dominate the $12.3 trillion in global currency reserves. And a lot of that capital—public and private—is flowing toward these opportunities around security.

Just think of how much has changed in the past six months—a.k.a. the new long term.

First, governments are now investors. We’ve seen the Pentagon create what’s essentially a private equity arm–a firm signal that governments will take more active roles as procurers, capital allocators and resource captors to ensure their economic prosperity and energy and resource security.  The Canadian government is standing up a new Defence Investment Agency with similar ambitions and will likely be using key financing arms to direct more venture capital to defence, space and other strategic security needs.

Secondly, we’re seeing much more assertive and strategic approaches to procurement, including indications from some key allies to create strategic reserves of critical minerals, secure supply chains for energy infrastructure and strategic offtake agreements.

Thirdly, we have seen nations explore new ways to use their collective balance sheets. Here’s one example: RBC is one of 10 global banks that is helping to stand up a new entity called the Defense, Security and Resilience Bank, to facilitate capital expenditures across the defense industry–some of which could conceivably be earmarked for energy and mineral development.

This is all part of a new chapter of what some might call state capitalism—or at least the economically activist state. This will be important for the G7+ and others to, at least, monitor, if not coordinate. Especially in terms of how markets across our countries can align and connect to facilitate new capital flows to these growing strategic imperatives.

Governments can also bridge market failures specific to regulatory uncertainties, demand and financing of first-of-a-kind projects. They can procure, finance and invest.

For example, U.S. Defense Procurement Act Title 3 allows for funding of critical minerals. Here in Canada, public entities like the Canada Infrastructure Bank and Canada Growth Fund can be used to help build out the dual use infrastructure of energy, minerals and defence.

The same opportunity exists for business development banks and export finance agencies across the G7+, to help underwrite the risks of new energy ventures as part of a bigger security strategy. It’s these new approaches to finance—ideally through public and private sector cooperation—that can unleash new waves of capital for this new imperative of energy security.

And do it with Silicon Valley speed.

Consider this: In 2022, climate tech private equity and venture capital outraised defense tech at a scale of 7:1. In 2025, the two are essentially even. I think we can all guess how 2026 is shaping up.

For emerging climate tech ventures, tapping into this new paradigm of defence and security capital may be key to the next few years of global innovation. There isn’t time to wait to see how it plays out. Technology is moving fast. Geopolitics are shifting. And a new map of global security is taking shape. Energy and critical minerals will be the ink on that map, and the G7—and the innovators in this room—have the chance to help draw it.

John Stackhouse is Senior Vice President, Office of the CEO, at RBC, and a senior fellow at the Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy at the University of Toronto.

WP Menu

wp-menu

Hot takes

➔ The IEA has tempered Canada’s renewable energy growth forecast. The International Energy Agency’s latest report still expects Canada to add 21 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity by 2030, almost double the growth of the previous six years, mainly in onshore wind and utility-scale solar PV. However, that’s an 11% decline from the IEA forecast from last year. Ongoing grid challenges and policy and regulatory changes in Alberta were among the key reasons for the IEA pulling back its forecast. It’s a major reversal elsewhere too, with the U.S. and China—the world’s two largest renewable energy markets—facing slower growth amid policy shifts, supply chain vulnerabilities and financing pressures.

➔ Can Canada attract H1-B visa types that are no longer welcome in the U.S. For all the talk of Canada capitalizing on U.S.’s visa snarls to attract the world’s brightest and smartest comes a sobering stat: it takes 53 months for Canada to issue a Start-Up Visa (SUV). A new Betakit study shows that the decade-old program has been facing several challenges, while the government has also slowed the process as part of a wider immigration slowdown. Getting some of the world’s smartest climate, cleantech and innovative minds would require some quick thinking—and processing—from policymakers.

➔ David Greybeard made Jane Goodall. The chimpanzee, with the silver facial hair, was the first animal conservationist Goodall saw using tools and eating meat—sparking a lifelong quest by the conservationist in her pursuit of a greener and richly-biodiverse Earth. She anthropomorphized animals (pointedly rejecting the established practice of using numbers to identify animals by naming Greybeard and his family). By making it personal, Goodall—who died last week, aged 91—lifted them up and, through the Goodall Institute saved countless (though not nameless) species. Goodall was ahead of the curve, but her focus on nature is finally gaining traction.

➔ Further reading: Unearthing Value: How nature can play a critical role in pro-growth agendas – RBC

Cultivating the next generation of Ag innovators

Canada’s agriculture sector has all the ingredients to be the best in the world—productive soils, temperate climate, advanced on-farm mechanization, and a growing agri-food manufacturing sector. But capitalizing on the moment, won’t be easy, according to a new RBC Thought Leadership report . The sector has struggled to attract the right mix of talent and maintain the level of investment in R&D that is required to remain a global leader.

Research by Lisa Ashton, Director of Agriculture Policy, highlights the scale of the challenge:

  • Canadian agriculture has immense potential, but the innovation curve may be slowing down. Canada is home to some of the world’s most productive soils and innovative farmers. But agriculture’s annual growth in productivity has declined to about 1% over the past decade from 2% the previous decade, suggesting that few breakthrough innovations are making it to farms.

  • The sector is not attracting enough talent. Job vacancy rates are 1.5% above the national average. Less than 1% of STEM and business graduates, who play increasingly important roles on the modern farm, are choosing occupations in agriculture.

  • The research and development system is becoming less diverse. Public investment in agriculture knowledge generation, which includes R&D, has declined by 15% since 2010. Private sector outsourced R&D to universities is down 77% over the past five years. And the number of enterprises conducting R&D in the past decade has shrunk by 29%.

  • Other countries are pulling ahead. Canada has fallen behind Australia, the U.S., Japan, and Brazil in public investment in agriculture knowledge generation. Home-grown agriculture commercialization is in a slump as the country’s trade balances grow in innovation areas including agriculture chemicals, fertilizers, and services.

  • Commercialization of agriculture solutions are headed south. Investment in American agri-food technology startups has been 22 times larger than Canada’s over the past 5 years. The outsized market for investment in the U.S. is pulling Canadian innovation south for capital, mentorship, and market application.

To address the agriculture skills gap, RBC launched an investment initiative in Winnipeg today to help cultivate the next generation of Canadian farming. Introduced alongside Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew, RBC Generate was launched with a $5 million, five-year investment in agriculture in the Prairies with plans to expand through programming delivered as part of a national movement with farmers, The Canadian Alliance for Net-Zero Agri-food (CANZA) Nature United, Sustainable Food Systems for Canada (SF4C) and Indigenous sustainable farming initiatives.

NUCLEAR

SMRs: Small but mighty

RBC Thought Leadership’s Vivan Sorab moderated a panel on Tripling Nuclear Power by 2050: The Role of SMRs in Achieving Global Energy Goals at the SMR Forum in Edmonton last week.

Joined by Atkins Realis Carl Marcotte, Terrestrial Energy’s William (Bill) Smith, GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy’s Lisa McBride, and George Christidis from the Canadian Nuclear Association, the panel explored the role of SMRs and Canada’s advantages. Here are some of the key takeaways:

  • Collaboration is Canada’s competitive advantage: Ontario has taken the lead, commencing construction of the G7’s first grid scale SMR, and has brought together government, utilities, the Canadian nuclear supply chain, and academics to build Canada’s first new nuclear plant in 3 decades. As provinces outside of Canada’s existing nuclear provinces consider nuclear for the first time, building on this collaboration will be key to success.

  • Canada must seize the opportunity: With initiatives like Canada’s SMR Roadmap and first-mover advantage on SMR construction, Canada has positioned itself as a leader in next-generation nuclear. But with competition from the U.S. and other countries heating up, Canada must act fast to maintain its lead and ensure that its SMR expertise enables energy security and decarbonization globally. More synergy between the federal and provincial governments will be critical.

  • Investment must grow: Canada’s future nuclear fleet will need new investment to sustain a growing supply chain, a next-generation workforce, and the skilled tradespeople needed to build new reactors.

  • SMRs have a big price tag. The Ontario Power Generation’s four SMRs at Darlington with a capacity of 300-magawatt are expected to cost $20.9 billion. That compares to the 377-megawatt natural gas-fired power station in Saskatchewan carrying a price tag of $825 million. While SMRs can have geostrategic value, they will still need to compete with gas, hydro and bigger nuclear plants to attract capital.

  • Indigenous communities are front and centre: New nuclear projects will not succeed without placing indigenous communities at the forefront. Engagement must be early and projects must enable indigenous participation and equity.

Curated by Yadullah Hussain, Managing Editor, RBC Climate Action Institute.

Climate Crunch would not be possible without John Stackhouse, Jordan Brennan, John Intini, Farhad Panahov, Lisa Ashton, Shaz Merwat, Vivan Sorab, Caprice Biasoni, Lavanya Kaleeswaran and Joelle Schonberg .

Have a comment, commendation, or umm, criticism? Write to me here (yadullahhussain@rbc.com)

Climate Crunch Newsletter

WP Menu

wp-menu

Key takeaways

  • Canadian agriculture has immense potential but an innovation drain is slowing it down. Canada is home to some of the world’s most productive soils and innovative farmers. But agriculture’s annual growth in productivity has declined to about 1% over the past decade from 2% the previous decade, suggesting that few breakthrough innovations are making it to farms.

  • The sector is not attracting enough talent. Job vacancy rates are 1.5% above the national average. Less than 1% of STEM and business graduates, who play increasingly important roles on the modern farm, are choosing occupations in agriculture.

  • The research and development system is becoming less diverse. Public investment in agriculture knowledge generation, which includes R&D, has declined by 15% since 2010. Private sector outsourced R&D to universities is down 77% over the past five years. And the number of enterprises conducting R&D in the past decade has shrunk by 29%.

  • Other countries are pulling ahead. Canada has fallen behind Australia, the U.S., Japan, and Brazil in public investment in agriculture knowledge generation. Home-grown agriculture commercialization is in a slump as the country’s trade balances grow in innovation areas including agriculture chemicals, fertilizers, and services.

  • Commercialization of agriculture solutions are headed south. Investment in American agri-food technology startups has been 22 times larger than Canada’s over the past 5 years. The outsized market for investment in the U.S. is pulling Canadian innovation south for capital, mentorship, and market application.

Canada’s agriculture sector has all the ingredients to be the best in the world—productive soils, temperate climate, advanced on-farm mechanization, and a growing agri-food manufacturing sector. The size of the opportunity for Canada really comes into focus when you consider the scale of production as a breadbasket to the world, rapid development of digital tools, which are transforming every aspect of farming, and growing access to expand in high-potential export markets, most notably in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.

Capitalizing on this moment, however, won’t be easy. Productivity has been steadily declining in recent years.1 And the sector has struggled to attract the right mix of talent and maintain the level of investment in R&D that is required to remain a global leader. Addressing these challenges as the sector undergoes a generational shift is not only essential for strengthening the resilience and competitiveness of Canadian agriculture but also for advancing the country’s broader pro-growth ambitions. It can unlock new economic opportunities, keep innovation within Canada’s borders, and position the country as a global leader in sustainable, high-quality agri-food production. But Canada needs a gameplan. One that starts with a strategy that sets the next generation of agriculture leaders up for success.

Shrinking the talent gap

The Canadian agriculture sector needs more diverse, highly qualified talent to innovate. Job vacancy rates in the sector have been, on average, 1.5% higher than national vacancy rates over the past 10 years.2 And it’s only getting worse. The Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council estimates that the sector’s domestic labour gap could grow to more than 100,000 by 2030.3 And that’s before 40% of Canadian farmers hit retirement age by 2033.4 Not everyone will call it quits, of course, but there is no doubt that the sector is on the verge of a massive shift.

From a technological standpoint, it already is. Advanced technology—automated tractor steering and animal feeding, robotic milkers, and GIS for soil mapping—is commonplace on today’s Canadian farms. And it’s big business. The number of farmers reporting annual revenues over $1 million has grown year-over-year since 2015, up 67% in 2023.5

Automation demands diversified skills: Farmers remain the cornerstone of the sector, but the industry needs new skills to embrace the technological revolution that’s underway. All kinds of professions—from engineers and data scientists to marketers and business administrators—play crucial roles. The Conference Board of Canada revealed that 1 in 3 jobs in agriculture could be automated in the next decade.6 This suggests an opportunity to mitigate the projected exponential growth in the on-farm labour gaps, but demands more STEM-trained talent applying their expertise to agriculture.

And yet, attracting diverse, highly qualified talent, has proven challenging.

The talent pool is shrinking: In 1931, 1 in 3 Canadians were part of the farm population; in 2021, it was 1 in 61—or 1.6% of the country’s population.7 While a testament to advances in production systems and technology, it is also a barrier to attracting talent. While younger generations in the farm population are more likely drawn to agriculture careers, there’s a need to attract a new talent pool. But many Canadians with engineering, business and computer science degrees are unaware that the sector needs their skills. If Canadians are not exposed to, for example, how engineering, business and computer science is applied to the agriculture sector via robotics, the operating of multi-million-dollar farming businesses or creating soil-health monitoring software, it is unlikely those with that skillset will consider growing their careers in the sector.

For proof, look no further than postsecondary enrollment. Agriculture and natural resources are the second smallest field of study in Canada, only ahead of personal improvement and leisure.8 And those with agriculture-focused diplomas and degrees in the workforce are concentrated in general agriculture and production (32%), horticulture business and services (19%), veterinary technician, administration, and medicine (18%) and food, plant and animal sciences (18%).9

Agriculture grads are not landing in increasingly influential professions such as policy, data, trades and finance. These occupation fields have an important role in managing risks for agriculture but less than 1.5% in each field have some form of agriculture-focused post-secondary training.10 That’s a missed opportunity for entrepreneurial activity in applying data and computer scientist, finance, and trade technician skills to unlock new ways to approach farm management, automation, and financial capital in agriculture.

A path forward

Creating more experiential and workplace learning opportunities for students is one way to break down silos when it comes to fields of study, attract those from outside of agriculture disciplines, and build up Canada’s agriculture talent pool.  

Collaboration across faculties on college and university campuses might be one place to start to offer students more diverse courses and experiences that are not conventionally born from agriculture departments. For example, Olds College, a uniquely agriculture focused institute in Alberta, offers programs in digital agriculture that includes a wide range of courses, including plant science and data management and analytics. Creating cross-disciplinary hubs also provide a centralized place to expose students to new skills and tools like the University of Guelph’s AI for Food, an AI and data hub for agri-food.

But to truly advance student exposure, non-agriculture institutions should consider doing more to connect students to career opportunities in agriculture. This requires fostering academic and industry relationships that could be catalyzed by non-agriculture academics attending existing agriculture conferences that typically only attract delegates from within the sector to learn about the opportunities for their students.

Curating workplace placements in agriculture would give students not enrolled in agriculture degrees a first-hand look at the sector’s career path potential. Greater work placement opportunities require greater engagement from the sector, which is important especially important at a time when disruptive technologies like AI are reducing entry level jobs. Sector engagement could build upon successful programs like the Youth Employment and Skills Program (YESP). Training and youth experience programs like YESP could also consider developing STEM, business or sustainability recruiting streams for youth that directly respond to skills demanded in the sector.

CASE STUDY

Diversifying delivery—Network approach to upskilling agriculture’s talent pool

Sustainable Food Systems for Canada’s (SF4C) approach is leveraging a network of education institutions to deliver experiential learning for the next generation.

Kick-started by a federal research grant, SF4C is an agri-food training-and-innovation platform designed to connect learners inside and outside of agriculture fields of study and occupations to agri-innovation skills that the sector needs to grow. Launched in 2025, the pan-Canadian network includes 13 universities and colleges, Indigenous organizations, incubators, and industry innovation groups to offer the following:

  • Skills: Training of thousands of highly skilled, job-ready professionals by offering workplace experience and interdisciplinary training in agri-food innovation through upskilling platforms like micro-credentials.

  • Collaboration: Enabling cross-sectoral partnerships by creating a one-stop shop for participants to engage and use experiential learning and collaboration spaces that attract stakeholders for hackathons, pitch contests and design jams.

  • Mentoring: Reduces the “valley of death” in agri-food innovation by preparing start-ups for already-existing incubator and accelerator programs. Provides mentorship, connections to funding opportunities, and commercialization support to would-be entrepreneurs as they prepare to raise funds and pitch incubators and accelerators.

The network approach is pooling resources to reduce duplication in Canada’s agri-food training and is working to provide Canadians with real world experiences in agriculture.

Re-energizing research & development

Canadian agri-food R&D has sparked innovations that have reached billions: the Spartan apple, canola, and Yukon Gold potatoes, to name a few. It’s also made the country a global leader in transformative development such as greenhouse tomato production, animal genetics and welfare, and largescale grain production. But dwindling investment in R&D and roadblocks across the innovation pipeline has diminished the sector’s competitive edge. As a result, startups are leaving Canada, often going to the U.S., for funding and to test their innovations. And multinational agribusinesses are moving their R&D investments aboard.

Agriculture knowledge is in freefall: Investment in R&D is critical to sparking innovation and attracting talent. Canada’s federal, provincial, and territorial governments have boosted investment by $500 million for the current agriculture policy framework, Sustainable Canadian Agriculture Partnership (SCAP) (2023-2028), which is a five-year $3.5 billion funding pack. Still, Canada’s public investment in R&D has been in decline. According to OECD, agriculture knowledge generation has dropped by 15% over 10 yearsa.11 Meanwhile, Australia, Brazil, and the U.S. have seen an uptick in public spending. Canada’s federal investment in agriculture science and innovation is projected to decline even further, down 12% between now and 2027.12 These cuts challenge the government’s ability to participate in networks of R&D institutes and build impactful public-private partnerships.

Government support for commercializing R&D in agriculture is shrinking under its science and innovation portfolio. AgriInnovate, the federal program for targeted agriculture commercialization, has contracted 42% from $165 million (2013–2018) to $95 million (2023–2028).13

Private funding is changing: There is also a growing divide between industry and academia, as businesses have reduced their outsourced R&D funding to universities. And private investment for in-house research is also changing. While Canadian-owned agriculture companies continue to increase in-house R&D investment, up from $101 million in 2018 to $120 million in 2023, international companies investing in in-house agriculture R&D in Canada dropped from $60 million in 2018 to $40 million in 2023.14

Strong innovation hubs are often defined by clusters of universities, colleges, businesses and governments that collaborate along the innovation cycle—from idea generation to growth.15 In Canada, the prospects of building these hubs for agriculture are deteriorating, with the number of enterprises conducting agriculture-focused R&D down 29% over the past 10 years.16

Canada is not the first place innovators trial solutions: Over the past decade, Canada has fallen from third among all countries in agri-food technology investment value to tenth.17 18 Canada has the tools to fast-track R&D commercialization, but they are being under-utilized. These include mechanisms like the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO)’s Green Technologies Program, which can be used to position Canada as a strong competitor in agriculture technology. While this program’s utilization remains low, patents have a higher grant rate of 95% relative to 69% for standard patent applications.19 This is a potential competitive advantage for Canada in agriculture technologies that contribute to positive environmental outcomes as the United States Patent and Trademark Office terminates its Climate Change Mitigation Pilot Program. Yet, Canada has a steep hill to climb, as it’s not in the top five countries for filing patents in the top agriculture technology subdomains: Pest and disease management, crop adaptation and genetics, smart farming (e.g., sensors), livestock management, and mapping and imagery.20 Canada’s time to market for agriculture innovations would need to be addressed to attract more investment and Canada-based R&D, as Canada’s trade deficit across pesticides and agriculture chemicals has grown by 159% over the past 10 years.21

R&D incentives are not as lucrative as others in the OECD: Canada has strong tax incentives for R&D investments as a percentage of GDP, ranking 9th in the OECD. But when looking across its suite of R&D incentives, it’s lacking platforms for transformative match funding, ranking 23rd for direct R&D spending as a percentage of GDP among OECD nations.22 Programs that have cost-share funding opportunities for R&D and commercialization exist, including AgriScience and AgriInnovation. But generally, budget cuts, inefficiencies in program delivery, and some mismatch between research priorities and industry demand, risk underdelivering innovation.23

A path forward

Foster an outcome-driven approach to boosting private demand for Canada-made agriculture R&D and commercialization. One option is to prioritize agriculture as a pilot sector under the forthcoming Canada Innovation Corporation (CIC). Prioritizing agriculture, which has a clear problem in innovation characterized by lacking R&D spending and commercialization, could be a business case for the rest of Canada on how to streamline and reorientate a sector’s approach to R&D to focus on delivering applicable results for the industry and the wider economy. 

CASE STUDY

Embracing a commercial approach to leverage funds

GrowAG, AgriFutures’ digital platform is a centralized place to connect and invest in agri-innovation projects in Australia.

AgriFutures Australia is a centralized research and development institute with a mandate to leverage public and private funding—combining funds from industry taxes, government contributions, and private investments. It has a distinct mandate to serve the R&D needs of both specific levied industries and entirely new agricultural sectors. The unique positioning allows it to act as a catalyst for future industry growth, a function that is often fragmented across multiple organizations in other countries.

AgriFuture’s GrowAG platform helps address fragmentation in agriculture innovation by creating a one-stop shop of research projects, funding opportunities, startups, and new collaboration opportunities – streamlining access to opportunities for those looking to partner in R&D, commercialization and company growth.

The GrowAG platform is an innovation “gateway” that not only provides a clearing house service for domestic investors, researchers and start-ups but it also provides global users with a clear path to identify opportunities to invest in Australia’s agriculture innovation.

The people that make up Canada’s agriculture sector are champions of it. But the sector needs to raise its profile to emerge as a viable and desirable place to innovate and build careers.

Boosting engagement among young Canadians could give the agriculture sector a jolt of innovation as new blood enters the workforce and positions the sector as a renewed international force in agriculture talent, ideas and production.

Download the report

Authors

Lisa Ashton, Director of Agriculture Policy, RBC Thought Leadership

Tenille Bonoguore, Strategic, Initiatives Lead, Arrell Food Institute at the University of Guelph

Evan Fraser, Professor and Director, Arrell Food Institute at the University of Guelph

Our project partner

WP Menu

wp-menu

A COP28 declaration by 25 countries in 2023 to triple nuclear capacity by 2050 sets the stage for a new race to deploy nuclear power. Several structural shifts have only accelerated that momentum, driven by nuclear’s competitive advantage to power artificial intelligence data centres and advanced manufacturing, and the criticality of energy security in a changing geopolitical order.

Where does Canada stand in a world that is re-embracing nuclear power?

Canada has a window of opportunity but must race to capture it. Its key advantages are its first-mover status on the construction of a grid-scale Small Modular Reactor (SMR) just east of Toronto and an 80-year track record as a formidable civil nuclear power.

Expected to come online by 2030, the SMR power plant in Darlington is Canada’s first new reactor in three decades and has the potential to power 300,000 homes. Crucially, it showcases Ontario’s nuclear prowess, paving the way for its operational and supply-chain expertise to power grids from Saskatchewan to Tennessee to Poland.

But competitors are also on the move. The Trump administration’s Nuclear Reactor Pilot Program aims to have at least three advanced nuclear test reactors achieve an advanced stage by the summer of 2026. China’s SMR program is also advancing, with the demonstration project of its domestic ACP-100 design achieving new construction milestones in 2025.

RBC Thought Leadership’s Vivan Sorab moderates a panel – The Role of SMRs in a Global Tripling of Nuclear Capacity – at the Canadian Association of Small Modular Reactors SMR Forum 2025 in Edmonton.

Canada’s continued success hinges on it bolstering its nuclear sector to deliver new capacity for power and non-power applications, and strengthening fuel supply for tomorrow’s nuclear fleet.

Here’s what’s needed for Canada to succeed:

Anchor nuclear fuel supply around Canadian uranium. Potential reductions in secondary uranium supplies and the emergence of SMRs in the 2030s and 2040s will reconfigure nuclear fuel supply chains, increasing the need for uranium concentrate, conversion, enrichment, and fuel fabrication services. Canada’s world-class uranium deposits and its expertise in uranium milling and conversion are key advantages, and can help anchor a North American—and global—nuclear fuel supply chain.

Collaborate with the U.S. to unlock continental nuclear energy security. Lessons from decades of U.S. operational experience in boiling water reactors (BWR) will be invaluable as Canada constructs its first SMR—based on a BWR design—at the Darlington New Nuclear Project. As a first-mover in SMR construction and deployment, Canadian expertise will be critical to the success of similar U.S. SMR projects when they commence construction and move into operation.

Build investor confidence. Construction risks have hindered private sector participation in new nuclear reactor financing. Successfully translating Ontario’s success in nuclear refurbishment into new reactor construction will be critical to increasing investor confidence in SMRs, though government support—especially in smaller jurisdictions—will remain important. 

Nurture Indigenous engagement and equity. Engagement with Indigenous communities is critical for new nuclear projects. That includes raising technology awareness and buy-in from communities where nuclear power has never been built before, but also giving them a stake in the project through jobs, training and equity opportunities.

Vivan Sorab is Senior Manager of Clean Technology, RBC Thought Leadership