Skip to main content

Canada’s prosperity depends on how efficiently it can move goods to market — yet its largest ports have fallen behind the world’s best. With global trade accelerating and supply chains under pressure, Roberts Bank Terminal 2 represents a generational investment in Canada’s competitiveness.

In this episode, Peter Xotta, CEO of the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, Devan Fitch, the project’s Program Director, and Tamara Vrooman, CEO of the Vancouver Airport Authority, join John Stackhouse to discuss how this long-planned expansion will bring new automation, capacity, and environmental innovation to Canada’s Pacific Gateway. Together, they explore how smart infrastructure and strong partnerships can secure Canada’s trade future — sustainably and sovereignty.

Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Simplecast

Port to Prosperity: How Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Is Rebuilding Canada’s Pacific Gateway

Tamara Vrooman: Canada is a country with a large geography, but a small population and so we literally need connectivity and transportation infrastructure to make our country work, and we certainly need that infrastructure to connect our country to the world. Global trade will need reliability. The supply chain disruptions that we have seen as a result of global conflict, pandemic, economic disruption, climate occurrences, that resilience is the name of the game. And so being able to confidently ensure that goods can move through a variety of circumstances is going to be the thing that allows, uh, different jurisdictions to win.

John Stackhouse: Hi, it’s John here, and that’s Tamara Vrooman. CEO of YVR or Vancouver International Airport. It’s one of the world’s top ranked airports giving us her bird’s eye view on Canada’s global trade position.

Tamara Vrooman: So we start with a position of advantage in terms of Asia Pacific trade and traffic. We have the country’s largest port, the country’s second largest international airport, and our proximity to the US border

John Stackhouse: Aounds pretty good so far, but how do we ensure that? As Tamara puts it, we win.

Tamara Vrooman: We need to ensure that we have multimodal access so that if one mode is constrained, another mode can be activated. Our goal is to move faster and more resiliently to more diversified markets. In order to do that, we have the component parts. They’re just not integrated in the way that they could be to allow for that speed and resilience that the international trade market is going to demand.

John Stackhouse: I’m John Stackhouse. Welcome to Disruptors the Canada Project. This season we’re crisscrossing the country to meet the leaders and innovators, making bold moves at a pivotal moment for the country when the shifting tides of trade are forcing us to look both inward and outward to prepare for what’s ahead. Speaking of Tides, today’s destination is British Columbia. It’s the Pacific Gateway. Home to our largest Tidewater shipping ports and for generations, a vital link to our trading partners across the globe. Every day, thousands of ships move across the world’s oceans, and they’re getting bigger. The newest container vessels are more than 400 meters.  That’s four football fields from bow to stern, making them among the largest moving structures ever built. And Canada’s largest port is simply not equipped to receive them. These ships are changing the math of global trade, and if we can’t fit them into our ports, they’re going to go south for Canada.

John Stackhouse: The simple question is, can we keep up? The Vancouver Fraser Port Authority is poised to break ground on a massive new project years in the making. It’s called the Roberts Bank Terminal two or T two. Before we get to how this project is going to happen. Let’s start with the why. We’re walking along Barard Inlet in downtown Vancouver. This area is so rich with natural resources, mountains, forests, oceans. It’s also an incredible hive of human and commercial activity.

John Stackhouse: Devan, we’re staring at a mountain of shipping containers, many of them destined for inland Canada. This port seems like it’s at capacity. Is that correct?

Devan Fitch: Yeah, we’re the size of the next five largest Canadian ports combined in terms of the amount of commodities that we move, uh, through the port of Vancouver.  You know, on the container sector, we are fast running outta capacity and we are forecasting to be short by the year 2030. And if we look at the container ship that’s right in front of us, that’s about a nine and a half thousand TEU ships. So those 20-foot equivalent units, those are those containers on board. We need to accommodate ships that are much, much bigger than that. We’re talking about 24,000 TEU so over double the size of that container ship. The terminals that we’re looking at right here, they were also built many decades ago, and they just don’t simply have the birth depth that’s required. You couldn’t pull up next to the container terminal because it’s just gonna bottom out on the, on the birth face there.

John Stackhouse: So best to keep those large ships away from the downtown core and bring the containers in it by rail. But even then. We’re gonna have a lot of ship traffic out, uh, in the waters with very big ships. Yes. How many more ships can we accommodate?

Devan Fitch: Well, that’s the funny thing about the trade through the Port of Vancouver, we’ve had a significant increase in container trade over the last two decades. So about 4% increase per year. 11% increase, uh, 2024 relative to 2023. And we’ve achieved that not by having more ships. But by having bigger ships with a higher percentage of the cans on board being pulled off or put on at Vancouver. And so that’s a trend that we see continuing into the future. So it’s not about more ships, it’s about much bigger ships coming.

Devan Fitch: And if we want to attract those shipping lines and be able to move Canada’s products and avoid having Canadian trade moving through US ports, we need to build big and we need to build now to accommodate that and attract that.

John Stackhouse: So the port in Burrard Inlet, its Vancouver’s inner Harbor, is already at its limits. Fortunately, Canada’s next chapter of trade is being expanded about 35 kilometers southwest at the mouth of the Fraser River Delta lies Roberts bank. It’s where the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority plans to build T2. Devan Fitch has spent years advancing the project. So after our walk, I sat down to pick his brain about what it takes to get something of this scale off the ground. Tell us first how you got into infrastructure and ports more specifically.

Devan Fitch: I started off as an engineer designing bridges and decided that I didn’t want to focus all my time working with computers, figuring out how much steel to put in a concrete column, and then moved over to, uh, project delivery. So that was a role with the local municipality here, figuring out where do we place bridges, not just how much steel do we put in a bridge, but where should it be? How do we marry the interest of community, the economic considerations? And through that was exposed to transportation more generally. And uh, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority seemed like an excellent marriage of commercial competitiveness, operating uh, in competition with other ports and serving the public good as well with public infrastructure.

John Stackhouse: Most Canadians probably take the Port of Vancouver for granted, even though wherever you are in the country, if you look around at least some of the stuff in your life, pass through this port.  Give us a sense, Devan, of the magnitude of the Port of Vancouver and what it means to the Canadian economy.

Devan Fitch: I think the, the simplest way to wrap your mind around that is that if you take out of the equation all of the trade that we do with the US and you think about the trade that we do with the rest of the world, $1 in every $3 of trade passes through the port of Vancouver that’s supporting businesses right across Canada, consumers, right across Canada. We happen to be located in Vancouver, but we are very much Canada’s port.

John Stackhouse: As I understand it, the Port of Vancouver is the size nearly of the next five biggest ports in the country. So, it is by far the biggest, and Roberts Bank will enable it to grow by another 30%, is that correct?

Devan Fitch: Yeah, it’s somewhere between 20 and 30% depending on the, on the basis that you take.

John Stackhouse: So just what does 30% bigger actually mean in terms of new infrastructure? I asked Devin to give us some idea of the size of the place.

Devan Fitch: It’s a proposed new 2.4 million TEU, so 20 uh, foot equivalent unit container capacity terminal that in one fell swoop will increase capacity on the west coast of Canada by approximately one third.  It’ll allowed 135 hectares of, uh, new waterfront trade, enabling industrial land in one of the most industrial land constrained regions of North America. To give you a sense of scale of T two, I can’t help myself. Uh, 12 million cubic meters of sand and 4 million cubic meters of manufactured rock. And to put that in perspective, uh, on the sand side, that’s about, uh, 2,500 Olympic sized swimming pools.

John Stackhouse: Sounds enormous, but how does it compare to the world’s mega ports?

Devan Fitch: It’s big for Canada. It is modest in size and scale as you compare to some of the, the, the largest ports around the world in Asia and, and, and Europe. But certainly, a step function increase for for Canada. And, and, and our hope is that it’s the first step of, of us having more ambition to get big projects built, uh, where we both protect the environment and support the economy.

Devan Fitch: It will provide capacity to move a hundred billion dollar’s worth of trade goods every single year and support over 17,000 supply chain jobs across the nation.

John Stackhouse: Give us a sense of how the port business is transforming and what opportunities there may be for Canada to move up in the competition leagues.

Devan Fitch: Right now the world’s biggest container ships are about 24,000 foot equivalent units. They’re applying their trade from Asia to Europe, and we see shipping lines cascading those large ships onto the North American, uh, roots as they age. And so we’re expecting as we move forward to see a significant increase in the size of ships, calling it the Port of Vancouver.Right now the average size is around 10,000 TEU and we’re building Roberts bank terminal two to futureproof it to be able to accommodate ships as large as 24,000 TEU.

John Stackhouse: So those giant ships that we probably see on YouTube, uh, that seem mind-boggling yes. Uh, are largely for Asia to Europe, and now they’re gonna be deployed more to Asia, to North America.

Devan Fitch: Yeah. Over time, because the volumes of trade are highest on that Asia to Europe, uh, route because of the, the population centers and density. Then as ships age, they move them off that route over to the North American route. But as demand grows and shipping lines look to achieve economies of scale, those bigger and larger ships are gonna start coming to the west coast of North America, and we need to enable that.

John Stackhouse: Devan sees building the infrastructure to receive these new mega ships as nothing short of a critical nation building project.

Devan Fitch: We are literally building more Canada and we need to build it at a size and scale that is competitive and attractive on a global stage. Canadian consumers benefit because we’ve got an efficient supply chain bringing those goods in a cost effective way, and our exporters that are looking to get Canadian products on those ships heading back to Asia, have access to those containers. If we don’t build that infrastructure, those shipping lines are gonna look to go to other ports potentially in the us and I don’t think it takes much imagination to picture the consequences of having Canadian trade dependent on US ports given today’s climate.

John Stackhouse: Fair point. So now that Devon’s explained the why, I wanted to get the answers to questions like, how are we going to get this built and where exactly are we going to fit this giant terminal Roberts bank?

Devan Fitch: The proposed site for T2 sits just outside Vancouver in a sensitive coastal estuary. If you zoomed out on the west coast of Canada and you had to decide where would be the most appropriate place to put a container terminal, it’s right down in this Roberts bank area. It’s very close to deep sea shipping lanes. It has excellent, uh, railway service, highway roadway service. It’s got a population center that can provide labor, but that it isn’t so close that it’s located in this dense urban core. There are no bridges that ships need to pass under. It just so happens that that area is also one of Canada’s most diverse and rich ecological systems across the nation.  And so for us, when we look at trying to build a really big project that quite frankly, again, Canada hasn’t had the appetite to build a marine infrastructure project of this nature for several decades. We need to marry. How do you get a big project like that built in a cost effective way? While maintaining compliance and protection of the environment and considering the needs and interests of local First Nations.

Devan Fitch: So bringing that all together to deliver a project on time within budget that’s cost competitive to attract the terminal infrastructure investment that’s top of mind for us.

John Stackhouse: No easy feat, especially when you, uh, suggest it has to be done on time and on budget. What are some of the ambitions for the terminal that Canadians may want to appreciate?

Devan Fitch: Well, this terminal, once complete, will have the deepest berths of any container terminal on the west coast of Canada. It’s also gonna have significant on dock railway service. A, a big component of Canada’s competitive advantage is those class one railways that provide access from the water’s edge all the way through Canada to those deep population centers.

John Stackhouse: You’ll have to do some dredging to make, uh, more space for the ships. What’s required in this day and age to dredge, especially in an ecologically sensitive area like this?

Devan Fitch: Yeah. So just to give a sense of scale, um, the existing kind of births at the Port of Vancouver are up 15 meters deep out at Roberts Bank. We need to be over 18 meters deep for the birth face. But we need to also dredge, um, uh, 10 meters below that roughly to put in a layer of mattress rock to sit underneath these giant concrete caissons. These caissons are huge. They’re about the size of an eight-story apartment building, and there’s 32 of them that we’ve gotta float over and sink to create this, uh, this birth face.  And so for us, you know, considering the size and scale, uh, but also the environmental sensitivities, uh, we are working with Canadian scientists and, uh, engineering consultancies to come up with novel technologies to monitor in real time the presence of, um, species such as Echelon, uh, also known as Candlefish.  Very high significance and importance to local first Nations.

John Stackhouse: Incidentally, they’re called candlefish for a reason. They’re so oily. A dried one can literally burn like a candle. When they return to spawn, they bring a powerful pulse of nutrients to the rivers, feeding all kinds of other creatures like seals, eagles, and bears.

John Stackhouse: The Port of Vancouver has had to get creative to protect this keystone species. They’re actively networking with local tech companies to develop and deploy new underwater technology to keep tabs on them. So yes, they’re tiny fish, but they matter.

Devan Fitch: As we’re dredging, we can monitor in real time for the presence of Echelon and slow down or stop when they come in close proximity. Now, it’s critically important that we get that technology right because I’m sure you can imagine the cost and schedule impacts of false positives. Slowing down production on a big project like this. So trying to deploy new novel technology. Um, it might sound simple. It sounds like a fish finder that you get on a recreational fishing boat, but it’s a fish finder on steroids and it’s a new technology that hasn’t been deployed for real time monitoring before.  So that’s a first for us and a, and a first for the industry.

John Stackhouse: And a great opportunity for Canada to develop these sorts of technologies that we can then export to other ports, but other use cases around the world.

Devan Fitch: Yeah, we’re, we’re certainly prioritizing made in Canada products, um, Canadian businesses to trial and deploy these technologies, uh, on T two and it’s certainly, we will certainly do moving forward as well.

John Stackhouse: So besides developing new technology for fish monitoring, what else is support doing to ensure First nations and environmental issues are considered?

Devan Fitch: We’ve worked in close collaboration with First Nations for well over a decade. Unfortunately, it’s taken Canada over a decade to, to give regulatory federal environmental approval of the project.  We started around 2013 and, got that approval in 2023. One of the most robust environmental approval processes ever undertaken in Canada. As part of that process, we consulted with over 51st Nations and, uh, secured the consent of 27 First Nations through, uh, mutual benefit agreements. And so through the planning, uh, for the design of the terminal and then also the approach to construction, we’ve incorporated indigenous knowledge to work together with what we call western science to come up with, um, a approaches to construction, approaches to monitoring of key species.  That, uh, recognizes the importance of this environment to First Nations and to mitigate and, um, uh, manage the construction of a very large infrastructure project in a very, I’d say, sensitive and important, uh, diverse ecosystem.

John Stackhouse: Another key issue for the port is turnaround time. The longer it takes to load or unload, the less profitable the product.

John Stackhouse: Devan sees the T2 facility as a chance to streamline operations. He says Canada needs to boost port efficiency and capacity, and we need to do it fast.

Devan Fitch: If we look at the time horizon, you know, we’ll start construction in 2028. That terminal won’t be operational to 2035. That’s five years late relative to Canada’s need. Canada is projected to run out of container capacity in 2030. So the question isn’t, will we run outta capacity? It’s how long will we be short of capacity, and how problematic will that be for the supply chain?

John Stackhouse: It’s concerning that we’re going to have at least a five year gap between when we hit capacity and when more capacity comes on.  What might the consequences of that be? What do we need to think through in the interim?

Devan Fitch: Yeah, I, I, I would say that, you know, the supply chain crisis that we had, the pandemic, I should say, that we had a few years ago is unfortunately a bit of a, I would say, a data point of what we can expect. So Canadian businesses are gonna, need to start to look at ordering ahead of time, looking at resiliency in their supply chains. And so for us as a port authority, our focus is on what can we do to accelerate T2? Is there a way that we can get it getting constructed faster, get it in our operational faster? And what are some things that we might be able to do to get more juice outta the lemon, if you will, for some of our existing terminals to kind of bridge that gap?

John Stackhouse: Despite the extensive consultations, as you’ve heard, it still took a decade for federal approval. That’s exactly the kind of holdup Canada simply can’t afford under today’s pressurized trade conditions. To learn more about why we’re in this situation and about where things stand now, I spoke to Peter Xotta, he’s Devan’s Boss and CEO of the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority.

John Stackhouse: Peter, where are we at in terms of T two and how can we move more expeditiously?

Peter Xotta: You know, we’ve talked a lot about major projects in this country and how difficult it has been over the course of the last decade or two to get major projects done. Roberts Bank, terminal two is in a unique state of readiness for this point in time in Canada’s trade history. We have federal approvals, we have provincial approvals. We have the support of many First Nations for the project, and we’re now poised to make a final investment decision to move the project forward. So. Projects like this don’t happen overnight. It will be sometime five years of construction to make it happen.

Peter Xotta: But it’s important both to make sure that as our economy continues to grow and when economies grow, they require the things that are shipped into and out of the country via container. It’s important for us to move forward with that project to make sure we have the capacity, but also at this unique point in time to signal to the world that Canada is prepared to make tough choices, to get things done, to make sure that we can continue to play that important role in the Canadian economy.

John Stackhouse: When you say signal to the world, who’s watching and what are they wondering?

Peter Xotta: Well, it comes to the role that Canada has been playing with respect to, uh, providing agriculture, forestry and minerals, uh, critical minerals to the world as we continue to grow our capacity to produce those things. The question fundamentally is. Can you get your stuff to us? And, uh, investments in the supply chain are what’s important. Frankly, we’ve had a couple of years of challenges, uh, with respect to supply chain stability, some of that driven by geopolitics, some of it by, uh, virtue of, uh, labor discord, uh, that has happened over the last couple of years.  Now’s the time for us to settle that down, particularly in the context of our discussions between Canada and the United States. Our national imperative has been to pivot, to make sure that we reduce our dependence. Thankfully, we have trade relations with many countries around the world. It’s about us supporting the companies that do that business and growing that business.

John Stackhouse: Ports, of course, don’t exist in isolation. They’re connected to other infrastructure, rail and road, especially in this country. How would you evaluate the state of rail and road, particularly to expand with the port expansion here?

Peter Xotta: Yeah, I’d say, look, there is a, uh, an infrastructure deficit across North America because a lot of the capacity that was created 40, 50, or 60 years ago has now been consumed or is coming to the end of its useful life.  That said, in the time that I’ve been working at the Port Authority, we’ve just about doubled our volume of international trade through this gateway, so I’m optimistic. That we can and will find ways to do that, but it takes a determined kind of corporate and national strategy around trade, supporting the industries that need to make those investments.

John Stackhouse: When you look at other world-class ports, Rotterdam and Singapore, as examples, what should we be aspiring to do?

Peter Xotta: We should be aspiring to do what works for Canada. And so when you look around the world, what happens in Singapore, what happens in Shanghai, or frankly, what happens in Rotterdam isn’t necessarily the formula for what will work in Canada.  I say when you’ve seen one port, you’ve seen one port because there’s a unique alchemy in every port given the types of cargoes that it handles. For example, in some ports like Singapore, it’s largely containers. The west coast of Canada is. Predominantly bulk commodities, the coal, sulfur, potash, and other commodities that are exported, and particularly agriculture products.  Containers is an important part and a growing part of our business that we need to manage. And along with investments in RBT two come the opportunity to bring new technologies, new methods of handling. To make sure that we are competitive, uh, globally, and that we’re productive as a supply chain. So that’s what I’m excited about, is defining what that place will look like, that we’re trying to, to get to, and then getting on with moving down the path.

John Stackhouse: And of course, despite two mountain ranges, Canada’s west coast is connected to the rest of the country by rail and highway. And according to Tamara Vrooman, we need to start thinking more about greater connectivity for greater profit and for the common good.

Tamara Vrooman: We have some of the best trade and transportation providers in the world. You know, the airport that I’m privileged to to lead regularly gets ranked as the best in North America and one of the best on the planet. The same is true for other parts of our transportation and trade system. The problem is, is that they’re each independently strong but not adequately connected, and a lot of that has to do with. Data sharing with systems, with allowing this to be a truly integrated platform that moves goods and as I said, is agnostic as to the mode that requires a change and a shift in terms of how we share data, in terms of how we make decisions, in terms of making sure that we’re mobilizing the invested capital and the strength that we have in service of.Ultimately the same goal, which is moving goods versus moving goods via our own platform.

John Stackhouse: Figuring out where we’re headed as a country isn’t so simple, and it’s easy to get tangled in the details as we imagine the future of trade. But watch those containers, the cans as they’re called, moving in and out of Vancouver’s harbor for a while, and you’ll start to see it.

John Stackhouse: Clearly. There’s a huge opportunity here, not just for Vancouver, but for all of Canada. Here’s Devan Fitch again.

Devan Fitch: At its most simple level, there’s a trade balance there where a can comes here with something for import and if we don’t have something to put in that can, going back, it’s empty, it’s going back empty, it’s, we’re basically exporting air and that’s a lost opportunity for Canada.  It’s a lost opportunity for the shipping line because they can make a fee if it’s a loaded container. If it’s not loaded, they’re just taking it back to try and recycle it quickly. So really there’s a great opportunity for us to, to put more Canadian products in those containers and send them to markets overseas.  The world increasingly is looking to trade with Canada as a stable trading partner, and we have a very excellent opportunity there. There’s no shortage of things that we can put in there. We just need to explore it and take advantage of it. The demand is there. Shipping lines want a call at the port of Vancouver.  We just don’t have the births to accommodate additional ships. T2’s gonna provide three new births that are, can accommodate the biggest, largest, most cost effective ships. We will build it and they will come and Canada will prosper.

John Stackhouse: Pretty simple. Get our act together is the, uh, the message from the world and T2.  Not just a great movie, but uh, an opportunity for infrastructure for the country. Devin, thank you for being on disruptors. Thank you for having me. Looking out over Vancouver’s Bur Inlet with container ships loading and unloading goods from across Canada. And the world is clear that T two at Roberts Bank can be a game changer.  It’s a chance to enhance Canada’s trade story with the Indo-Pacific at a moment when it matters most. But only if we act together, investing with a sense of shared purpose. After all, this is a country built on ambitious infrastructure projects, including that mighty railway that connects this port with the rest of the country.

Tamara Vrooman: Who gets infrastructure built and who doesn’t is one of the most powerful determinants of the future that we wanna create. And so making those investments today. Like were made generations ago with the St. Lawrence Seaway and with other pieces of major rail, marine road and air infrastructure that were thought to be audacious and bold at the time really helped to build economic health of this country. And we can do so. Again, we just need to do it in an integrative way,

John Stackhouse: Build infrastructure in an integrated way. Those are words to live by. Whether that means integrating indigenous knowledge into how we build or sharing data across systems to increase efficiency. A port is not just a port, it’s part of an economy and a big part of a country.

John Stackhouse: And when it comes to deciding what to do next, Canadians need to listen to what global markets are telling us. And right now, at least part of what they’re saying is look to the west so we can ship to the east. This has been another episode of Disruptors, The Canada Project, an RBC podcast. Check out the rest of our series and subscribe to meet a nation of innovators who are riding the next wave of trade and technology.

John Stackhouse: I’m John Stackhouse. Thanks for listening.

For over two centuries, Atlantic Canada has been the launch point for Canada’s ventures into the unknown — from the Grand Banks to global trade routes. Today, that pioneering spirit is looking skyward.

In this episode, Stephen Matier of Maritime Launch Services and Rahul Goel of NordSpace explore how Canada is closing that gap. Together with Chris Hadfield, they unpack what sovereign access to space means for national security, climate resilience, and technological leadership — and how Nova Scotia and Newfoundland’s emerging space sectors are helping bring Canada into the new space age.

Because if Canada can’t launch its own satellites, it can’t lead its own future.

Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Simplecast

Launching Sovereignty: How The Maritimes are Powering Canada’s Place in Space

John Stackhouse: Hi, it’s John here. I’d like to start with a voice. A lot of Canadians will recognize.

Chris Hadfield: Canada is a huge country, second biggest in the world, and so to imagine it as one thing, but to be able to fly onboard a spaceship and see the entire country from coast to coast to coast in 10 minutes, suddenly the reality of Canada becomes much clearer and the potential of our country is laid right out there in front of you,

John Stackhouse: In case you didn’t guess that’s retired astronaut engineer, fighter pilot, and pretty decent guitar player, Chris Hadfield. And when I think of Canadians who can help us see what the future of our country might look like, Chris Hadfield’s view is pretty hard to beat.

Chris Hadfield: Canada’s next growth engine is waiting above us if we want a bigger. More resilient economy. We need to move from trusted partner to a full stack space nation. Our critical systems that we take for granted every day, from communication to navigation, gosh, to timing, to money, transfer to weather everything, and sovereignty itself as a nation depends on space and the assets that we put up there.  We need to be able to put payloads into orbit from our own soil when our access and timeline depend on others, so do our jobs and our intellectual property. And of course, our ability to scale the universe isn’t going away. The necessity to take advantage of the high ground of space, that’s not going to diminish with time.

John Stackhouse: Chris has flown two space shuttle missions and was the commander of the International Space Station. Since returning to Earth, he’s been a tireless advocate for Canada’s role in the global space economy. Pushing for investments in satellites, robotics, and training the next generation of space leaders.

Chris Hadfield: So the real question for Canada is how do we continue to build the opportunity for young Canadians so that they won’t just be tempted to stay in Canada? They’ll be excited to stay in Canada. They’ll recognize, wow, this is cool. We got the landmass, we got the intellectual property, we got the education.  We got the raw materials, we got the history. We can do it here and sell it to the world. We just need to get at it and support the early nascent launch companies that are working on it right now.

John Stackhouse: The stakes for Canada’s space independence couldn’t be higher. Arctic surveillance, disaster response, communication, sovereignty, they all depend on satellite access, right now we don’t control. And while our competitors are iterating rapidly, launching new capabilities, testing innovations, adapting to threats, Canadian space, technology has to sit in line for foreign launches. Subject to other nation’s priorities and schedules.  I’m John Stackhouse. Welcome to Disruptors the Canada Project. This season we’re taking you on a journey across the country to meet some of the visionaries who are using technology to tackle our most urgent challenges, and in the process, create a blueprint for a stronger, more competitive Canada. Our destination today is Atlantic Canada.  In a minute we’ll hear from Rahul Goel. He’s the CEO of Nord space who’s building a Canadian rocket plus a launchpad in a small community in Newfoundland, but first to Nova Scotia, where we’ll meet Stephen Matier of Maritime Launch Services. Right now, they’re focused on building a launchpad for a near Earth satellite, so stick with us to discover how a region built on ocean exploration is now pioneering space exploration giving Canada some of the independents will need in a very new space age. This could be the perfect location to break Canada’s foreign launch dependency, turning a strategic vulnerability into a competitive advantage.

John Stackhouse: A lot of us grew up watching amazing Canadian innovations, the Canada arm probably being the most celebrated. Launched into space on the vehicles of other nations, and I’d say for the most part we were pretty proud of that, that we got to team up with NASA later, a SpaceX. Now there’s a bit of worry that, uh, we don’t have more sovereignty over our launch.  Why does launch matter, Steve, in terms of which nation controls it?

Stephen Matier: Well, it’s about sovereignty and autonomy and the ability to do the things we wanna do without intervention. Most everything we’re doing today, whether it’s using your cell phone or an ATM or your medical records or banking. All those kinds of things are all tied to satellites these days, and not having the ability to do those on our own can be problematic. And then when you look at our own sovereignty and the safety and security of our country, then it becomes even more important to have that autonomy.

John Stackhouse: So that’s an argument I’m guessing most Canadians would quickly agree with. Help us understand what we’re up against because we are in some respects, decades behind in terms of building large capacity. Is there a leapfrog opportunity here or do we just have to giddy up and try to catch up faster than decades might take?

Stephen Matier: There is certainly a leapfrog. The idea behind Maritime Launch Services and Spaceport Nova Scotia is exactly that, and whether it’s geopolitical as we’re seeing and worrying about on a daily basis or whether it’s that launch Cadence has picked up so much that there isn’t enough space ports in the right locations to put all these satellites into orbit. That’s the real issue for us to be able to have that capability to meet our own launch needs. Then the way to do that is. To collaborate with our allied partners that have some capabilities that can use our launch facility for deploying our own satellites from Canadian soil while we’re working to develop our own launch vehicle capabilities in Canada because that you’re right. That is years behind. So having a spaceport up and running gives us that window of opportunity while our own launch vehicles mature to be placing our own material into orbit.

John Stackhouse: A lot of people may be wondering, while this is going on in Nova Scotia, may have images of launch pads being better situated towards the equator. Which many of us probably learned in high school, why would there be an advantage in building more launchpads in Nova Scotia or on other parts of Canada’s coastlines?

Stephen Matier: When you look at any coastal area in the United States, it’s got a lot of stuff, a lot of people. And at the end of the day, overlying large numbers of, of people with rockets, uh, will never reach that level of safety. So being near the ocean is really key. Being on the right side of the pond is really key. So our European partners, they have places in saxophone and, and in the uk. And Norway and Sweden that can launch due North. But what we have in Nova Scotia and off the tip of this peninsula is a range of orbits that go all the way north south, all the way down to South America, over to the coast of Africa and over Europe. So 45 to 98 degree inclinations is, is a huge range. You can get to Sun synchronous Polar orbit from the West coast by launching due South from Vandenberg, and you can get to some of these other orbits on the East coast at Kennedy Space Center. But you can’t get to both from one place where we, because we hang out over the top of the North Atlantic, are perfect to achieve both. We’ve signed an agreement with reaction dynamics. They’re developing their own launch capability in Montreal. They want to try to start orbital launches in 2028. So we’re on a way right now of, of just executing on our plan to deliver for launch as early as next year.

John Stackhouse: What does Canada need to do to, uh, get fully behind, not just you, but all your peers who are trying to get Canada back into the top tier of Space Nations?

Stephen Matier: We’re a member of Space Canada, and that organization has really been an important piece of communicating to the government about some of their priorities. We already build a whole. A lot of satellites in Canada, whether it’s, you know, Kepler, MDA, TELESAT, to even here in Nova Scotia with Galaxy Mission Systems, GHG Sat, there’s a lot of satellites already made here and just having the ability to launch them ourselves is gonna be really monumental I think. So that’s a change that’s coming. We’ve signed an agreement with Reaction Dynamics. They’re developing their own launch capability in Montreal. They want to try to start orbital launches in 2028. That’s something we’ll be able to deliver. I think the current government really gets it. There is a real keen interest in dual use infrastructure that is gonna provide economic development in rural parts of Nova Scotia. We’re checking all those boxes and I think there’s a lot of support and a lot of interest from our government, uh, because of the geopolitics is part of it, but also because of the launch cadence and the requirements to serve our own needs in putting material into orbit.

John Stackhouse: That’s a great rallying cry. Steve, thanks for being on Disruptors.

Stephen Matier: Oh gosh, very much. My pleasure. Thank you.

John Stackhouse: Now of course, others have heard that rallying cry too. While Stephen Metier is building Canada a runway in Nova Scotia across the Gulf in Newfoundland. Rahul Goel of North Space is trying to build the pad and rocket an end-to-end bet.

John Stackhouse: On Canadian launch, different path, same goal, sovereign access to orbit. But what does it actually take to pour concrete on the Atlantic Coast? Wire a range and stand up a launch system in one of the windiest foggiest corners of the country. Rahul Goel joins us now. Maybe we can start by talking about how and maybe why you first got involved in the Canadian Space Race.

Rahul Goel: Well, you know, I’ve been involved in this for basically my whole life. I started off as a kid, just like any other, who wanted to be an astronaut, wanted to be a fighter pilot, but I never grew up. I’ve always wanted to do that. And as the years went by, I was not only fond of the amazing accomplishments that Canada’s had in space, especially our astronaut program and robotics, but also started realizing that we are falling behind and I decided that it’s incredibly important to help our country catch up. We have a massive exodus of talent, of capital, of sovereignty, of national pride. So all of those factors led to the founding of North Space and kind of trumped just this cool factor about building in space.

John Stackhouse: So now you’re building this uniquely Canadian rocket to launch from the small Newfoundland community of St. Lawrence. What are some of the key factors you must consider right outta the gate?

Rahul Goel: Choosing the architecture for rocket is incredibly important at this stage, and the reason is scalability. So we chose a liquid rocket architecture. We use kerosene and liquid oxygen, you know, very standard propellants.  A challenge with liquid oxygen is it’s a cryogenic propellant, so it’s a major challenge to sort it, keep it cool, and keep it in the exact right conditions. Forcing these propellants at exactly the right moment, at exactly the right temperatures and exactly the right pressures with almost no margin is the in incredible challenge.  We’re using a lot of innovative technologies from our software simulations all the way to additive manufacturing. To the logistics and operations, we’re starting with a small launch vehicle that’ll be capable of taking about 500 kilograms to lower earth orbit so that vehicle’s called tundra, and then we’ll scale up the exact same architecture because these types of rockets like to be big to a five ton, 5,000 kilogram metric, tons to lower earth orbit vehicle called Titan, and that’ll be able to really supply the necessary capability for the most valuable and most important missions.

John Stackhouse: From where you’re sitting, how would you describe the current state of space transportation and where do you think it’s headed?

Rahul Goel: There’s been kind of this growth in the small satellite sector over the last 10, 15 years, led largely by Rocket Labs Electron, SpaceX’s, ride share, transporter emissions. That kind of market will still exist. It’ll be a niche market, but we’re seeing satellite buses get larger. We’re seeing the most valuable missions go to larger payloads. We’re seeing our d and d and others looking for multi ton capabilities to orbit, and we’re looking at all rockets being reusable. And the only way to have a reusable rocket architecture like the one that you see, you know, Falcon nine, SpaceX launching and then landing back at the launch site is if you have enough propellant and a large enough vehicle. So, all that kind of is laddering up to our, uh, Titan vehicle in the early 2030s.

John Stackhouse: As Rahul points out, Canada’s department of defense or d and d is showing more interest in launch technology and orbital security, but national security alone won’t sustain a space economy. The tundra and his bigger sibling, the Titan will also have to make economic sense.  So, we asked Rahul beyond defense, what’s the real commercial opportunity here?

Rahul Goel: So on the satellite side, it’s a good question. Like, why are we building satellites? Again, the historical precedent, if you look at something like SpaceX, 70% of their launches nearly are starlink satellites. If you look at Rocket Lab, a great New Zealand company that’s now American, that’s scaled up, second most successful launch company in the world.  Their top line and bottom line are space systems satellites. Despite being a launch company, a launch is very important ’cause it gives you the flexibility and it builds this moat around your company. But without a robust demand pipeline, it becomes very difficult to scale a launch business. Our goal is to internalize 50% of our launch supply with, with our own demand, uh, by building our own satellites and constellations.  And this is very important for us to be a commercial success, not just a technological success.

John Stackhouse: As Raul’s team works towards that future, we asked him what his neighbors in St. Lawrence, Newfoundland can expect to see taking shape on the North Space site over the next few years?

Rahul Goel: What you can expect over the next couple years is fairly simple.You know, we’re building two launch pads for small to medium lift vehicles, so really a fraction still of what the SpaceX vehicles are like. We’ll have our own propellant generation stations. We’ll have a humble mission control to fit maybe 20 to 30 people. We’ll have a bunch of roads. It’ll span about 50 acres in total, and, uh, it’ll look a lot more like, you know, a regional airport than like Pearson Airport, for example. Then we scale up from there. But that should be very sufficient for us to get off the ground and do what we need to do. A lot of this is also enabled by the fact that modern technology means that we can remotely manage a lot of operations. So our, our main mission control very likely will be in St. John’s and not St. Lawrence, three and a half hours away. So it’s going to look futuristic, it’s going to look cool, but it, it doesn’t need to and won’t look necessarily like a massive Cape Canaveral like Complex.

John Stackhouse: The idea of a Canadian spaceport launching a Canadian rocket to carry a Canadian built satellite serving Canadian needs is pretty exciting.  But we’ve still got a ways to go as every astronaut knows how far and how fast we get there. Well depend on the goals we set.

Rahul Goel: Now, you know, it, it really depends on a company’s goal. So, you know, a lot of companies will come out of the gate launch companies or companies that are developing launch as part of their services and say, we’re gonna launch 50 or a hundred times a year. You look at an Isar, for example, they’ve raised north of 600 million euros. That’s a Isar Aerospace, by the way, a German launch company currently developing the Spectrum Rocket. So, they are going to require, uh, extremely successful and extremely frequent launch cadence in order to just break even on their r and d and development costs. By contrast, we’re estimating our program budget for our first orbital launch vehicle Tundra, to be south of a hundred million cad. There’s precedent for this. Falcon One by SpaceX was $95 million USD.  Rocket Labs, uh, electron was under a hundred million. USD survivability is extremely challenging in this business, so that’s why we have our space system side and building our own infrastructure to minimize the marginal cost.

John Stackhouse: When you think about what North Space is developing, what would success look like?

Rahul Goel: So for us, success for launch will mean if we’re launching once a month, roughly, we’re gonna be in a really good position as a company. Our whole business plan is built that way. We’re definitely gonna gun for launching way more and doing way more, but it’s not an existential threat to us if we don’t launch at, you know, at SpaceX levels because it is very hard to do this activity and especially to scale it up, but they’ll pay off in the, in the long term.

John Stackhouse: I like Raul’s distinctly Canadian take on success. Cautious, grounded, but optimistic. He talks about survivability and the long view, and that’s exactly what Canada’s new space companies are trying to do. Build systems that have room to grow, can withstand setbacks and then learn from them. Because in this business, progress often means a few failed launches along the way.

Rahul Goel: Failure is always hard. We try to launch our rocket for the first time, and we failed at that.

John Stackhouse: He’s talking about the launch attempts back in September. When Nord space’s tiger Rocket, which incidentally is powered by the Hadfield engine, fail to launch.

Rahul Goel: Of course we would love to not fail, but it doesn’t work like that in rockets. This is really tricky stuff. We are preconditioned to that and we have a better sense of understanding which failures are actual, like serious systems, programmatic failures, and which are just the right type of failure, the type of failure that you can learn from rapidly, and you don’t have to go back to the drawing road because you realize your business case is wrong or your fundamental technology choices are wrong in rocketry. I think it’s really important to fail to a certain extent. ’cause if you’re not, you don’t know if you’re really pushing all the way to the edge. And because the margins are so slim, you wanna know that you’re not wasting any capacity. So you, you know, you’ll see engines fail, uh, from Nord space for sure. In fact, we’ll, we’re gonna push them to fail. You’ll see some rockets fail, but that’s part of the process, uh, to get their, you know, SpaceX does it exceptionally well. Not every company has a billionaire backing it to allow for so many failures. But it’s just part of the process and par for the course for us.

John Stackhouse: I can’t help thinking about Chris Hadfield watching those early launch attempts. His name literally stamped on the rocket engine.

Chris Hadfield: It’s funny when people ask me about, uh, being an astronaut, all, all they really focus on, even though I was an astronaut for 21 years, is the six months I was in space. There’s almost no awareness and, and very little recognition of the fact that I spent 20 and a half years doing things so that I could succeed in my six months in space. And what you do in preparation essentially is you get stuff wrong, you get into simulators and you. You know, some days everybody dies, and it’s only when you get into a place where you can test it safely so that failures aren’t deadly, that then you could actually improve things and, and have a chance to succeed when it matters the most. You can’t make every event sacred. You have to recognize that failure is a part of success. How did you learn to ride a bicycle? Did you ever fall down? Was there a time in your life when you didn’t know how to ride a bicycle? But hopefully someone helped you enough that you didn’t do permanent damage to yourself while you were learning? As you develop the skill, we need to provide that same environment as we develop rocket technology.

John Stackhouse: You can’t make every event sacred. Failure is part of success. I love hearing people like Chris Hadfield and Rahul Goel reflect on the role of risk and how embracing it is essential for our future success. And one more thing that will secure that future as a Spacefaring nation building and keeping a skilled workforce.

Rahul Goel: We already do such a great job as Canadians. I think training our workforce. In fact, we train our workforce and it enables other countries to build their space programs and everything else. Our best and brightest leave our country. We train them here. A lot of it is publicly funded and they leave. I think we’re doing an exceptionally good job in Canada training talent and, and creating opportunities. But at the end of the day, the, the retention is really the problem. The amazing thing about building capabilities in space is that it spans the entire spectrum. Highly multidisciplinary, especially in rockets. We need people, you know, in business development, we need people in, you know, we need welders, and we need plumbers and we need people on the ground who are building roads and, and we need civil engineers. And yes, we need the rocket scientists, and we need electrical engineers and software engineers, propulsion engineers, all kinds of highly specialized, but also just key roles that, you know, Canadians are really, really good at.

John Stackhouse: We’ve got the skills and we’ve got the talent. Canadians have been talking about going to space for a long time. Building up to this moment when Canadian school kids get to count down the launch attempt of a Canadian rocket.

Rahul Goel: I like to say that we’re working really hard to give Canada its own Apollo moment, what the Apollo program did for the United States, and demonstrated that they can go to the moon if they decide to, if they choose to. Within a decade completely changed the country to a point. You know, I’m, I have a NASA hat still, like, why do I have that? It’s because it’s, it’s the most inspiring brand in the world still.

John Stackhouse: Here’s Chris Hadfield again on what this moment means for Canada.

Chris Hadfield: Our kids are kind of counting on us as the current crop of adults to do inspiring things. If they aren’t inspired by what’s happening in Canada, then why wouldn’t they leave? When I was a 9-year-old kid, I had a head full of ideas and no way to turn them into reality until I saw the very first astronauts going to, and then eventually walking on the moon. Neil and Buzz, just imagine instead of planting an American flag on the moon, if they had been planting a Canadian flag and if that rocket had been a Canadian rocket. Not only would I have felt great pride, but the path for me would’ve been so much more clear. During the Apollo program, every single one of them was an American. No one has ever left earth orbit in all of human history, except those 24 Americans. But in February, in fact, the plan date is February 5th. This enormous rocket is gonna launch out of Florida and onboard. It will be three Americans going to the moon, but the fourth crew member is a Canadian. It is a hugely historic moment that of all the countries in the world, the first non-American to ever go to the moon is gonna be Colonel Jeremy Hansen from Ailsa Craig Ontario. An amazing moment of Canadian capability, individual perseverance. And of great Canadian pride

John Stackhouse: From the shores of Canso Nova Scotia or Newfoundland’s Bureau Peninsula, you can see clearly what generations before us saw the edge of the known world and an open invitation to go beyond it. For more than two centuries, the Maritimes have been Canada’s launching point into the unknown. From fishing on the grand banks to merchant runs to the Caribbean, to naval convoys crossing the Atlantic, Stephen Mattie and Rahul Goel aren’t just building space technology. They’re confronting Canada’s longstanding dependency on others to get us where we need to go. Instead of waiting months for foreign launch slots or settling for whatever satellite capacity others provide, they’re creating the infrastructure that Canada needs to compete in the space economy. The stakes couldn’t be higher. Climate change is opening Arctic shipping routes that need monitoring our coastlines stretch across three oceans requiring surveillance. Our digital economy depends on satellite communications that we don’t control with 254 launches happening globally in 2024. And Canada dependent on foreign rockets for every single mission. Every day we delay is another day we may fall further behind. The question isn’t whether Canada needs more space sovereignty. It’s whether we can build that capability at home, and maybe that’s the maritime advantage. A region that’s been launching things into the unknown for centuries and now applying that expertise where there are no limits from rocky shores to the edge of space, you can see how much opportunity there is for Canada. You just need to look up. You’ve been listening to Disruptors, the Canada Project, an RBC Podcast. I’m John Stackhouse. Thanks for joining us on this incredible innovation journey across Canada and stay tuned for lots more ahead.

Canada’s future security doesn’t just lie in the skies or across its borders—it lies beneath the waves. Newfoundland and Labrador, long defined by its connection to the North Atlantic, is emerging as the front line in Canada’s underwater defence and surveillance revolution.

In this episode, Kraken Robotics’ David Shea reveals how cutting-edge sonar and subsea intelligence are giving Canada new eyes and ears in the ocean depths—technology once reserved for superpowers, now developed and deployed from St. John’s. And General Rick Hillier, former Chief of the Defence Staff, joins host John Stackhouse to explore why control of our underwater domain is critical to national sovereignty, Arctic readiness, and alliance security in an age of rising global tension.

Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Simplecast

Defending the Deep: How Newfoundland Is Securing Canada’s Underwater Sovereignty

John Stackhouse: Hi, it’s John here. It seems like lately when it comes to our national priorities, Canada has been doing some pretty serious soul searching. Who are we? What do we stand for, and what do we need to do to move forward as a nation today, we’ve got some pretty special stuff to start off with because when you really wanna get the big picture.

John Stackhouse: Sometimes you gotta go right to the top.

Rick Hillier: Ladies and gentlemen, I’m General Rick Hillier. I spent my entire life as a soldier and retired after 35 years, three months, two days, and 14 hours. I was never so proud as when I put my uniform on with that beautiful Canadian flag on my left shoulder.

John Stackhouse: General Hillier, of course, was the chief of the defense staff of the Canadian Armed Forces from 2005 to 2008. He also helped organize Ontario’s vaccine rollout during COVID, and he spent years pushing for reforms to make the Canadian forces more effective and respected at home and abroad.

Rick Hillier: Security is the guiding principle, the pillar on which every single one of our friends and allies now operate on three sides of our great nation. We have the longest coastlines in the world. It’s a vast ocean. It’s deep. That landscape is now changing. It’s faster, it’s murkier, and we’re seeing much more traffic. And the threats that come in are more connected than in any times in our lives. We have to invest in defense and security. I think in a more serious way than we have ever done in the history of our nation.

John Stackhouse: Now, I know there are a lot of urgent issues that need our attention as Canadians, climate change, healthcare, tariffs. You might be wondering, is a stronger military really that important, at least on the scale of things we need to tackle?

Rick Hillier: This is not about becoming a military power. It’s about meeting our responsibilities as a sovereign nation, as a G seven country, as a founding member of NATO, as a founding member of the United Nations, and as a nation in the UN who brought forth the resolution to protect and say we would not stand highly by when peoples around the world were being persecuted.  The next decade will judge us by what we build, so we have to get to work.

John Stackhouse: General Hillier’s passion for this country comes through loud and clear. And when he says, get to work, you know, he means it. We’ve got a lot to do. So let’s get to it.

John Stackhouse: I’m John Stackhouse. Welcome to Disruptors the Canada Project. This season we’re taking you on a journey across the country to meet some of the visionaries who are using technology to tackle our most urgent challenges. And in the process, create a blueprint for a stronger, more competitive, more resilient Canada.  Today’s destination, Newfoundland the Rock, a granite gateway to this part of North America. Those of you who know your Canadian history know that during World War II, when Newfoundland was still a British territory. The waters around the rock were frequented by German U-boats, and in the many decades since they’ve been trespassed upon by others who use the ocean as a gateway into Canadian territory.  Today that matters more than ever. Because our national defense and our sense of sovereignty is again at a new height. Canadians are about to make the largest peacetime investment in defense in our history. Hundreds of billions of dollars will be spent over the next decade, and we have a generational choice of how to spend that money.  The threats that you might see from Signal Hill in Newfoundland today are not U-boats or even submarines. They’re cyber attacks, digital incursions, and something. Most of us never think about the cutting of underwater cables that carry the bulk of internet traffic and the digital economy. If Canadians want to stay connected to the world around us, we’re going to need to protect those waters more than ever.  In today’s episode, we’ll meet Dave Shea, the CTO of Kraken Robotics. And we’ll discover how a provinces where generations have read ocean conditions for survival is now creating the technology that lets navies see underwater threats and may just give Canada the maritime defense edge we’re going to need.

John Stackhouse: Dave, welcome to Disruptors. Oh, thanks for having me. First of all, great name for a company, especially for certain Seattle Hockey fans. Tell us a bit of the origin story of Kraken Robotics.

David Shea: When we were founding the company, our, our founder, Carl Kinney, was looking for a name. There was a lot of tech companies out in the industry, you know, digital sonar this, and electronic, underwater that.  And we were looking, really looking for something to differentiate us and to stand apart. One of his favorite novels at the time was 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. So of course the infamous Kraken coming from that. So trying to, uh, really differentiate ourselves. We started out with the name Kraken Sonar, and then over time.

David Shea: As we kind of expanded our product portfolio, really we wanted to redefine what we were doing and be more holistic. Uh, we adopted the Kraken robotic Systems.

John Stackhouse: Dave Krakens culture is famously relentless. That’s one thing in Canada, but how does that translate into your ambition on the global stage?

David Shea: The ambition is really to be the world leader in undersea, uh, subsea and seabed intelligence. We are a highly technical focused company. One of our mantras internally is innovate or die. We truly try and drive forward technological innovation in everything that we do from in our headquarters in St. John’s, Newfoundland, and, uh, working across the world now. Built in Newfoundland, competing everywhere.

John Stackhouse: I love it. Krakens reputation really took off with a single breakthrough. It’s called synthetic aperture. Sonar. Can you walk us through that?

David Shea: So Kraken started out, our first innovative product was our synthetic aperture sonar. That’s probably what we’re best known for. That’s been our bread and butter for many years. So that’s a very high resolution seabed imaging sonar system. So much like synthetic aperture radar. It allows you to stitch together multiple pings from a sonar system and make a a one meter long sonar array look like it’s a 25 meter long sonar array. So we can image from a small underwater robot. So that allows us to generate some fantastic images of the sea floor to identify almost with optical quality, small objects. Most of our business is in mine countermeasures, mine warfare. So being able to identify these objects and really give operators Navy sailors the ability to say, yes, that’s a mine. We need to dispose of it. Or no, that’s just a piece of. Something natural that we don’t have to do anything about.

John Stackhouse: Of course, as all of us know, from taking pictures with our phones, incredible images require a steady hand, and in this case, depend on a rock steady platform. You built a custom one. To deliver that sonar, it’s called Katfish.

David Shea: The Katfish is the Kraken active tow fish, so it’s an actively stabilized towed underwater vehicle. It’s essentially an an AUV, an autonomous underwater vehicle, but without a propeller, so it’s towed from either a crude or un crewed surface vessel. It’s designed to be the optimal sonar delivery platform, so it’s a highly specialized capability built around our synthetic aperture sonar.

David Shea: So it is meant to be the most stable platform for delivering our sonar out into the field that allows us to operate the catfish, the Toad system in very high sea states. So if you’re in very rough waters, you know the ship’s bouncing around, the cable’s being pulled as the vessel’s towing it. The catfish can compensate for all of those motions. It has its own control system on board, so it’s looking ahead to see is there a bottom, is there a rock, is there a shipwreck coming up? It can also choose where it wants to be in the water column so it can optimize itself for the mission that it’s driving there and look and tell you, and it can feed back up to the surface vessel and say, Hey, I need you to give me a little more cable out. Or, Hey, I need you to pull more cable in.

John Stackhouse: What’s the competitive advantage right now, especially on the East Coast in centers like St. John’s and Halifax versus, say, a Boston or other great maritime knowledge centers that are presumably working on similar technology opportunities.

David Shea: I think one of the great advantages that they have in Newfoundland and that we’ve had starting our company there and growing our company there is the Newfoundland people.  And the Newfoundland culture. It is one, it’s a very hardy group of people. It is a challenging environment. Anyone who’s ever been there, the weather is hard. It’s hard to get into and out of, and you go out on the ocean. It is not long before you are in the middle of the North Atlantic. So it is one of the harshest climates in the world, and when we talk about hardening technology, building technology, proving that it can work, and we’ve said for many years, if we prove it can work off the coast of Newfoundland, then it can work anywhere.  And that’s a significant advantage for Newfoundland technology companies. I think one of the other core advantages we have is where in the US uh, a lot of companies and entities can rely on the defense industrial complex. They can rely on a lot of government support, a lot of government funding. You know, they have advantages there.  In Canada and in Newfoundland in particular, we don’t have the same support from the government. We don’t have the same budgets that are being poured into that, so we’re forced to. Focus on exports. So we take our technologies around the world, we take our people, our capabilities, our innovative solutions around the world, and that’s allowed us to foster relationships and really prove these technologies, prove these capabilities in other environments with other nations, with our NATO allies.

David Shea: We say many, many times when we talk about the quality of the technology that we use, if it doesn’t work, it gets left on the pier, right? When you’re out there, when you’re a war fighter, when you’re a sailor, you’re in an operational environment. You need to know that the kit that you have is gonna do the job that you need to do, because their lives very much depend on those capabilities. So that really drives us to harden these capabilities because they have to work. They have to be proven out there in the world. And we have to, you know, provide support for our customers in that way,

John Stackhouse: Technology, this advanced doesn’t happen by accident. It takes a disruptor’s mindset. Questioning assumptions that industries have lived with for decades and the stakes are real. Here’s General Rick Hillier again.

Rick Hillier: The threats are now measured and change in hours, not months or years. And the Arctic sovereignty now is not a slogan in Canada. It’s logistics and domain awareness. Which are crucial for actually securing our North and exercising our sovereignty in the Arctic. The imperative in all of our defense platform, air, land, sea, special Forces and more is simple. Build that home, build it fast, and build it with our allies. We’ve gotta invest in engineers and technology. Operators and operators on the ground because the workforce. Those men and women who will make this happen for us are the most crucial part.

John Stackhouse: For General Hillier. It’s not only a matter of sovereignty and national defense, it’s about strengthening our participation in the global economy and our ongoing ties with our allies.

Rick Hillier: You cannot join the European Club and increase our trade with them unless we have an investment in security in defense, which is much greater than what we have now. We cannot have any kind of a relationship going forward with the United States of America unless we increase our investment in defense in security. One of the great challenges, of course, is finding the companies which could produce all the things that we need for our armed forces, for our security, and for support to our allies around the rest of the world as we seek to help stabilize that international community. And therein allow us to thrive. So what do we need to do right now?  Set along a rise in demand, single, multi-year commitments that let firms invest with confidence. And that’s one of the things that’s been missing over this past decade or so. Streamline procurement. So we can test, we can fail, we can learn, and we can feel in months, not years or decades.

John Stackhouse: One thing’s clear. Canada needs capability fast, and we need to think about getting a lot more bang for our military buck. For innovators, the challenge is twofold. We need to question the premise and respect the constraints. Don’t just build the best, build what Canada and our allies can actually buy, deploy, and maintain at scale and beyond one customer.  That’s the hard leap. Turning a breakthrough into something usable and affordable across many markets.

David Shea: One of the principles behind Krakens technology development was commercialization of high-end, high quality military technologies, but at a price point, at a cost point where they are commercially relevant.  We wanted to build things that are accessible, that are available, not these bespoke, highly specialized unicorn solutions that are being built traditionally in the defense space. Develop technologies that can be used by the military, but they’re built for a commercial application that allows us an export opportunity. So when you have dual use in the context of export control, it means we can sell things more easily. It means I can sell a device, not just holding my breath, waiting for a Navy to buy one of these things, but in the meantime, I can sell 4, 5, 6, 10 of them too. Commercial survey companies, offshore energy companies, I can sell them to commercial habitat mapping or Ocean Geographic research.

John Stackhouse: General Hillier would concur with this approach. By the way, we asked him how he thought military spending should break down. And here’s what he said.

Rick Hillier: The vast majority of the investment can be used in dual use technologies. A drone is equally good for sussing out force fires or wildfires, and how we can prevent, and how we can fight, and how we can recover from them as it is for flying in hostile territory.

John Stackhouse: Dual use technology can of course, widen the market and speed adoption. You’re not relying on one order, one purchaser or one application. But it can also get complicated in a hurry with multiple demands on a single technology. What are some of the smarter ways to invest so that we’re both learning and moving at the speed that the market demands?

David Shea: The challenge that we have is really one of risk tolerance. We are focused so much on compliance because we’re so afraid to take risk, and in this time, you must go fast. You must take risks. You must be willing to allow some of those things to fail, and we learn from failure. We learn more from failure sometimes in engineering and in science and r and d than we do from success.

David Shea: If you build something and it fails, it breaks, it implodes. As an engineer, you don’t get to ignore it, then you have to explain what happened. You spend time analyzing it, understanding it, really digging into the core principles there, and that helps inform the next version, the next phase. From the procurement side, we need to be willing to spend money on things that might not work. We need to be willing to, to take some of those risks on the financial side and on the technological side,

John Stackhouse: And according to both Dave and to General Hillier. As a country, we’ve gotta get faster and bolder in the development of new defense technologies.

Rick Hillier: The clock is ticking in Ukraine right now. Every three months, a new generation of drones is introduced into the conflict.  We’ve got to be able to match those timelines. If we are gonna be serious about our defense insecurity with our allies.

David Shea: The best time to invest in that defense industry would’ve been, you know, 20 years ago, 30 years ago. The second-best time to invest into it is today. So if we want to have these capabilities going forward into the future, if we want to be able to secure our own national security, protect our own borders, and know what’s going on in our waters, in our coastline, in our airspace, we really have to be fostering that development in that capability.

John Stackhouse: If we get this  right five years from now, what does Newfoundland look like as a defense tech center?

David Shea: I think that Newfoundland is uniquely positioned both geographically and economically and technologically to be a potential hub for this type of defense technology development. We are positioned out in the North Atlantic. We have access to amazing testing grounds, very challenging testing grounds, which is exactly what we need to harden these technologies. We have an enormous number of highly motivated, very intelligent, very capable people. We have great academic institutions for training the next generation of, of engineers, technologists, scientists, and we have a, a motivation. The Newfoundland people have, have gone through a number of challenges historically from the cod moratorium to the collapse in oil prices. And the Newfoundland people are, are highly resilient and they are motivated to develop new capabilities and export them onto the world stage. So well said.

John Stackhouse: Dave.Thanks for being on Disruptors.

David Shea: Oh, well, thank you very much for having me

John Stackhouse: Standing on Signal Hill, you realize something profound about this place. For over a century, this has been where new technologies often first touched North America. Take for example, Marconis Wireless Signal in 1901. Or radar systems during the Second World War and now some of the world’s most advanced underwater detection systems.

John Stackhouse: In a world where underwater cables carry our digital economy and Arctic shipping lanes are opening as ice melts. The ability to see what’s happening beneath our waters isn’t just about defense, it’s about sovereignty, and it’s about economic opportunity. What Dave Shea and the team at Kraken have proven is that world-class maritime defense technology can be designed, built, and exported from Canada’s Eastern most province.

John Stackhouse: We can create so much here, especially using that maritime DNA, that comes from generations of Newfoundlanders who learn to read the ocean because getting that wrong was a matter of life and death. This is how a province that was built on reading the ocean is now teaching the world to see beneath it.

John Stackhouse: You’ve been listening to disruptors. I’m John Stackhouse. Thanks to Dave Shea of Kraken Robotics and General Rick Hillier for sharing their thoughts on national security and the future of defense technology. And thank you for joining us on this part of our journey across Canada. And stay with us for lots more ahead.

Canada stands at a crossroads. Become a leader or continue to ride shotgun. The choice is obvious. But global political and economic uncertainty demands we act decisively. We need to close the productivity gap with our peer nations and build bigger, better and bolder. Visionary leaders across the country are seizing this moment, harnessing technology to take on Canada’s most-urgent challenges.

For this season of Disruptors, hosted by John Stackhouse, we’re crisscrossing the country to showcase their groundbreaking work. From robotics that safeguard Arctic sovereignty and AI that rewrites how we grow food to critical minerals powering the clean transition and housing innovations reshaping our cities. In every sector we explore, technical ingenuity meets national purpose. These are not just stories of invention-they provide a blueprint for a stronger, more competitive Canada.

Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Simplecast

Are we ready for the AI era or are we stuck in an imagination gap? In this special 200th episode, recorded live at Creative Destruction Lab’s Super Session, John Stackhouse and Sonia Sennik sit down with Evan Solomon, Canada’s first-ever Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation. From national sovereignty and productivity to global competition and culture, Solomon outlines a bold vision for Canada’s AI future – what he calls a “Gutenberg moment” in human progress.

Drawing on findings from the new RBC Thought Leadership report The AI Imagination Gap, this episode explores why Canadian enterprises are hesitating on AI adoption and how the right mix of policy, ambition, and imagination can close the gap. Minister Solomon speaks candidly about the four key pillars of Canada’s AI strategy: scaling champions, adoption, trust, and sovereignty, and offers tangible insights into how SMEs, researchers, and public institutions can all benefit from AI’s abundance, if the right supports are in place.

This wide-ranging conversation dives into Canada’s AI spine, the importance of protecting national culture through digital sovereignty, and how government, startups, and citizens alike must embrace this pivotal moment with urgency, collaboration, and creativity.

Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Simplecast

From Arctic sovereignty to wildfire response, Canada’s challenges are increasingly being solved by the low earth orbital satellites less than 1000km from the earth’s surface.  In this episode, co-hosts John Stackhouse and Sonia Sennik dive into the pivotal role that satellite communications have in Canada’s future. Prompted by Prime Minister Mark Carney’s call for enhanced Canadian defense, the conversation explores how innovation in low earth orbit will shape global competitiveness and security.

Mike Greenley, CEO of MDA Space, offers a compelling look at how Canada’s satellite and robotics capabilities are fueling both surveillance and strategic infrastructure in space, including the next generation of the Canadarm. Dan Goldberg, CEO of Telesat, discusses their $6B Lightspeed constellation and how low Earth orbit networks will revolutionize broadband access across Canada and beyond. Finally, planetary scientist Dr. Margarita Marinova outlines a bold vision of an emerging space economy – from fire detection to lunar research, and what it means for Canadian innovation.

Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Simplecast

What does it take to transform a startup into Canada’s second-largest company in just a decade? Sonia Sennik and John Stackhouse discuss his conversation with Harley Finkelstein, President of Shopify, live from C2 Montreal.

Harley discusses how Shopify embraced anti-fragility, continually reinvented itself beyond e-commerce, and leveraged AI to reshape retail and empower creators globally. He highlights the essential entrepreneurial mindset needed to foster innovation in Canada, urging ambitious entrepreneurs to think bigger, build stronger networks, and seize the opportunities emerging at the forefront of technology and commerce. Tune in to explore how crises become catalysts, why relentless ambition matters, and how Shopify’s success story could inspire Canada’s next wave of global companies.

Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Simplecast

John Stackhouse: [00:00:00] Hi, it’s John here

Sonia Sennik: And I’m Sonia Sennik, CEO at Creative Destruction Lab.

John Stackhouse: This is Disruptors x CDL: The Innovation Era.

Sonia, it’s conference season in Tech Land. They seem to be everywhere, every day, all at once, all over North America, from the Google and Microsoft Jam Fest to the upcoming Toronto Tech Week. I just got back from one of them C2 in Montreal, which is all about the creative class meets technology, and I got to interview on stage, our old friend and one of the first disruptors guests.

Harley Finkelstein, the president of Shopify, and a force of nature in the Canadian tech conversation.

Sonia Sennik: The trajectory that Shopify has been on for the last 15 years has been tremendous. You actually interviewed Harley on the anniversary of their IPO. Can you think back 10 years ago to what Shopify was like before they [00:01:00] became the public powerhouse that they are in Canada?

John Stackhouse: $3.50 is what springs to mind. I think that was the IPO price and yeah, it’s now in the $150 range or. Maybe it’s higher today, I don’t know, but it has been one of the great Canadian rocket ships. So let’s have a listen. Here’s our conversation recorded live at C2 in Montreal. Good morning.

I’m John Stackhouse with, uh, RBC here with my good friend Harley Finkelstein from Shopify. We’re gonna have a great conversation about Shopify, a bit about Harley, but mostly about entrepreneurship. And what we need to come to grips with at this amazing moment of time. We are recording Live for Disruptors, an RBC podcast.

So hello to people far and wide who are listening to this as well. Harley is a repeat guest on Disruptors. So Great to, I was one of your first guests, I think actually. Uh, you, you were an OG. Yeah. In fact, this is an auspicious day. For a [00:02:00] few reasons. May 21st, 2015, 10 years ago, today, Shopify went public.

That’s true. So congratulations Harley, and to the team at Shopify.

Harley Finkelstein: Yeah. 10 years ago, almost to the minute we rang the bell in New York Stock Exchange. And for all of you in the crowd that are entrepreneurs, you know that there’s no feeling in the world, uh, like ringing that bell where people like Henry Ford once stood and it’s been an amazing ride.

John Stackhouse: And just to give you a sense of the ride, a billion dollar valuation, then 10 years later about $150 billion,

Harley Finkelstein: Something like that. Yeah. Give or

John Stackhouse: take. Give or take. Looking back 10 years,

Harley Finkelstein: what’s been most surprising for you? Well, I mean today the largest company in Canada is RBC. The second largest company in Canada is Shopify.

Just saying it out loud, we’re the second largest company in the country is is unbelievable. So that I think, obviously sticks with me. The other thing that sticks with me is just the impact we’ve been able to have. Shopify now powers somewhere in the neighborhood of 12% of all US e-commerce. We cross a trillion dollars in sales on the platform like trillion with a T, [00:03:00] and pretty much other than Amazon, we are the largest checkout on the internet.

So from a business perspective, obviously that’s been remarkable. But the other thing has been the amount of people at Shopify that are still around. We’re now about 8,000 or 8,500 people at the company, and there is a lot of OGs that are still doing their life’s work at Shopify 10 years later. It’s been an amazing ride.

So many critical points along the way. If you had to pick, uh, one, what would it be? I think the pandemic was one of those moments that I think in any entrepreneur’s life, similar to IPO, that you can forget overnight. This is something that most people don’t know, but I. Everyone thinks e-commerce is obviously a huge part of the economy, which it is, but e-commerce as a percentage of total retail is still in Canada, like 16%.

So part of what happened with the pandemic was overnight, the entire physical retail world shut down and all of a sudden everyone kind of woke up and realized that the future retail is not just offline, it’s, it’s online, it’s offline, it’s on social, it’s everywhere. We’re operating now is not just as an e-commerce company for small business, but rather as the [00:04:00] world’s commerce company.

If you look at the top five companies by market cap in Canada, um, RBC was created in 17, 1800, something like that. It was 1800. 1800, 1800. We’re not, we’re not that old. I know. Sorry. Excuse me. 1800, 150 years old, 150 years old. So other than. Shopify. The youngest company in the top five market cap companies in Canada was created in the fifties, which was TD Bank 1950s.

So for us at least there, there is a real sense of responsibility that not only do we want Shopify to continue to become a leader in Canada, but also how do we inspire the next vintage of incredible entrepreneurs, many of you who are in the room right now, to actually build these global dominating companies from here in Canada.

John Stackhouse: Uh, I just take, take a detour here on this point about age, because we’re only as old as, uh, we let ourselves be because our RBC is 155 years old. We consider ourselves the youngest bank in Canada, and that is very important. There’s a corporate biography. The title is Fast to the Frontier, and that is a mindset if there is a frontier.

We get there [00:05:00] before the others do. So let’s pivot to this idea of the entrepreneurial mindset, not just for individuals, for entrepreneurs, but also for a country. And how can Canada be more entrepreneurial and be more of a builder nation, which is what entrepreneurs are. So give us a glimpse of Shopify and how you maintain that builder and entrepreneurial mindset.

Harley Finkelstein: I mean, part of it is the love of ambition, but the other part is, I dunno if you folks know this book, but there’s this great book by Naim Telleb called Anti-Fragile. You and I talk about this book all the time. So this idea of anti-fragility is a fascinating model because most people assume that there’s sort of two types of systems.

There’s fragile and there’s durable. So you take a glass. You drop it and it breaks and it’s fragile. Take a glass and you drop it and it doesn’t break and it’s durable. But there’s sort of this other system called anti fragility, which is effectively you drop the glass and the glass actually reshapes stronger than it was in the first place.

We’ve taken that approach to Shopify in many ways. We’ve tried to, you know, name your podcast. We’ve tried to disrupt ourselves. So one of the things that I think historically we were [00:06:00] known for is e-commerce. We actually do not think we are an e-commerce company. We think we are a commerce company. We think the future of retail will be retail everywhere.

And the big change between retail 30 years ago in retail today is not that you have new channels, whether it’s. Social commerce, or we just announced a partnership with Roblox. So now if you’re on Shopify, you can literally sell products in Roblox, which is a big deal because there’s a hundred million people living in Roblox digitally every single day.

What we realized was that what is happening now is consumers are dictating to the retailers how they wanna buy the retailers and the brands that are gonna be most successful will sell wherever it’s most convenient for those consumers. So we started to go into things like physical retail. We started to go into things like social commerce.

We constantly thought about what is the next version of Shopify? Not like next year’s version, but in 10 years from now, what it’s gonna look like. That’s the first thing. The second thing is probably one of the best venture capital firms in the planet is Sequoia. Sequoia passed on Shopify in 2010, and when you ask Sequoia why they passed, they will say, [00:07:00] ultimately, we had an issue with your TAM, your total addressable market.

At the time, in 2010, there were about 16 million retail SMBs in the world. So they basically said, well, Shopify has 2000 of them or 5,000 of them. We think that’s, that’s good growth, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re ever gonna be a billion dollar company. The way we saw it though was that rather than simply just growing our slice of the pie, we were trying to grow the pie itself, and I think what would due respect to Sequoia, what they missed was that.

We were actually creating new entrepreneurs, not just taking the larger market share from the existing base of entrepreneurs. That’s kind of the way we’ve always thought about things. How do we actually disrupt ourselves? So e-commerce is cool. What’s next? Where’s retail going? And maybe the, the last one I would say is that.

We don’t lick wounds very often. We have a lot of different areas of our business. We have a payments business as a standalone company. Shopify Payments would be one of the largest companies on the planet. We have a capital business. We have a shipping label business. We had a shipping and fulfillment business for a while.

It didn’t work. We shut it down. We moved on. We [00:08:00] believe failure is the successful discovery of things that did not work. And I think when you apply that lens to decision making, you end up making much better decisions and you end up growing faster. How do you assess failure as an organization or as a team?

It’s one of two things. Either it’s product market fit or it’s simply we don’t have the right team in place. And so in the case of fulfillment, for example, if you were to pretend that Shopify was a single retailer, you aggregated all of our stores into one single large store, we would be the second largest online retailer in America.

Amazon will be the first shop, be the second. We decided, uh, years ago that what if we actually acted like that as if we were the second largest retailer and then went ahead and tried to get economies of scale across every single pain point that a retailer might have. And so fulfillment was a pain point.

We thought if we build our own warehouses and we build our own fulfillment companies, three PL capabilities, maybe we can make that easier. At some point we realized that bits and bytes and atoms are very, very different. We’re really good at building software. We are not very good at building physical infrastructure.

And so we looked around and figured out [00:09:00] is there someone out there that is doing fulfillment in a way that we would love to emulate? In the case of fulfillment, there was a company called Flexport. And so we decided to, rather than do it ourselves, sell it all to Flexport. And now the thing that was a side quest for us is a main quest for them.

That’s kind of how we look at these things that don’t necessarily always work is, is there someone out there that can do this better than us, but we can still participate in the upside.

John Stackhouse: I wanna go back to the anti fragility point and link that to recruitment, because recruitment is a huge part of Shopify. As part of your culture, how do you recruit for anti fragility?

Harley Finkelstein: We have a little bit of a hack that all of you are welcome to steal from us, which is that. Ultimately, if you look across the company, most people that work at Shopify, again, Shopify is an entrepreneurship company.

The software we build, the products we care about, it’s all about entrepreneurship. Often what we end up doing is we end up hiring entrepreneurs. We look for founders. So [00:10:00] if you’ve met people that work at Shopify, the first question you can ask them as a test is, have you built your own company? And almost everyone at Shopify would say, yeah, I have.

Sometimes they’ve been very successful and we’ve acquired them. In other cases they said, yeah, I tried. It didn’t work. Looking for people that are actually founders, we have found to be the best type of DNA for people that to come work at Shopify. They seem to have the, uh, more of an anti fragility mindset about building, but more importantly.

They have been affected by entrepreneurship to the extent that falling in love with the mission of Shopify, which is about increasing the surface air of entrepreneurship is a lot easier. And so we recruit for that. We’ve now opened up our offices on Sundays. I told you we called it Builder Sundays. So every Sunday in Montreal, here and in Toronto, the Shopify office is open.

Any entrepreneur can come hang out, and for those of you that have been you, you know that I come hang out, I spend a couple hours every Sunday there. I’ll answer emails or I’ll work on a talk or something like that. That’s the best way for us to actually find incredible people that may wanna come work at Shopify, or in the worst case scenario, people [00:11:00] that wanna build apps for Shopify or build teams for shop, or be part of our ecosystem.

That ability to actually recruit founders to build software for other founders, that’s been the best thing for us on the recruiting side.

John Stackhouse: You mentioned total addressable market, TAM and how a lot of people don’t get that. They don’t get that. In a lot of companies, a lot of entrepreneurs are not good at explaining.

Yeah. Uh, explaining their TAM. How do you see TAM today for Shopify?

Harley Finkelstein: The clever answer that I’d like to say is it should be the same TAM as Oxygen, which is anyone, but ultimately it is someone that wants to sell a product to somebody else. Historically, the stores on Shopify, the businesses that we worked with were these startups, these small companies that started at their mom’s kitchen table that grew really large.

And if you look at companies like Aloe Yoga or RI or Gym Shark, that was their story. But now we’re seeing companies like Yellow and Mattel and Birkenstocks and on running also come to Shopify as well. Ultimately. What we’re trying to do is make it so that if you have something of value that you wanna share with someone anywhere in the world, on any single surface area, and that might be e-commerce, that may be [00:12:00] ai.

I mean, I think what’s one of the things that’s gonna happen in the next couple years is you’re gonna see the shift from searches, stop starting on search engines to search starting on. Chat GBT perplexity code. And that’s a huge opportunity. And so our responsibility is if you’re on Shopify, wherever someone is looking for your products, we make sure you show up.

So our TAM is is not a particular segment or a particular type of channel. It’s anyone that wants to sell something to anybody else. And so one is to helping existing entrepreneurs, but also helping aspiring entrepreneurs convert that idea in the shower into a real business. So if you think about the history of of commerce, the history of retail, the way it always started was first you build a product and the new found audience go back 150 years.

You’re the baker, you make bread, you then do some marketing. You get people to come into your bakery, you sell the bread. That’s how it always worked for the first time in the history of the world. What’s happening now is someone like Hailey Bieber. Who has a huge audience is able to create Rhode Beauty.

R-H-O-D-E. She created a cell phone case for your [00:13:00] iPhone that allows you to put your lipstick in it. So she has an audience. She understands her audience. She decides I’m gonna create a product specifically for this audience, and she creates a hundred million dollars company in a matter of months. This idea of shifting the sequence of events from product first, audience second to being audience first, product second.

That is some of the coolest thing ever that that’s ever happened in entrepreneurship.

John Stackhouse: Take us deeper into the AI aspect of this. How is AI going to change that, or how is it already changing that dynamic of creator and market?

Harley Finkelstein: There’s some obvious ones which around leverage you. You know this, and some of you in the crowd know this, but when I’m not a leading Shopify, my Sunday project is I have this podcast called Big Shot where I’m creating an archive of the greatest Jewish entrepreneurs.

One of my last episodes was a guy named Mickey Drexler. He’s about as close to retail royalty as it comes. He created Old Navy. He basically created J Crew. He ran the Gap for 20 years. He was on the board. Steve Jobs and him were very close friends. He was on the board of Apple. Mickey Drexler talks about that.

In the heyday at the Gap, there were literally hundreds of [00:14:00] people working in the product photography Department of the Gap. I. Doing product descriptions, product photography, merchandising. Today, it’s not a pitch for Shopify. Shopify is $39 a month. You get better tooling and a better quote, unquote helper or co-founder with a free product that we give you as part of Shopify than Mickey had at the gap with 300 people.

So that’s the obvious stuff that like technology is gonna make product descriptions and product photography much easier. But the much larger picture is that right now, if you go to Google and you type in sneakers. The first search result you’re going to see is Footlocker. It’s because Footlocker pays for that.

I believe in a few years from now, when you go to chatGPT or Perplexity or any of these amazing AI tools and you type in sneakers, they’re gonna look at all of your history of every search you’ve ever done on that particular platform, and they’re gonna say, you know what? That guy really likes running or hiking.

I’m gonna show him. Adams, Allbirds. I’m gonna show him ON running. I’m [00:15:00] gonna show Birkenstocks. All of a sudden now, consumers are getting products that actually they care about based on their particular search history, not who has the most amount of money. I. And for any of you in the room right now who sell product, particularly online, that is the biggest fundamental change like paradigm shift in 20 years of e-commerce, because now it’s not who has the most amount of money, it’s actually who can get in front of the most amount of customers.

And I think that is incredibly disruptive, but also incredibly democratizing.

John Stackhouse: So let’s shift to what Canada needs to do to seize this moment. ’cause it is a moment. I’m not sure there’s ever been a better time to be a creator. Yeah. In the world. There’s all sorts of challenges, but. Classic frictions are being removed hour by hour, minute by minute, and we just talked about what AI can do to reduce friction.

Yep. Interestingly, here in Montreal, there’s one of the greatest concentrations of creators in the [00:16:00] world. I think YouTube has more creators, producers in Montreal per capita than anywhere else. More gamers and game creators here in Montreal. The same can be said across Canada, and yet clearly we’re not creating enough value from that. What are we missing?

Harley Finkelstein: Well, first let me just say this, I’ve spoken at C2, I dunno, four or five times in my life. This is actually the first time I met C2 living in Montreal. I moved to Montreal 18 months ago because I think Montreal is by far one of the most entrepreneurial cities, not in Canada, on the freaking planet.

This is a place that praise of the altars of entrepreneurship. There is no place like this city, especially as someone that is an entrepreneur. I love this place.

The Canada thing. Part of what I think is missing here, and just look at the last 48 hours, there’s been two op-eds published, one in the globe and one in the financial posts. One says, is Canada a legitimate trading partner? The other one says, is Canada a real economy? So. I [00:17:00] think generally most people in the crowd are probably tired of hearing what the problems of Canada.

We get it. There are issues with the country, we can get better. We have a new government. We have a much more ambitious leader, I think here, and I think there’s a lot of momentum right now in Canada. So I don’t wanna talk about the problems of Canada. I think we talk about the opportunity. I think the opportunity is that ultimately if you’re a creator or you’re an entrepreneur.

There’s no reason that you cannot live in any of these amazing cities in Canada. There’s no reason that your audience, that your addressable market needs to be here too. In the same way that if you are a tech entrepreneur and you have to raise venture capital, you can look at great Canadian VCs. You can also look at great American VCs or European VCs or Asian VCs or Latin American VCs.

Businesses now geographically agnostic. When you look up something on Perplexity or chat GBT, and you’re looking for a pair of shoes and the shoes that come back up, you don’t ask yourself, where is the founder based? You ask [00:18:00] yourself, is this a product I wanna purchase? Yes or no? If it’s yes, click to buy, hopefully on shop pay.

If not, you move on. So I think one of the things that we need to just remember is that. This may be a smaller market than our neighbors to the South, but Shopify, most of our merchants are in the US. Most of our partners are in the US. The original venture capitalists from Shopify were American VCs.

Canadian VCs are also involved, but ultimately we were agnostic. I was born in Canada. I grew up in the States, Tobi’s born in Germany. We never looked at Shopify as being a company that needs to be focused on Canada. We were a company based in Canada, and although those sound similar, those are very, very different things.

RBC capital markets and your investment banking arm on Wall Street. You guys don’t wanna be the best Canadian investment bank on Wall Street. You wanna be the best investment bank. Full stop. And I think the companies that are most interesting, like Fullscript in Ottawa, or plus grade here, or I think about Cohere or League, uh, or Clio in Vancouver, all these guys running those companies, [00:19:00] they are not building.

Companies focus on Canada. They just happen to be building from Canada and they wanna be the best in the world, and they’re leveraging this incredible place. I think that’s not a major aha moment, it’s just a different way to think about ambition.

John Stackhouse: I can feel the energy from you here on stage. What do we need across the country? To force multiply this.

Harley Finkelstein: I think more role models are really, really important. I mean, I mentioned that builders Sunday, as at Shopify, brings in founders to come work in our office who want to. No strings attached, but selfishly, I also wanna meet these people.

I wanna hear what they’re doing. I wanna see what they’re excited about. I feel a responsibility to show up on Sundays, just to remind them that this office, they’re in Shopify, was not built overnight, nor was it built by having small ambition. The second is, you know, you started this, our session today by talking about the 10 year anniversary of [00:20:00] Shopify.

Anyone that has messaged me to say we are close. In IPO, I’ve pretty much stopped everything that I’m doing day to day and said I’m going to like come up to Montreal or come, I’ll meet you somewhere. I will give you the exact roadmap of what you need to be IPO, ready, company, team, bankers, lawyers, governance, whatever you need, I will deliver you in a silver platter.

I will not hold back. I will tell you the cheat sheet of how to do it because I actually think. Like success gets more success. We need more op-eds about what can we do given the current situation we’re in right now. And I think talking about anti fragility, talking about admission, celebrating our successes here.

You know, on the IPO roadshow, which was a 10 years ago, we were on the IPO roadshow. We did 93 meetings, probably 40 of those 93 meetings. Someone mentioned to us, oh, you’re Canadian. We haven’t seen a company from Canada since North Teller Rim. That wasn’t a compliment. They were sort of insinuating that companies in Canada, you know, don’t last.

We’re gonna be here in another 10 years and 20 years and 30 years, Shopify’s not going [00:21:00] anywhere. So again, like change that narrative that American investors think that just think of RIM or think of Nortel instead of thinking about Shopify. I think of us thinking about RBC instead of thinking about cohere.

I think that will help a great deal too.

John Stackhouse: By the way, just an observation for the crowd and those listening. Uh, Harley and I did our first fireside a little more than 10 years ago. It was before the IPO and Shopify was known then. You were known a little bit then, but early, early days. I was impressed then and more and more impressed over the decade about how you are.

Just irrepressible number one, but you, you power your network. You will reach out to, I’m guessing almost anyone, anytime for pretty much anything legit that is helpful to you, but also has a bigger purpose. I’ve seen you do this and not enough people will pick up the phone, even metaphorically, and just reach out to someone and say, can you help me?

And. What are the odds of someone saying yes?

Harley Finkelstein: Yeah. Uh, to that they’re not zero because we don’t have the quantity of population in Canada like they do in other places, in other countries. What we [00:22:00] do have is relationship. We actually have people here. There are, I’m looking around the crowd. There are a dozen people in this crowd right now who have helped me in my career.

Mitch Joel’s in the back when I was setting up smoofer, which was store number 137 on Shopify. Before I got to Shopify, I was one of the first merchants. Mitch Joel was running twisty mod at the time, sat down with me and said, here’s everything you need to know about digital marketing. He didn’t know me, he didn’t have to help me.

He did it because he gave a shit. And if all of us give a shit and we do this at scale over and over again, we’re gonna win. It’s kinda like a total addressable

John Stackhouse: market, but it’s not the market, it’s the supporters. That’s right. Like your, your team is almost infinite if you let it, uh, if you let it be.

Harley Finkelstein: That’s right.

That ecosystem reciprocity. That’s where this stuff gets really good. I get this call. We wanna build more Shopifys. Everyone in this room could build another Shopify. Tobi and I are not smarter than anyone in this room. We work really, really hard. We are incredibly disciplined. We’re very, very ambitious.

We just really. We give a shit, we really give a shit about Shopify being an incredible business product and company. I wanna share that with everyone that needs that from me.

John Stackhouse: So we’ve got just, uh, two minutes [00:23:00] left. Uh, how do we create that flywheel in Canada? And I think an important reference point is the value that Shopify has created gone from 1 billion to $150 billion.

That’s not a gold bar sitting. In a vault somewhere that is spread across thousands of people, largely here in Canada, I’m guessing, who are reinvesting, who are building other assets with that, as well as building Shopify. So we need more of that flywheel wealth creation. It’s not a bad thing, it’s a great thing.

Harley Finkelstein: And celebrating success like that is a great thing too. What we need to, so, you know, spin the flywheel. What John’s referencing is before we came on, I showed him a slack message on my phone from someone who now lives in TMR here in Montreal. And. This woman joined Shopify 12 years ago. I posted a photo of the IPO and she wrote me a note and said, my life has forever been changed by that particular day at the IPO.

That her life, her children’s life, her family’s trajectory for the next three generations has been changed by it. If anyone knows me and my background, my [00:24:00] family’s background, our story of, of immigrating to Canada, you know, like that hits hard for me. I love that stuff, but I think that is like sharing in the upside every single person that Shopify has equity.

Everybody, not a single person design of equity. So not only helping Shopify become a bigger company, but also I think we’ve created, I don’t know, 700 800 millionaires, people at Shopify that are now millionaires because of the IPO. That means that if they stay at Shopify, great. If they don’t, they may leave and they may be angel investors.

They may start another company. That stuff really matters. And so for those of you that are sort of the early stages, considering how to think about equity and your option pool, be really generous. Help that flywheel exist because getting a note like that from someone saying their family’s trajectory has been changed because of a single pushing of a bell in New York City 10 years ago.

That is what is exothermic energy gets distributed and then they get to distribute to other people as well.

John Stackhouse: That’s the magic of human capital and financial capital totally combining, which is the Shopify story. Um, last question. If we are fortunate enough to be here in 10 years time. What do you hope to be able to [00:25:00] say?

Harley Finkelstein: Well, there’s never been a trillion dollar market cap company ever been created in Canada ever before. I think obviously RBC is the largest, uh, I’d like you to say the largest. If there, there’s a bit of a curse, as you probably know, of companies that eclipse RBC from a market cap perspective, but there’s never been a trillion dollar company created in Canada ever.

Uh, there’s eight in the US or someone like that. I think I would like in 10 years from now for there to be a trillion dollar company in Canada. I’d love it to be Shopify, but I’d also be very proud if it’s one of you in the room who ends up doing that.

John Stackhouse: Let’s do it. Yeah. Harley, thank you so much. Thank you.

That was my conversation with Harley Finkelstein at the C2 Conference in Montreal, Sonia. It’s hard to be with Harley and not feel like you just drank a case of Red Bull. The guy has more energy than almost anyone I know he likes to call himself a power extrovert, but behind that extroversion is a lot of thinking about technology, about companies, about [00:26:00] startups, and about entrepreneurship. We sure need a lot more of that in Canada.

Sonia Sennik: John, one of the things I loved that Harley said at the end was about the importance of exothermic energy and creating relationships and networks that start to build upon themselves and create that flywheel effect. You could just sense his energy and his enthusiasm for entrepreneurship spending time on Sundays just with an open door at the Shopify.

Headquarters meeting entrepreneurs. That type of excitement for entrepreneurship is something that is rare and even more rare to see it 15 years into his journey as president at Shopify.

John Stackhouse: Yeah, I love that innovation of opening your doors. I’ve often called it mingling, and many of the best leaders I’ve known through the years have been mingler.

They mingle with their clients and potential clients. I used to know A CEO who would spend an hour a week. As a customer care person just to take complaint calls from his customers because he wanted to have an honest conversation. They [00:27:00] had no idea they were talking with the CEO, but for him it was this superpower of learning and business history is full of great leaders, innovators, and builders who perfect that art of mingling.

Sonia Sennik: A quote from your conversation with Harley that really stuck with me was fast to the frontier. And how important are networks and relationships when you’re looking to be fast to the frontier in any new emerging technology?

John Stackhouse: Yeah, you’re not gonna get there on your own. So find the force multipliers in your network or add them to your network.

That was something I’ve also learned from Harley in this conversation and in knowing him over the years, is he’s a power networker and not ashamed about it. And maybe a last point to refer to is the importance of crises in building a company. We don’t wish crises on anyone, but they come. And great companies.

Shopify is one of them. The global financial [00:28:00] crisis as a catalytic moment for Shopify before it IPO’d, and then of course the pandemic, which was another inflection point for it. But it became an inflection point because they made it an inflection point to many of us run to our basements, lock the door, and wait for a friendly knock rather than see it as.

What I’ve heard described is a blue water opportunity, and that means creating more blue water between you and your competitors.

Sonia Sennik: It’s so clear in listening to Harley’s story that Tobi and Harley were so incredibly focused. He talks about their work ethic, their discipline, and very humbly says, we’re not any smarter than anyone in this room.

We just knew what we wanted to build, and we’ve been relentless about building it. Tying that back to his conversation about the importance of networking in this world of hyper productivity where all of our calendars are stacked from morning to night. In the innovators that you’ve met with the CEOs that you talked to, how best for people to carve out that time and ensure they’re investing in relationships?

What have you [00:29:00] learned in all the conversations you’ve had, John?

John Stackhouse: Well look for those gifts that knock on the proverbial door, seeing someone in a room or in a hallway, or in an airport, and taking the opportunity to introduce yourself, seize that moment, and then keep the word relentless in mind, partly shows, and Shopify as a company, shows that you need to be focused, as you say, and just relentless in your pursuit of growth.

Not for growth’s sake, but for constant improvement. I love the reference from Tobi from way back when, where I think he says if you’re not growing 40% a year in whatever it is you’re doing, you’re stagnating. Wow. That’s a, uh, that’s a high bar. But uh, these are folks who keep raising that high bar higher and manage to keep clearing it.

And that is what has made them the most successful, dare I say, technology company in Canadian history. And part of that we should stress is Harley’s point that they don’t see themselves as Canadian. They happen to come from [00:30:00] Canada, but they’re global and we all need that mindset a little bit, maybe a lot more.

Sonia Sennik: And how you talk about yourself matters. I loved when he said that before they were even considering being on the list with the likes of Amazon, they were designing their company as if they were already the second biggest marketplace in the world and started building for scale well before they were there.

And I think if we can get more of that conversation in. The ecosystem of reciprocity of that network of entrepreneurs in our country think we’ll be in really great shape.

John Stackhouse: The mic drop moment, of course, was his reference to Canada needing a trillion dollar company. And why not Shopify? What a great ambition.

We’ll see if they get there. Let’s hope they, and many others do get there, but you’re not gonna get there if you don’t have that. Ambition. So thanks again to Harley for spreading the ambition and coming back to Disruptors. This [00:31:00] is Disruptors, an RBC podcast. I’m John Stackhouse.

Sonia Sennik: And I’m Sonia Sennik.

John Stackhouse: Talk to you soon.

AI is moving beyond passive outputs toward autonomous action. In this episode, John Stackhouse and Sonia Sennik explore Agentic AI, a new class of AI systems that can reason, plan, and take initiative with limited human oversight. These systems represent a major evolution beyond traditional and generative AI, capable of real-time adaptation and complex decision-making.

They’re joined by Adel El Hallak, Senior Director of Product Management at NVIDIA AI Enterprise, and Jacomo Corbo, CEO and Co-Founder of PhysicsX. Adel shares insights from his work delivering secure, scalable AI platforms for enterprise, while Jacomo draws on deep experience deploying AI in high-performance engineering contexts, including Formula 1 and advanced manufacturing.

Together, they unpack how agentic AI is already being deployed, the economic opportunities at stake, and the roadmaps and ethical considerations businesses need to navigate as AI agents become a force in real-world operations.

Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Simplecast

John Stackhouse: [00:00:00] Hi, it’s John.

Sonia Sennik: And I’m Sonia Sennik, CEO at Creative Destruction Lab.

John Stackhouse: This is Disruptors x CDL: The Innovation Era,

Sonia, today we’re talking about one of our favorite subjects, which is computer chips, semiconductors, as some like to call them. And the explosion in demand that we’re seeing, and frankly, we’re all part of through generative AI. We’ve got a great guest from Nvidia. It is the Global Champion right now in the chips race.

But we’ll also hear more about what we can all do in this age of Gen AI to be more efficient and effective in whatever it is we do. And the conversation could hardly be more timely. Just in the last few days, Donald Trump has taken a plane load of tech executives to the Middle East to sell American technology to the Saudis as well as to other Arab nations.

In fact, there were $600 billion in [00:01:00] commitments to American AI companies, including Nvidia, which is getting ready to sell hundreds of thousands of AI chips to Saudi Arabia. And this may just be the beginning. We got another signal of that from Mark Carney’s new cabinet in which he named Evan Solomon as the first ever minister for AI and a bunch of other things. But what’s really cool is that Canada now has a minister of AI.

Sonia Sennik: And John, you’ll remember last year, Canada announced a $2 billion investment into AI compute and setting up a new safety institute. The kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s economy is about 50% of Canada’s so about a trillion dollars in GDP versus our $2 trillion in GDP.

So you might expect a comparison, a billion dollar investment, but like you just said, they’ve just committed $600 billion in November of last year, another a hundred billion dollars. So the time is now for us to get engaged with this new wave of ai, generative AI and agent ai. It [00:02:00] is not slowing down. The more we can experiment, the better.

John Stackhouse: We’ll hear a lot more about that term agentic, but it feels like chips are the new oil and we’re better to see that than in the kingdom of oil, which is now the purchaser of chips. Not just for the sake of a trade balance, but because the Saudis are really determined to remake and reorient their economy and do it through the power of semiconductors and ai.

And that now is the challenge for Canada as well. How do we, as we think about reorienting. Our own economy use these incredible technologies to rethink, reimagine industries sectors, but also all of our organizations that can become much more efficient, more effective, and frankly more global than we might have been in the past.

Sonia Sennik: We’ve chatted about this before, but to have compute, you require chips to power them, of course, you need energy. So that connection between energy equals compute. Equal intelligence is [00:03:00] one to really pay attention to where are the regions in the world, where you have the intersection of these two things and leadership in these two areas.

John Stackhouse: Well, let’s get at it. Our first guest is Adel El Hallak. He runs software product management for enterprise AI at Nvidia. He’s also a proud Canadian from Montreal originally, and we’ll hear more about that. In his role, Adel focuses on delivering microservices and blueprints that enable organizations to build production grade agentic AI systems.

Adel, welcome to the podcast. Thanks, John. It’s great to be here. I’m so excited to talk about Agentic AI and GPUs, and a bit about Nvidia, but I wanna start with you ’cause you’ve had a really interesting journey. Like a lot of Canadians, a lot of Canadian techies. You started on one side of the border and you ended up in the valley.

Take us back a bit in time and tell us about your own journey.

Adel El Hallak: Yeah, John. So I did grow up in Montreal. It’s what I continue to call home. Whilst at [00:04:00] McGill. I did my computer science undergrad degree there. The very first internship I had was at business development back of Canada, but like every Canadian grad I had a stint at Nortel Networks.

It was a time when the economy as a whole was going through a downturn, but nonetheless, it was great to be part of a company that meant so much to Canada as a whole. But shortly after graduating, I wanted to venture away from Canada. I’d spent, you know, my entire undergrad still living at home. And so Dubai was a hot topic on campus and I ended up landing a job with IBM and spent, you know, a good 10 years in that region.

And about 2007 or 2008, I was working. In tech sales architecting an opportunity for a large oil company, Saudi Aramco. It was in 2007 for one of their clusters that they required something called A GPU. They send all these waves into the ground that come back up and you have to visualize the waves for them to be able to identify [00:05:00] where oil resides.

And I had to go source GPUs. I had to go introduce myself to a company called Nvidia. And uh, lucky enough, we ended up winning that opportunity and so spent 10 years in that region. It was great. But then corporate came calling, right? And I came back to the US and in 2015, IBM, Google, a company called Nvidia, a company called Melanox.

All collaborated to start what we called then the Open Power Consortium. And just through that collaboration with Nvidia, it was a, a marriage meant to be collaborated with them closely for a few years, launched our first deep learning software business over at IBM, and then just through the collaboration with Nvidia, the lure of living in California was too much to resist.

So in 2018. After living five years in Manhattan and working for IBM’s corporate office there, my family and I made the trip out to the Bay Area and it’s been our home ever since.

John Stackhouse: The power [00:06:00] of Canadians going abroad. I wrote a book called Planet Canada about people like you and anyone who’s listening and feeling a little hesitant about going out in the world.

Stop with a hesitation. ’cause you’re a great story of someone going out, coming back, going out, staying very connected to Canada. Tell us a bit about the GPU business that Nvidia has become. The emblem of it is beyond a powerhouse. It is the global force in GPUs.

Adel El Hallak: There, there’s kind of two factors that go into that, right?

There’s certainly the technological dimension that we’ll speak to for sure. But I think the GPU and acceleration as a whole, our founders have been great to recognize the opportunity decades ago and, and sticking with it, which was accelerated computing, right? Is going to fundamentally change the world.

And we were looking for the longest time for that killer app. And it started in 2012. It accelerated significantly in 2022. So 2012 [00:07:00] was the first time where deep learning kind of made a dent in driving accuracy percentages significantly. But then you fast forward a decade later and it was that chat GPT moment, and in November, 2022, it was when the world woke up to the power of large language models.

You saw a lot of creativity come about. It could write poems that could generate imagery. You can get it to summarize long documents for you. You can get it to analyze or rewrite or draft for you specific emails. And so that was a big moment, 2022, beginning of 2023. And since then, that timeframe’s only accelerated right from.

The birth of large language models to then taking large language models and grounding them with your enterprise data, what we call retrieval augmented generation, to the hot topic that is today, which is agentic AI and building systems that can autonomously make decisions.

John Stackhouse: Let’s jump into AgTech because it’s [00:08:00] become a bit of a buzzy word. I’m sure most people have heard it in one form or another. Take us deeper into what it means. What’s this agentic thing?

Adel El Hallak: So large language models create a generation different modalities. Write a poem, create a limerick, draft my email, use a text prompt to generate image, et cetera.

Those large language models are trained on the world’s corpus. As an enterprise, I need to give those large language models access to my corpus of data, my own knowledge base. So this notion of retrieval augmented generation came to be. And what that really does is it takes your knowledge base and turns it into vectors that can be searched semantically.

And so you can have a conversation about your data agents build on that. And there’s a few things that happened last year or so that have enabled this. The first thing is this notion of reasoning Models and reasoning models are more advanced than large language models. Large models will generate, and more often than not, will not take action unless prompted.

Now you [00:09:00] can have a sequence of prompts, but more often than not they’re unable to think through, rationalize through more complex problems. Reasoning models came to be that are able to address. Multiple tasks handle ambiguity. They’re able to go back, self-reflect and check their work. In fact, if you use any of those reasoning models, NVIDIA’s got one called Lama Nitron family.

But you see these models talking to themselves like it’s talking itself. Hey, have I considered all these options over here? Maybe I should consider this. Oh, wait a second. Well that was a better path. Okay, lemme stick to that. And so now you have these reasoning models that are able to. Rationalize through complex tasks.

Give us a couple of examples of how this is playing out in the real world. One of the fundamental changes that I’m seeing nowadays is, you know, in the past we treated AI as a tool. Now we’re seeing AI become more of a companion, and I kid you not, I’m seeing this happen on a personal front as well. My wife, my partner, has been using chat GPT to help draft emails, [00:10:00] do fun, creative stuff, but increasingly I’m seeing her talk to chat.

GPT Voice AI has enabled a new mode to engage with these models. Now, she’s not just chatting prompts. I see her practicing roleplaying with the ai, right? So nowadays you can give the AI. A role to play and the example there was a kerfuffle at school. Parents got involved and the reason she was roleplaying is because AI can be objective and you can have it coach you and hey, what’s a different perspective that I’m not considering as part of this?

It almost preps her as part of that conversation. In my personal day, I’ll give you examples in my personal day. The first thing is my ability to do deep research. This is not no longer just doing search matching queries. It’s being able to understand an entire knowledge base, being able to rationalizing and applying reason to it, and so on any given day, I do this at least three and a half a dozen times where I need to.

Get analysis on a given topic or a given subject or on a given dataset, my APIs, and tell the AI, Hey, can you [00:11:00] identify anomalies and patterns for me in this dataset? It will come back and we’ll find some things that I’ve never thought to look into. There are some arduous tasks that some of my engineers hate doing.

As an example, we deliver what we call microservices. You give it an input, an output comes up and they given a microservice delivered as a container. So inside the container, there’s hundreds of libraries that make up that given microservice, and any one of those libraries can have a vulnerability that can be exploited.

And this is standard practice. You have to scan your microservices for vulnerabilities all the time. And so a process that used to take engineers 4, 5, 6 hours, they have an AI companion, a security analyst that’s always on, that’s saying, Hey, I believe this to be vulnerable for these reasons. Here are the links for you to get to these websites, and here’s how I came up with the rationale.

The humans on the loop. They’re ultimately the decision maker as to whether we patch it. Or we don’t, but the AI companion is helping them. And you can extend this ability to [00:12:00] go and query all sorts of different knowledge bases, website, internal tools, right? Do a synthesis and present it to you with clear citations. That just makes me that much more productive.

John Stackhouse: How should, uh, we as consumers be thinking about this as we interact? More and more with agents and with agentic ai, and that includes the obvious concerns about safety and privacy.

Adel El Hallak: Yeah, it’s a fair and valid question. We’re in the dawn of a new era, but I go back to drawing to the AI companion, my AI teammate analogy because just like onboarding any employee, there are certain data sources that you’re gonna give your employee access to.

If you don’t trust that employee or it’s not within their discipline or their job, you do not give them access to that data source. When somebody joins a company, I join Nvidia. I gotta learn the cultural norms of Nvidia, right? I gotta understand its values, et cetera. We do the same thing with these AI companions, these AI teammates.

We train them, we ground [00:13:00] them in our values and our data sets, and at the same time, you gotta implement the guardrails in place the same way an employee is told. You cannot speak negatively to these points. These are things that you shouldn’t be saying externally, right? These same guardrails are applied to the AI topical guardrails, right?

Like you see some of these chats that will tell you, oh, sorry, I can’t conversate about this topic because I’m only supposed to stay within these lanes, right? So you can have topical guardrails, you can have safety guardrails, et cetera. So think of a human, think of an employee. They’re onboarding. Be very careful what you’re giving them access to because access control is super important.

And then implement the guard rails in place such that they remain within your values.

John Stackhouse: I like how you said we’re at the beginning or the dawn of a new era here. Where do you see it going over the next few years,

Adel El Hallak: where it’s headed in the next few years? Number one is all agentic systems require an interface. Today, a lot of those interfaces are written or chat type of interfaces.

Increasingly, you’re seeing these interfaces become [00:14:00] voice. Enabled interfaces because that communication is quite natural and a not so distance future. A lot of those interfaces are gonna be digital humans, digital avatars, your own avatar, and I think those are super powerful, right? Our ability to conversate opens up the aperture for a lot more folks to be able to engage with these AI systems.

The second thing is you’re gonna see us be able to tap and understand and reason through different modalities of these knowledge bases at higher accuracy rates. These agents are gonna be able to understand videos and different modalities all happening at once. And I think the third piece is you, you need a, a flywheel, which is, you know, those thumbs up on those thumbs down that we’re seeing increasingly in any engagements that you have.

Those are super, super valuable. ’cause every one of those clicks is a reinforcement. ’cause the uh, hey, you’re doing the right thing, you’re doing the wrong thing. I believe that in the future, that our interaction, our ability to interface with these agents through natural language, the same way you and I are talking right now, is gonna let us tap into all sorts of different.

Knowledge [00:15:00] bases across different modalities. Research synthesis, building training courses, managing my calendar, booking flights. We’re just scratching the service and it, it’s quite exciting what’s coming about.

John Stackhouse: So it all sounds quite wonderful. But of course, nothing comes for free. And one of the costs of agentic ai, as well as all those GPUs behind it, is just the enormous compute.

Requirements and that includes the energy requirements. How is this gonna play out so that all these GPUs that are doing all this work on our behalf, uh, don’t devour the entire energy capacity of the world?

Adel El Hallak: Yeah, I mean that, that’s, uh, it’s a great day to bring that up. And I always talk about full stack acceleration.

Yes, a lot of the world out there knows us for GPUs. That’s ultimately what we sell. But a large portion of engineers, Nvidia are working on software. I. The whole point of working on software is, is an [00:16:00] economics efficiencies gain, which basically says full stack accelerations translate to the best economics.

We wanna drive the highest tokens per second for the factory, but we want to do this at the most economical, lowest wattage possible, right? Because that’s what impacts your bottom line. Ultimately, that is something that is top of mind, which is how are we able to generate tokens as efficiently as possible?

Are you able to get the same type of accuracy with a much smaller model footprint? Full stack acceleration, which means hardware plus software will drive up efficiencies, drive down costs. And the second piece is using post trading techniques, fine tuning, lower adapters, et cetera, to customize smaller models to beat the accuracy of larger models that require, you know, more compute the process.

John Stackhouse: We’ve covered a lot of ground here and could keep going, but I wonder if you can sum up for our listeners what are two or three of the most important things they should keep in mind when they think about [00:17:00] Agentic AI.

Adel El Hallak: Number one is don’t think of this as a tool. Go back to think of this as a companion. A companion that specializes in a very specific case, right?

So help me write my code. Help me sort my calendar, right? Help me address vulnerabilities that come up in our software. Number two is go deep with one use case before you scale to others. Think about the access controls that you give it access to. Think about the guardrails you have to implement in place.

And the third piece is continuously looking to efficiencies, right? Because those are gonna scale just ’cause reasoning. Models are the thing to do. It doesn’t mean reasonable models are great for every use case. So always a value and make sure that you are using the minimum viable product and don’t just use it ’cause it’s a hot buzzword.

John Stackhouse: I love that advice. If it’s not adding value, don’t consider it. Yeah, it may be fun to play with, but it’s gotta add value at the end of the day. Adel, thank you. Wonderful conversation. Really enjoyed it.

Adel El Hallak: Appreciate you, John. Thank you.[00:18:00]

Sonia Sennik: We are joined now by Jacomo Corbo, CEO, and co-founder of PhysicsX, a company building powerful AI models for complex engineering and industrial applications. Jacomo was previously chief scientist at Quantum Black and a partner at McKinsey with deep experience in deploying AI across industries. He holds a PhD in computer science and has applied his AI expertise as the chief race strategist for the Renault F1 team.

Jacomo’s Research helped Renault win Double World Championships in 2005 and 2006. Jacomo, welcome to the podcast.

Jacomo Corbo: Well, thanks very much Sonia, John, for having me.

Sonia Sennik: So from Harvard to found in quantum black to McKinsey, to now starting and scaling Physics X, what compelled you to become an entrepreneur and solve some of the world’s most challenging problems like the energy transition?

Jacomo Corbo: It’s a very meandering path, so I still think of myself as an engineer. I had a passion for engineering from a very young age. Did my [00:19:00] undergraduate in electrical engineering, really in control theory and with tail end of my undergraduate, spent some time building steer by wire systems in Germany at Bosch and then went off to do my PhD and that was at Harvard.

And um, that’s how I got into the world of computer science. A lot of the things that I was doing were very much on the theoretical side of things. What pulled me back into the real world, into empirical things was finding my way into Formula One was the tail end of my PhD, this engineering competition that took place that Reno was hosting.

I got to know some of the team and they said, look, we think that a lot of what you’re doing is incredibly relevant to problems around race strategy. I ended up becoming the chief race strategist of the Reno F1 team, and it set me off on a bit of a journey I came into, an incredibly sophisticated engineering world, which is an F1 team, right?

You have people who know and understand aerodynamics incredibly deeply, who understand vehicle dynamics, who [00:20:00] understand materials incredibly deeply. But in all of these different areas of expertise, they only really understood how to model things and handle data in very traditional ways. So it certainly wasn’t taking advantage of techniques that computer scientists take for granted.

And that was very much the thesis for starting Quantum Black Machine Learning Engineering services company that we have worked with huge, you know, anchor clients, including pre Formula One teams and Boeing, and you know, and our desire is quantum black to stay very horizontal and across industry. The reality is that things are so much more advanced, but also I think the story of how the technology has evolved is that.

A lot of development has moved up the stack and it’s become a whole lot more democratized, a whole lot more consumable by software engineers. It’s become a form of software engineering in ways that sort of offsets the need to have people who are very [00:21:00] deep experts in very specific AI methodologies.

John Stackhouse: Jacomo, what advice do you give people when they’re thinking about how to land these ambitious technologies in their own backyard?

Jacomo Corbo: I think the very first thing is to start implementing, to start doing these things at some kind of scale. To really think about deploying this technology in ways that can drive internal productivity.

Right? Like the easiest example right now for a lot of organizations is. The use of getting leverage from generative code productivity tools, things that can make your software developers more productive, just using these things out of the box. Can buy you productivity, that productivity should be something that you are able to measure.

I see a whole lot of organizations that are really throttling consumption, trying to get it to a very small cohort of developers that have access to these tools, because ultimately what they’re [00:22:00] thinking about is this is a new line item. This is something which is going to increase cost. And there are cost controls on software in any large mature organization.

That makes a whole lot of sense. But with this technology, you really have to move into implementation. I think you have to force yourself to do things at a scale where you can really start measuring the outcome. The productivity is there, but again, you’re gonna have to become a little bit more sophisticated around how do you measure performance?

I think there’s a certain. Bias to action in terms of implementation required, as well as a discipline towards measurement that’s also, you know, an important prerequisite.

John Stackhouse: Love that bias to action and have the discipline to measure what that action leads to. Where are you seeing the most progress or most success across the economy?

Jacomo Corbo: There is a lot of relatively complex knowledge work that can be accelerated. Right. So I gave the example of software engineers. Absolutely. But there’s a [00:23:00] lot of other very horizontal functions, whether it’s in procurement or accounts receivable, accounts payable processes, where a lot of these tools are incredibly helpful trying to.

Find opportunities around spend reduction is something that a whole lot of organizations have invested in a huge amount of infrastructure. But one of the areas that I’m most excited about obviously is given everything that I’m doing with Physics X is. In industrial applications, I’m really talking about what engineers do and what the work of engineering, of designing things involves, of making them, testing them before you can manufacture things, whether it’s utility, whether it’s making steel or aluminum, the systems underpinning how that work gets done. Is incredibly ripe for a transformation.

Sonia Sennik: The point that you’re [00:24:00] making so well is it’s ripe for transformation in that generative AI or agentic AI as well. Being able to come in and be a dynamic contributor to making decisions and adjusting and aggregating learnings at a much faster rate. Can you speak a little bit to some specific examples of seeing that in action right now?

Jacomo Corbo: Absolutely. So a certain design, let’s say we’re talking about the exterior shape of a vehicle, we wanna understand how it performs at higher speeds and the efficiency of that vehicle and cutting through the air, the drag coefficients. We want to be able to, uh, assess how that structure made of a certain material will deform under loads in a crash test.

These things are different simulations. They’re incredibly compute intensive, but they also mean that the design runs through engineers who are deeply knowledgeable about those different performance criteria and who are ultimately trying to select down on the most important, the most informative, the [00:25:00] small number of experiments that they will run that will allow them to do those iterations and get to a better design.

On the other hand, you have testing, which runs through building physical prototypes in many cases, and then crashing them into a wall, for example, or building an airfoil and trialing it in the wind tunnel for 50,000 hours. You need a lot of infrastructure. Things take time. It’s incredibly expensive. And those iterations in so far as they run through tooling to make physical things, it’s incredibly slow.

Part of the revolution that’s happening right now around ai. For physics, for chemistry is that these models can’t, can be trained on a corpus of data, which is mostly numerical simulation, but they can also be trained on real world data, on experimental data, on test bench data, on wind tunnel data in ways that now allow you to get the boast of both worlds.

You get to models that are incredibly quickly, which allows you to do automation and optimization that is all together. [00:26:00] Impossible if you were only doing this on numerical simulation. And at the same time, they’re more accurate than our first principle’s. Understanding of, of the phenomena involved.

There’re a better, a higher fidelity representation of what actually happens in the crash.

Sonia Sennik: Jacomo, my last question would be around what you see specifically for the role of Ag agentic ai. In these systems of strategy, decision making and design, where do you see the biggest potential impact?

Jacomo Corbo: It’s a great question.

I would say that the frontier is moving so quickly that I wouldn’t put a limit on where exactly to apply this kind of modality, right? I wouldn’t put anything out of bounds. I think there’s an imperative for organizations to really start. Doing things to start experimenting with this, to really understanding what is working and how well things are working, because that will allow you to understand where things are falling over, not meeting requirements.

It [00:27:00] will tell you whether or not you need to do things like better prompt engineering or whether you need to do fine tuning where things are working incredibly well, in which case you want to be able to do more of that. I’d say we’re going to get it to a place where, for all categories of. Knowledge work.

People who are operating in desks, but also people who are sitting in clients, manufacturing operators, process engineers, drivers. Drivers, right? This is relevant in the built environment. It is going to change the way that we work. I think the opportunity is incredibly exciting and it can ultimately make work more interesting, more compelling.

So many of the organizations that I am in contact with are resource constrained in such important ways, and this is a mechanism through which you can relax a lot of those constraints and do more.

John Stackhouse: Those are great points to make work more interesting, more compelling, and to, I love the way you phrased it.

Relax, constraints. Can’t think of an organization that wouldn’t want to, uh, pursue that. Jacomo, thank you for the [00:28:00] conversation. This has been really inspiring.

Jacomo Corbo: Thanks very much, Sonia. John.

John Stackhouse: Sonia. As we were discussing in the introduction, this feels like the beginning of a new economic era. I shake my head thinking about the president of the United States going to Saudi Arabia to sell computer chips and American technology to help the Saudis transform their economy.

That’s just one of many things underway on the planet that are shaping the economy of the 2030s. And beyond.

Sonia Sennik: Well, John compute is just one piece of the puzzle. As we all know, adopting AI and managing change within enterprises is a really challenging problem. So thinking carefully about where AI can be implemented to prove productivity gains is an essential piece of the puzzle, and what I’m looking forward to seeing is the way in which this is harnessed and how people can adjust their processes to actually speed up that adoption cycle. [00:29:00] Because as you mentioned, this is a transformational opportunity, but there’s many, many aspects that need to change in order for it to really make impact.

I’d like to look back and tie that investment in compute and in chips directly to productivity gains and GDP growth. If we’re able to see that very clear line, then we’ll really understand this intelligence revolution that we’re in,

John Stackhouse: and it is an intelligence revolution. It’s not just artificial intelligence.

In fact, artificial intelligence works best when paired with human intelligence. So lots more to talk about in terms of what we can all do a little bit differently, more creatively and more ambitiously. This is Disruptors, an RBC podcast. I’m John Stackhouse.

Sonia Sennik: And I’m Sonia Sennik.

John Stackhouse: Talk to you soon.

Carbon offsets aren’t enough. To truly tackle climate change, we need a global industry dedicated to pulling carbon out of the air and at massive scale. Join hosts John and Sonia inside the innovation race to scale carbon removal technologies, featuring insights from leading voices in the field.

They speak with Dr. David Keith, a pioneering climate scientist and founder of Carbon Engineering, who unpacks the technological, policy, and economic hurdles to direct air capture and other approaches. You’ll also hear from two recent XPRIZE Carbon Removal winners, Mike Kelland of Planetary Technologies and Jim Mann of UNDO about how their startups are using ocean alkalinity and enhanced rock weathering to permanently sequester CO₂, while also delivering benefits to farmers and marine ecosystems.

Together, they explore whether the world can build a scalable, measurable, and credible carbon removal industry – one capable of drawing down billions of tons of CO₂ annually.

Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Simplecast

John Stackhouse: [00:00:00] Hi, it’s John here.

Sonia Sennik: and I’m Sonia Sennik, CEO at Creative Destruction Lab.

John Stackhouse: This is Disruptors x CDL: The Innovation Era.

Sonia, we just marked Earth Day last month, and while a lot of things happened that day, one of the coolest was some XPRIZE announcements, particularly the winners of its a hundred million dollar carbon removal competition, which included a lot of Canadians.

Sonia Sennik: Yes, John. We were at the New York Stock Exchange with the XPRIZE team to celebrate Earth Day and the top three winners, we had Mati Carbon that came through our CDL program from India that won the $50 million prize Vaulted Deep from the United States that won the $8 million prize and UNDO, that does their work between the UK and Canada who won the $5 million prize.

XPRIZE also gave out a few other prizes for most promising companies in certain areas, and the X [00:01:00] Factor Ocean Prize went to Canadian company Planetary from Nova Scotia. It was a really exciting day to see people rally around the carbon removal market, and the most interesting part about the event was listening to all the different ways that people from everywhere around the world are tackling this problem. There’s not one way to approach it, which leaves the world ripe for innovation in this space.

John Stackhouse: Well, let’s zoom in on Mati Carbon, the Indian company for a moment, the one that won $50 million for carbon removal through enhanced rock weathering.

Sonia Sennik: So an essential part of Mati Carbon strategy is working with small farmers in India.

As you know, in India, there’s a lot of farmland and mad carbon has seized the opportunity of helping farmers advance their technologies while also giving them the benefit of contributing to carbon removal. They also have best in class monitoring, reporting, and verification. You’ve heard it in any MBA class.

If you can measure it, you can manage it. Their tech stack [00:02:00] includes novel methods for soil monitoring that are coupled with sophisticated mass balance and calculations that can determine the bulk CO2 removal.

John Stackhouse: So zooming back, all of these innovators are trying to solve the same problem, and that is carbon in our atmosphere, carbon dioxide.

There’s not only the enormous amounts that we as humanity are putting into the atmosphere every year. There’s legacy carbon and that goes back centuries. That’s still sitting up there. And these combine to warm our planet. Lots of exploration going on, as we’ve discussed over many episodes about new technologies that can reduce the amount of carbon that results from all of our activities.

But there’s also some impressive innovation, which we’re going to hear about in this episode, to get that carbon outta the atmosphere and back into the earth and also back into the ocean.

Sonia Sennik: Absolutely. John, we need 10 billion tons of carbon [00:03:00] dioxide removal by 2050 to stay on track for that one and a half degree Celsius warming measurement just for reference, one mature tree absorbs 22 kilograms of carbon dioxide a year, meaning you’d need 45 mature trees to offset the average Canadian’s annual emissions. But when the problem seems as big as this is John, we can sometimes get a bit overwhelmed and think, well, how do we even approach it?

And if we haven’t figured it out by now, will we figure it out? Through our partnership at Creative Destruction Lab with XPRIZE, we’ve seen incredible advancements in these startups.

John Stackhouse: Well, let’s get at it. We’re gonna hear from a couple of really impressive innovators who have been recognized by the XPRIZE, and we’ll also hear from the world renowned scientist, David Keith, a Canadian who’s been a pioneer in carbon removal for decades.

But before we jump into those conversations, Sonia. Give our listeners a sense of the XPRIZE and why it matters to innovators.

Sonia Sennik: [00:04:00] XPRIZE is truly a one of a kind organization. Their mission is to inspire and empower humanity to achieve breakthroughs that accelerate an abundant and equitable future for all.

They do this through setting up incentive prizes. For example, the XPRIZE Carbon Removal Prize was a hundred million dollars incentive prize. The idea is that they were inspiring scientists and technologists from all around the world to start focusing their efforts. On carbon removal technologies. What that sparked was thousands of teams applying to be part of XPRIZE and a rapid increase in acceleration in the technological development of these startups.

Vaulted Deep, a Houston-based startup that was part of our XPRIZE CDL Carbon Removal stream, removed over 2000 metric tons of carbon dioxide in just four months of operations. So one can just imagine with the right level of support. Investment and their recent win from XPRIZE. A company like Vaulted Deep along with so many others can [00:05:00] scale over the next five to 10 years, removing carbon from our atmosphere at a pace we just haven’t seen before.

John Stackhouse: Our first guest is Dr. David Keith, a professor at the University of Chicago, and one of the world’s leading experts on climate science and energy technologies. Over his career, David has helped pioneer research on carbon removal and solar geoengineering. He founded Carbon Engineering, a company advancing direct air capture technology, and he brings a rare perspective that bridges science policy and entrepreneurship.

David, welcome to the podcast.

David Keith: Hi there. Pleasure to be on.

Let’s start a bit with your own background. Tell us how you got into this field and what attracted you first to CDR or carbon dioxide removal for those who are still catching up with the acronym.

David Keith: I started working on climate in the late eighties. I started working on some climate engineering technologies back then, simply because nobody else was doing it. So I’ve done a big range of things from climate modeling to observations to early work on some carbon removal [00:06:00] technologies. I wrote one of the very first papers on biomass with capture. I did work on direct air capture and then later founded a company. I’m not involved anymore. I’ve done a big range of things, but it’s only one piece of what I’ve done on climate.

John Stackhouse: We have a pretty clear idea of the climate challenge right now, particularly carbon in the atmosphere and the amount that we’re adding to the atmosphere was the problem as clear to you then, as it is now?

David Keith: Yeah, I mean, so the very first report that went to the most powerful leader in the world to President Johnson had already the data from the global carbon data that showed the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. And they were able to do the rough balance and knew the OS ocean and doubt. So the problem has been well understood for a long time, way before I got involved.

John Stackhouse: Maybe take us into some of the technology. For those not familiar with how carbon removal works, give us a 101 if you can.

David Keith: Maybe the single most important thing to know about climate change is that the amount of warming is [00:07:00] proportional to the cumulative emissions over overall industrial time. And that means that even if we brought emissions to Zero tomorrow, that wouldn’t stop climate change.

It would just stop it getting warmer, but it would still be warm. That would still be all the climate damages would be there. And if we want to reduce the warming, if at any time people want to make the planet cooler than it is when they make that decision. You have to either pull carbon out of the atmosphere or do sunlight reflection, so engineering or a combination of them.

But cutting emissions will not make the planet cooler. It just stops making the planet warmer. I think if, if the fundamental risk is caused by moving fossil carbon from these deep geological reservoirs where the carbon’s been isolated through the atmosphere for. Billions or hundreds of millions of years.

Then the only kind of carbon removal that can really reduce the long run risk is to put it back in some kind of stable [00:08:00] reservoir. Growing trees may be great. There’s lots of places where there’s deforestation and we need trees, but trees are inherently unstable. They want to be oxidized to burn to rot, and so they don’t remove carbon in the long run.

They don’t undo the consequences of. Burning a ton of fossil fuels and putting in the atmosphere. No amount of tree planting cannot undo that. What can undo it is either capturing carbon dioxide, the gas, and shoving it deep underground and there. Different ways you could capture it or reacting carbon dioxide with base minerals.

Carbon dioxide is a weak acid and people know that acid plus bases makes salts, so that’s what naturally wants to happen anyway. If humans all went away. The carbon dioxide would eventually be removed by reacting with these basic minerals that are all over the earth’s surface. And so perhaps the most important long runways to remove carbon are to accelerate those [00:09:00] reactions with the base minerals that have a endpoint of the CO2 being in stable salts.

Sonia Sennik: How has the conversation changed over time with people’s openness to seeing carbon removal as a commercially viable approach to business and a good use of their science and technology research?

David Keith: Well, it was kind of a nothing burger forever than the Paris agreement that had this stretch goal of keeping temperatures to 1.5 came about, and then modelers who model kind of economic system and, and carbon.

These models happened to have biomass with capture and at one kind of carbon removal technology, and they suddenly found in these economic models that that was the only way to meet 1.5. To be clear, these models didn’t have sunlight reflection in them. And it’s not obvious that 1.5 is a sensible, it’s not a scientific target.

So in some ways I think that was a kind of [00:10:00] intellectual nonsense, but it meant that carbon removal suddenly became very visible. And then there were lots of people, including lots of people promoting their businesses, putting out the idea that scientists say we have to have five gigatons or something of carbon removal by 2050.

And that’s kind of ignited a whole bunch of sudden attention to carbon removal in a, in a boom. To be clear, scientists don’t say that if you are thoughtful about it. And there’s certainly been a kind of boom of hype cycle though, driven by that argument.

John Stackhouse: You refer to 1.5 as intellectual nonsense. Give us a bit more sense of where you’re coming from with that comment.

David Keith: Well, I mean, the, um, there isn’t a scientific threshold or argument that 1.5 is the right target. 1.5 was a, I think, very clever. Political choice by the environmental community to make a really near term target that was unattainable so there wouldn’t be attained so that you could build political pressure for more action, [00:11:00] which is happening.

Last year, the world spent $2 trillion, just a little under 2% of the entire world’s economy on clean energy, which is a stunning success, and we’re likely going to see emissions peak in the next couple years, which is also a stunning success. But that doesn’t mean that it was kind of intellectually or in terms of environmental policy, the right place to aim that is that 1.5 is the right place to aim.

It was a a political negotiating tool, I think a really effective one.

Sonia Sennik: And so with that type of investment, David, do you believe where you’re sitting now that we will be able to tackle the challenge ahead of us?

David Keith: I think that with current technologies, no fundamental unobtainium, no giant innovation, it’s possible to do carbon removal in a way that really does reverse a bunch of the emissions that humans made.

So I think you could say that if you started kind of mid-century. That [00:12:00] there’s strong lines of evidence that say that for something like 1% of GDP spend over a hundred years, over another century, you could remove something like a thousand gigatons of carbon, which would be, for example, that’s about just under half of cumulative emissions to date.

To be clear, I don’t think it makes sense to do large scale carbon removal until emissions have been reduced, at least down to half or or a third of their current levels.

John Stackhouse: When you think about the next few years, how do you think about the business model for these sorts of technologies? Are we on the right course that they’re going to come to fruition and scale, or do we need more significant changes to both the business model and the broader economics? Of intervention?

David Keith: Uh, no. I don’t think we’re on the right course. Most of the carbon removal efforts now are driven by voluntary [00:13:00] offset markets that I think nobody I know believes are long-term scalable things. Uh, well, there’s a lot of hype and excitement. It’s important to say how small it is. So there’s this sort of 2 trillion total and clean energy.

The total money moving in carbon removal is a few billion, so really tiny compared to that. And I think that the system’s been driven by money coming in from venture capitalists and by companies with these voluntary offsets that I think are not a scalable way to do this. And it’s resulted in a whole network of startups.

But a lot of those startups are missing some of the things that are probably most scalable and low environmental impact, like large scale open ocean Alkalinity, for example. So I think the way I view it is, at least what’s happening now is there’s. People are actually beginning to try some of these things out.

At least much more research is happening than than five years ago. I think there isn’t a clear pathway forward for how to do it in the end. You want a public good like this to get paid for. It needs to get paid for as a public good. That’s the only way that I know we’ve ever done it.

John Stackhouse: You’ve [00:14:00] mentioned Open Ocean Alkalinity.

I would just wonder if you could give a quick explanation.

David Keith: If you take a glass of pure water and put it on a counter, it will gradually become acidic. Where did the acid come from? The acid is actually from carbon dioxide in the air that makes carbon acid a weak acid in water just kind of automatically, and you would pull the CO2 outta the air.

If you put some antacid in it, which is a magnesium hydroxide, you would neutralize that acid and pull more CO2 outta the air. And then you have a little machine for capturing CO2 outta the atmosphere by adding this an acid to your little glass of water. That works stably at the global scale. Most of the carbon that in the kind of act of biosphere is locked up in the ocean as carbon.

That is in this acid-based salt balance, which is stably there basically forever. And so if we can add more of these bases to the ocean in a way that doesn’t have local environmental harm, then we would both reduce ocean acidification, which is say damaging coral reefs and also permanently remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

And the big question is. [00:15:00] How to make the bases that will dissolve at scale and how to distribute them in the ocean. And for both of those things, the idea is old. The first big paper on this topic is published in 1995, but there really hasn’t been much work. We’re now doing a bunch of work at U Chicago.

We’re working closely with Frontier, the Stripe funded big, big actor in the, in the carbon removal space. But there isn’t really a kind of coherent research effort.

John Stackhouse: Talk to us a bit about the tech challenges right now with respect to direct air capture. What are the biggest hurdles on the technology side in your mind in the coming years?

David Keith: Well, direct capture is just one of many of these technologies. It’s one I was personally involved in. I think the big question is to actually shake out these technologies and understand what they cost on the sort of plant two or three. It’s very hard to know what things cost until you actually go build them in the real world.

Sonia Sennik: You mention in that description that offset credits won’t [00:16:00] last much longer. That is probably peaking the interest of some of our listeners. Would you mind just double clicking on that?

David Keith: Well, I mean, I don’t think in the end companies do big things voluntarily. I, I don’t think they really should. It’s not the appropriate place for companies to do stuff.

I mean, if you look at the giant successes that we’ve had in environmental policy, clean air, removing lead ozone, I mean, the world has made enormous progress. Air is much cleaner around the world than it was when I was a kid. And water is too. Those are fundamentally done by government setting rules. And then companies competing under those rules.

If you think about the giant success of the sulfur cap and trade market, that helped to be the core of the US Clean Air Act that’s been copied around the world. The idea was government shouldn’t be deciding the exact technology. Government should say there’s a total amount of emissions you can have and you guys can trade inside that.

But that’s very different from a tradable offset credit, which there’s [00:17:00] no cap to, and not really a, a way to verify and, and you don’t really, there’s not a reason for companies to do it at scale. They can do a little bit for the kind of PR reason, but in the long run, you’re not gonna spend the kind of 1% of GDP for PR.

John Stackhouse: I. The broader infrastructure projects, carbon infrastructure projects, and I suppose this is what IRA in the US was, uh, starting to move towards. Are you seeing success on that level at scale

David Keith: Really too early to say. I mean, I’m totally thrilled that the plant from Carbon engineering technology that I, you know, I founded the company, is now actually just coming into operation at a half million tons a year.

Absolutely fantastic and I’m super thrilled that Oxy was involved and that IRA and these US government antennas that helped to make it happen. But that’s the first plant. It’s a half million, 10 a year plant. You don’t really find out how these things really work and begin to really understand and plant costs until you built quite a few plants, which, you know, Oxy is keen to do and I’m thrilled they are.

And [00:18:00] of course, not just one line of technology. I. Obviously was one of the innovators, so I’m excited about it. But there’s a bunch of other lines in direct air capture and then there’s all these other methods, and I don’t think right now that the kind of innovation ecosystem for carbon removal is effective and focused as I’d like to see.

John Stackhouse: And with respect to the Oxy project, this is Occidental Petroleum in Texas. For those who aren’t familiar with it, it involves enhanced oil recovery, EOR, which some people have concerns about, ultimately leading to the production, not leading to reduction of fossil fuels. How do you think through some of that complexity?

David Keith: I have no problem with EOR. Obviously it really gets under the skin of, of some of the environmental community. But if you actually have a third party regulator that ensures that the amount of carbon that went down the hole is the same amount of carbon that went up in oil, then you really have made a hydrocarbon fuel, which you can use for things that are hard to decarbonize, which has no net emissions.

And I think that’s a [00:19:00] useful thing to have.

Sonia Sennik: I’m curious to know if you could make one policy change that you think would really. Improve outcomes or set the rate incentives for advancing carbon removal, what would that be?

David Keith: So in Canada there’s a bunch of subcritical little academic research and then startups.

What there isn’t is a serious effort to build some kind of public, private entity that really has research muscle in the public interest, say for some of these emerging technologies like Enhanced Rock and Ocean Alkalinity, and then to have. Canada government actually makes some choices about where it’s gonna push.

I mean, I’m a super proud Canadian. I love it. But of course, sadly we had to sell Carbon Engineering to a US company. I think Canada is awesome, but Canada is only 40 million people. And the idea that you’re just gonna kind of let every flower bloom and have [00:20:00] all this stuff spread around the country with no center and no focus is not a recipe for winning. We need a much larger system-wide approach, is what you’re saying. Yeah. And for some of these things like. The innovation model that works so well in pharma and it where there is an underlying giant commercial market for the products. If you could make the market work is just different here.

Sonia Sennik: Yes.

David Keith: And I think a different kind of innovation answer is needed. I definitely don’t think this should all be on my academics or government labs. It, it needs private innovation. It, and I think the point is maybe there’s some ideas that come totally outta left field. But I think the big message here is that most of the carbon removal technology we’re talking about are all have been known for decades.

The issue isn’t to advance some totally new thing. The issue is to actually take some of the things we understand and march them down the playing field by. Building them at scale, doing industrial engineering, and crucially coupling that with [00:21:00] studying their environmental impacts. ’cause the issue isn’t just can we capture carbon?

It’s can we capture carbon at a low enough cost with a low enough environmental footprint? And I. Putting those together, I think requires a kind of government action and a government action is able to not pick one winner, but say We’re gonna look at this set of things, not the usual. Very sad, I love Canada, but usual way that Canada has been kind of funding research in this, which is this.

Everybody gets a little money sprinkled everywhere and sprinkled regionally, which is just not a way to win.

John Stackhouse: You are suggesting we need more state capital, but this can’t be done by government. It needs to draw in private capital at scale, not vc, but big long-term capital, and then pick some industrial projects to just build at scale.

Demonstrate with engineering, it’s not the first project, it’s the second and third to see if you can cut the cost by 50% with each iteration.

David Keith: So one thing we don’t have is applied environmental science. [00:22:00] One part, I think. Is and should be. A government function is really high quality applied environmental science that can help answer the public interest question, which is what is the environmental impact of some of these technologies?

And that doesn’t work well by just a few university grants. It requires something that looks more like a coordinated center. That focuses on this really applied work, working closely with technology developers and that that’s something it wouldn’t cost that much and that Canada could do on some of these technologies easily.

There. There’s a little bit where Canada’s kind of started a nice road on some of the ocean liny things. There’s a project on the east coast, I. Dalhousie center that has some of that, but you could do that for one or two things in a serious way. That’d be an executable thing the government could do.

Sonia Sennik: David, thank you so much. This was fantastic.

Our next guest is Mike Kelland, CEO and co-founder of Planetary Technologies, a Canadian company and CDL alumni, pioneering a unique approach to carbon removal using ocean alkalinity [00:23:00] enhancement. Planetary was recently awarded the $1 million XFactor prize from XPRIZE, carbon removal for its breakthrough work, turning the ocean into a natural carbon sink.

Mike Kelland: So the process is very simple. We actually call it seawater restoration. The easiest way to think about it is that the ocean essentially breathes and everything we put up in the air and everything that’s in the atmosphere gets breathed in by the ocean. So when we put extra CO2 up in the air. The ocean’s gonna breathe all of that.

CO2 in the CO2 concentration of the ocean builds up really quickly and CO2, when it gets into water, turns into an acid. So you can kind of think of the ocean as having like a little bit of heartburn. What we do is we work inside coastal plants to reverse some of that acidification. We source a natural mineral and we introduce that into the water that flows through power plants and wastewater plants.

And as we do that, we’re gonna reduce that acidity in the water that’s flowing through. And what that does is it allows the ocean in the local region to essentially [00:24:00] breathe again. We’ve been doing this for about five years now, and the question when we started was always, can you measure this? Are you able to really see that reduction of acidity, that reduction of CO2 in the ocean as you’re moving forward?

And over the last year, we actually showed that we were able to directly measure using some really cool sensors. We were able to show this direct measurement of the reduction of CO2 in the surface ocean as a result of our activity. It’s a really exciting space right now, and what we’re seeing more and more is these papers coming out saying, okay, we were worried about biological impacts.

Now actually we’re seeing biological benefits. So we’re seeing things like an increase in the biomass of commercially important fisheries. We’re seeing increase things like shell growth and things like that for a variety of shellfish and important commercial fisheries. So there are those co-benefits, but fundamentally what we see is that this is a very high quality, very scalable, ultimately very cheap way [00:25:00] of permanently, hundreds of thousands of years timeframe, removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

And I think that that’s gonna be the funding model. The bottom line is we need. A huge amount of carbon removal. So we need enough carbon removal to get to the net in net zero, but we also need to be removing legacy emissions. None of this carbon removal stuff matters if we don’t reduce our emissions, but it’s too late to solely rely on that.

30 years ago, we had done that and really sort of bent the curve downwards on emissions. We wouldn’t need to do a lot of carbon removal, but at this point it’s too late. We’re gonna lose so much if we don’t have carbon removal. As part of the portfolio of solutions, carbon removal has to become a $1.2 trillion market by 2050 if we want to hit our climate goals.

That means that 10 years from now, we need to be scaling pretty rapidly on these technologies. There’s gonna have to be a lot of public funding that goes into this. We kind of have to think of this. I. Like waste management, how do we pick up the garbage that [00:26:00] we’ve put into the atmosphere as quickly and easily as we possibly can and as cheaply as we possibly can?

And that that really is how the market has to eventually develop in terms of our technology. In particular, study after study, after study is showing that. This form of carbon removal is the most scalable and is the cheapest. The ocean is is really a global commons, and we have to be super, super cautious with the work that we do there.

But once it starts to scale, it’s gonna go really quickly because it is such a scalable and low cost solution.

Sonia Sennik: Our next guest is Jim Mann, founder and CEO of UNDO, a carbon removal company that aims to capture huge amounts of carbon dioxide from our atmosphere. UNDO was recently awarded $5 million for its enhanced rock weathering solution via XPRIZE.

Jim Mann: So we did a lot of our early experimentation in the UK where we spread basal, which is a silicon mineral onto agricultural land.

And then as we’ve started to scale up, [00:27:00] we focused much more on Canada where we are using a manual called tonite and applying that to active football. And farmers get a benefit from the application of minerals. It has a pH stabilizing and raising effect, which is good for farmers and it also absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere.

Enhanced truck weathering is an open system, and in these complex systems it becomes very difficult to get accurate measurements. So we’ve had to develop and actually file patents on new techniques that enable us to empirically measure the removal of CO2 within that complex field environment. We give the minerals to farmers for free.

They get all the benefits on their agricultural land, and as we generate carbon credits, we sell those carbon credits at a very reasonable price, which we sell to companies, the likes of British Airways, Microsoft, McLaren Racing, Barclays Bank, big organizations that have a footprint that they can’t avoid, and so they are [00:28:00] contributing to the removal of the emissions they’ve put out there.

But the whole of that rural ecosystem is benefiting right along supply chain. In terms of the markets, I think this is very different to historic markets where we were looking more reduced emissions. Typically, this is your removal technology. We’re actually taking the CO2 back outta the atmosphere. I.

And, um, as long as you can measure that and quantify that, I think we’ll build much more robust and credible markets. We’re starting to see regulators move towards that space and we can be confident about strong market going forward. I think in terms of the agricultural community, well, that’s why we structured the business model the way we have.

They often see a benefit very, very quickly, both in terms of the pH and soil health, but also depending on what crop they’re growing, they can see a benefit in. The quality of that crop, and this is a measured quality standard that they get more money for as early as the first year of the application.

So we don’t have to persuade them that the carbon [00:29:00] markets are a good thing. So it’s a very easy conversation for us. Our vision is to build an organization that can have a real impact on the world. We want to remove a billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere. And this accelerates our progress towards that goal.

Sonia Sennik: John, what an incredible set of conversations that showcased how many different people are taking so many different approaches to solving the problem of carbon removal.

John Stackhouse: It’s remarkable to hear the extent and depth of science that’s going on, not just here in Canada, but around the world in this.

Different kind of space race to figure out how we can capture all that carbon in the atmosphere and get it back into the ground and maybe into the ocean. It’s ambitious and we can’t assume that these technologies are gonna work or work at scale in the timeframe that we need. So we also have to focus on our own activities, whether it’s as consumers, citizens, or companies in pretty much all [00:30:00] sectors to get emissions down.

I was also intrigued by some of the comments about measurement, which remains a bit of the Achilles heel. To be frank in all of this, there’s certainly lots of MRV systems emerging, but nothing in place now that people are willing to bet billions of dollars on to accelerate and scale what we need. So it’s not just the science, it’s the business models and the measurement reporting and verification models that all have to come together and have to come together pretty soon.

Sonia Sennik: What an interesting marketplace. The carbon offset market is a multi-sided marketplace to ultimately support carbon removal, while big companies build large data centers and energy facilities to support our increasingly digital world. It’s an interesting way to take responsibility to counteract the carbon that’s being released into the atmosphere.

And companies like Shopify, Disney, Stripe have all voluntarily committed to purchase carbon offset credits to get this marketplace going. I [00:31:00] cannot wait to see where we’re at five years from now.

John Stackhouse: Five years in the span of the earth is just a blink of the eye, but it’s also a reasonable timeframe for us all to set for ourselves in terms of marking material progress in the science and technology that we’re doing, and.

Who knows. Maybe we’ll be back at that time and hear from these innovators to see what they’ve done. This has been Disruptors, an RBC podcast. I’m John Stackhouse.

Sonia Sennik: And I’m Sonia Sennik.

John Stackhouse: Talk to you soon.

Early detection remains the single most effective strategy for treating cancer, significantly enhancing survival rates and outcomes. Join hosts John Stackhouse and Sonia Sennik as they explore how groundbreaking innovation and technology are reshaping cancer detection, treatment, and prevention. Physician and entrepreneur Jesse Salk discusses his pioneering Duplex Sequencing Technology, dramatically improving diagnostic accuracy. Peter Liu, CEO of Oxford Cancer Analytics, explains how advanced machine learning and proteomics are enabling more precise and accessible cancer screening. Andrea Seale, CEO of the Canadian Cancer Society, shares exciting advances like lung cancer breathalyzers and convenient at-home blood tests. Listen in to discover how these innovations, combined with inspiring personal stories, are bringing renewed hope to one of humanity’s most pressing health challenges.

Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Simplecast


John Stackhouse: [00:00:00] Hi, it’s John here.

Sonia Sennik: and I’m Sonia Sennik, CEO at Creative Destruction Lab.

John Stackhouse: This is Disruptors x CDL: The Innovation Era.

Sonia, it’s April, and that means spring is maybe not here, but around the corner. And of course, we’re seeing daffodils both in some parks, but also on people’s lapels, which is a good reminder that April is also Cancer Awareness Month and Cancer Awareness Month. And all those daffodils, if you weren’t aware, were introduced here in Canada way back in the 1950s as a symbol of Spring of Hope, and of that great slogan that cancer can be beaten.

Sonia Sennik: John, cancer remains one of the leading causes of death worldwide with one in five people expected to develop cancer in their lifetime. But in Canada, the number is even higher.

At about two in five Canadians are projected to face a cancer diagnosis. Seeing the treatment and disease management process up close and personal, I’m [00:01:00] sure is something that many of our listeners have experienced in some way, shape, or form.

John Stackhouse: Yeah, I suspect we’ve all been through excruciating aspects of cancer, both in our own families as well as social circles, and there’s no other word.

It is excruciating on the patient, first and foremost, but also on the families and support networks of everyone who endures and suffers cancer. It’s also extraordinary and inspiring to me always to see the quality of care in this country. It is getting better just as the diagnosis of cancer is getting better, not nearly fast enough, but one of the things I love about that slogan, cancer can be beaten is its expression of hope.

The Canadian Cancer Society doesn’t say it will be beaten, but it can be beaten. If we all do something about it, and we’ll hear on this episode some of the amazing things that all of us can take advantage of with technology that don’t get us there to defeating cancer, but certainly give us all a better [00:02:00] shot.

Sonia Sennik: The Canadian Cancer Society works with us, John here at Creative Destruction Lab, with a vision of putting together an early stage program focused solely on cancer prevention treatment and survivorship technologies. Today on our podcast, we have one of our mentors, Jesse Salk, as well as one of our CDL alumni graduates.

Peter from OxCan Analytics. These folks are dedicating their lives at the forefront of innovation and technology, of improving the experience of oncology patients around the world.

John Stackhouse: And I love it that CDL has embraced cancer as a pursuit for innovation for anyone who’s listening, who is thinking about a career at innovation, and you can start that at any age.

It doesn’t need to be just about the next delivery app. Whether you’re a technologist or a marketer or a digital program manager, you too can join the battle to defeat cancer and do it through innovation.

Sonia Sennik: Absolutely, John. Coding to cure cancer. We’re gonna hear from our guests today about how artificial intelligence is playing a role in [00:03:00] transforming oncology prevention treatments and survivorship.

John Stackhouse: We’ve got a great episode, so let’s get at it.

Sonia Sennik: First, we’ll hear from Andrea Seale, the Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Cancer Society, which is the country’s largest national charitable funder of research into over a hundred types of cancer. The Canadian Cancer Society is committed to uniting and inspiring Canadians to take control of cancer funding high performance research that improves cancer outcomes and addresses the greatest opportunities for progress.

Canadian Cancer Society is also the founding partner of our CDL Cancer program, supporting innovators at the cutting edge of science.

Andrea Seale: Progress in science and technology is helping us to improve cancer survival rates decade after decade. And when we consider emerging technologies, we could talk about genomics, ai, radio, theranostics immunotherapy, and the Canadian Cancer Society is funding really important development in all of those areas.

But some of the most exciting [00:04:00] potential I see on the horizon is about finding cancer earlier. So let’s detect it when it is stage one or even sooner. And today we do this through some of our healthcare screening programs. So mammograms, scans, fit tests, but science is allowing us. To see evidence of cancer in smaller and smaller increments of material like in the molecules in your breath or your urine, or even fragments of tumor DNA that are circulating in your bloodstream and seeing it early gives us better treatment options, and this is really what we all want.

I was in a lab that’s using breathalyzer technology to try to identify a molecular signature for lung cancer and. This is a great example of a simple, portable, inexpensive technology. If it’s like that, it could let us screen more people, screen at younger ages, screen outside our big cancer centers.

Canada’s such a big country. Imagine if eventually we could have at [00:05:00] home cancer diagnostics. Less pressure on our medical system, we could avoid more invasive time consuming surgeries for patients. It’s really promising, and it’s so important that we work together on this

Sonia Sennik: Now we welcome Dr. Jesse Salk, a pioneer in cancer innovation, whose groundbreaking work is reshaping how we detect and treat cancer. Jesse is the co-founder of Twin Strand Biosciences, a company dedicated to enhancing the accuracy of DNA sequencing through revolutionary duplex sequencing technology.

Jesse, welcome to the podcast.

Jesse Salk: Thank you very much,

John Stackhouse: Jesse. Before we get going, we should point out to our listeners that in addition to that amazing resume, you’re also the grandson of Jonah Salk, who developed one of the first successful polio vaccines. I wonder if you can give us some insight into. Your grandfather and how that inspired what you’re doing today.

Jesse Salk: Well, I knew him growing up as a child and to me he was just a grandfather like [00:06:00] any other who brought presents and played and that sort of thing. I think in sort of retrospect now being a scientist and a physician, one of the things that I say I’m most proud about being related to him is the mentality that I remember.

He tried to pass on to me that you’re only as good as your legacy, and so it’s about what one does for others and the memories you leave and the things you do. Beyond yourself that are really the most memorable and lasting.

John Stackhouse: What a beautiful legacy for him to have left to you in addition to the extraordinary legacy he left to humanity.

Tell us a bit before we get into your company and your work, the sort of legacy that you’re trying to build.

Jesse Salk: I am a physician scientist. I came out of academics and I spent many years developing basic science tools and research and publishing papers. One of the things I learned early on was that there’s a huge amount of power in academics, but there’s also a lot of limitations in terms of the scope and breadth that one can deploy these new [00:07:00] technologies.

And so I developed a technology and started a company called Twin Strand, which was really based around that intersection of tools for scientists and, uh, things that can benefit patients and customers globally.

Sonia Sennik: Jesse, for our listeners who may be unfamiliar with the term duplex sequencing, how does that differ from traditional DNA sequencing methods?

Jesse Salk: Duplex sequencing is a technique I developed with colleagues from the University of Washington more than a decade ago that uses special biochemistry and special informatics to significantly improve the accuracy of DNA sequencing. So normal DNA sequencers work pretty well and have an error rate of around 1%, and duplex sequencing drops this to below one in 10 million to allow detection of extremely rare variants for applications like detecting the presence of residual cancer after a curative intent treatment or detecting the mutagenic [00:08:00] signature of a chemical in the environment. That’s a potential carcinogen. And things along those lines, really extreme use cases.

Sonia Sennik: So the more accurate the DNA sequencing, the better the outcomes. How does your technology impact the lives of patients?

Jesse Salk: I originally developed the technique with colleagues when we were studying the formation of cancer and early cancer processes, meaning things that humans are exposed to, either related to their normal endogenous aging process, or chemicals in the environment that can mutate, DNA, can actually change it.

And although we’re familiar with being. Born with a certain set of DNA and thinking about that being immutable during life. That’s not actually quite true. Every cell in our body undergoes a very small number of genetic changes with time, and some of these are the things that ultimately lead to cancer formation.

So this technique allows better understanding of early cancer formation processes and the things that drive it, potentially allows better [00:09:00] early detection of cancer when it’s more treatable. Allows detection of relapse of cancer early when something can be done about it. Cancer’s tricky. It’s not a disease that’s from an inherited single gene or a single virus or a single bacteria that causes it.

It’s a heterogeneous disorder that’s sort of interplays and is intertwined with aging. Our bodies naturally develop mutations and we have ways of preventing those from growing, but eventually some of them can let cells grow and expand into cancers, and we. Know that we don’t go from a state of normal to a state of cancer overnight.

This is a gradual process and better ways of resolving how those mutations occur, what caused them, and what allows the cells to carry them to grow and begin that early cancer process formation will hopefully lead to better insights for better cancer prevention and early detection.

Sonia Sennik: Jesse, you spent quite a bit of time with us this year in our CDL Cancer program.

I’m [00:10:00] curious to know what innovations you’re seeing that are exciting you the most.

Jesse Salk: There’s quite a lot, uh, in the cancer stream around artificial intelligence, whether that’s interpreting pathology or radiology slides or developing new drugs. So that’s an exciting area. That’s, um, something that I’m definitely anticipating is gonna really be impacting, uh, science and medicine going forward.

There’s also a lot of focus I’m seeing on health economics and ways of taking technologies that might be cool but are also expensive, and not just throwing more expensive solutions at our problems, but taking some of the problems we have and looking at the most cost effective and, uh, realistic ways to get the most out of the tools we do have.

I think the breadth of people in the room, both companies and mentors is enormous and it’s always a pleasure to participate and see something. I learn something new each session.

Sonia Sennik: Geoffrey Hinton, years ago, I think in 2017, famously said, [00:11:00] in five years there’ll be no more radiologists. I think each of us probably know a radiologist and radiologists are very much still in business.

What does the pathway look like for AI to start making really tangible changes when it comes to cancer prevention or treatment?

Jesse Salk: I think AI is obviously a tricky term because it’s not quite the same as human intelligence. I think there are things that many of the tools we have now can do better than humans.

A lot of tasks that I tend to forget or my colleagues would rather not spend their time doing so we can spend our time thinking and focusing and more sophisticated. Management decisions and strategy. Like I said before, cancer is an incredibly complex disease and we’ve over the last decade, developed more and more new tools for increasing the depth and breadth of data streams for measuring different molecular happenings in cancer and other diseases.

I think taking very complex disparate signals and integrating together using AI to create [00:12:00] models and learning that we can use to, from that information to predict outcomes or identify specific choke points where we can therapeutically intervene is probably one of the most relevant things. So it’s using.

Pattern matching that we as humans are not necessarily good for, to get additional insights into some of the data we have from new technologies that already exist and those that are coming on down the road.

John Stackhouse: Presumably, Jesse, you could do a lot of this in your lab, and even as an academic, you’ve chosen to create your own company, Twin Strand Biosciences. Tell us a bit about the origins of the company and what, as a scientist you felt you wanted to do also as an entrepreneur.

Jesse Salk: So I spent many, many years in academics, so I really, uh, appreciate that and understand the importance of academics.

A little kid that asked me the other day, what grade I was in after he told me he was in second or third grade, and I [00:13:00] thought it was sort of funny and I thought about it and you know, I realized that I had actually graduated in the 29th grade if you had a medical school and college and residency and fellowship.

And so I’ve been at that for a really long time. So, although on one hand I really am motivated by advancing science and teaching and, and taking care of patients, I also found that there’s a lot of challenges being able to deploy new technologies at the scale and scope and to the number of people that I, you know, would, would always want to be able to do.

And so starting a company was scary but exciting opportunity and I learned a whole lot in the process. You know, I think the future of advancing science and medicine is always gonna come at the interface of academics. And commercial, whether one is fully on the academic side or one is on the commercial side, there’s always a crossover point, and that’s where that intersection of, uh, innovation comes from the most.

Sonia Sennik: And Jesse, how do you balance being an entrepreneur and a practicing oncologist, [00:14:00] and how does each role inform the other?

Jesse Salk: It’s challenging, but just like, uh, anybody does multiple things. It’s challenging. As an oncologist, I still see patients half a day a week. I take care of oncology patients over at the local VA here in Seattle, but I also teach, I supervise residents and fellows and medical students and, and teach them how to be better doctors.

And as an entrepreneur, starting a company, I teach customers. I teach scientists at the company and I teach investors about the technologies and the opportunities we have. I think there’s more overlaps than differences, but it is challenging. It is challenging context, switching from one thing to the other, but just like context switching, running a lab and being a parent, or being a doctor and taking your kids to a soccer game, these are just part of life and one has to make it work.

John Stackhouse: Jesse, switching back to cancer research, what recent developments in cancer therapies maybe excite you most and [00:15:00] where do you think that will take us?

Jesse Salk: I think one of the biggest thematic changes in cancer therapy over the last, uh, 10 years that I’ve seen is the development of many therapies focused around harnessing the immune system.

The immune system is this amazing, adaptable, evolvable system that’s, you know, taken billions of years to, to get to the state where it is, and it’s really powerful for adapting to new changes and new threats to our body. And one of the ways cancer cells avoid being cleared out by the immune system is doing certain tricky molecular changes that hide.

And so many of the new treatments that we’ve developed, uh, checkpoint inhibitors and CAR T cells and other immunomodulators have really, uh, begun. To address those vulnerabilities and weaknesses in cancer, let the aspects of the immune system work really well overcome these relatively straightforward changes.

And although we’ve [00:16:00] made major progress for coming up with treatments that can be sometimes curative in a stage four setting, which was never possible before. For many cancers or being, uh, vastly more tolerable than past chemotherapies. I think there’s an extraordinary number of opportunities ahead of us, and when we look back in 10 years, I’m sure we’re gonna say that even where we’re at right now that I just said, we should be so proud of that technology of the present is actually probably gonna be medieval compared to where we are in a decade.

So I’m really excited to be in oncology because of that.

Sonia Sennik: Jesse, for any of the entrepreneurs, scientists or epidemiologists listening, what advice would you have if they’re looking to make a difference in the field of biotechnology and healthcare?

Jesse Salk: I think the most important thing is to do what you wanna do, not what you think you should wanna do.

Take the things that you’re passionate about and find ways to use those to not just create papers or a reputation for yourself, but get them out in the [00:17:00] world. And that means working with colleagues in academia, it means starting companies or working with other companies. It means being kind and creative and generous to the broader community that we’re all part of.

As many folks have said, we all stand on the shoulders of giants and are only able to move forward because of the past work behind us. And so be sure to respect the past scientists that you’ve come from and pass it on to the next generation as you move forward and make your legacy in the world.

John Stackhouse: Jesse, that’s truly inspiring.

Thank you for being on the podcast.

Jesse Salk: Thank you for having me.

Sonia Sennik: We’re now joined by Peter Liu, co-founder and CEO at Oxford Cancer Analytics, a company at the forefront of early cancer detection using advanced machine learning and blood-based diagnostics. Peter is also a Creative Destruction Lab alumni founder, graduating from our CDL Cancer program in 2024. Peter, welcome to the podcast.

Peter Liu: Thanks very much, Sonia.

Sonia Sennik: So Peter, let’s start with your [00:18:00] founding story. What inspired you and your team of researchers to launch Oxford Cancer Analytics?

Peter Liu: So I came from a clinical medicine and cancer research background, being trained as a medical doctor in Toronto. And then, uh, having completed my PhD in Oxford, I’ve been focusing on cancer innovation for the past 13 years.

The first half of my career, I focus on novel, innovative treatments for cancers and also the mechanism to which cancers are initiated. But during my, um, clinical experiences, I started realizing actually. When detected early, a lot of cancers can be subject to, uh, treatment with curative intent. But unfortunately, if you look at a lot of the, uh, the deadliest cancers, a cancer that unfortunately kill the most normal people, those are often detected too late.

For example, lung cancer is the leading cost of cancer deaths worldwide, and over 70% of patients are often detected at the late stage when this can be a death sentence for many. Whereas you’re able to [00:19:00] detect this cancer early, there’s a significant increase in those who are able to survive beyond five to 10 years or more.

And that’s why I started shifting my focus on the, uh, early cancer detection front and the idea that a simple blood test is able to pick up materials in the blood predictive of cancer is very exciting. The fact that we’re able to detect many cancers in a minimally invasive manner using the same kind of blood tests that any of us could have done at the family doctor or GPS office for early detection.

The ability to fundamentally transform the way that we get approached cancer prevention from one that’s reactive to proactive. I think when it comes to, um, innovation nowadays, especially in the health tech space. There needs to be intersection amongst three different perspectives. One is the clinical utility.

Second is the scientific feasibility, and thirdly is a commercial impact. You need to get all three of these right, intersected at the right [00:20:00] point. Having seen at least two outta three of these, um, from the clinical medicine partner with the research part, I’ve realized that what may be clinically feasible and promising may not be scientifically feasible and vice versa. A very innovative scientific idea without being fully integrated with existing clinical pathways may often have trouble being able to reach the hands of patients. The ability to bring innovation that can benefit patients, that can benefit clinicians with a feasible scientific idea will not reach the hands of patients we need the most without that commercial support.

And that’s where we decided to take a commercial approach. So with a group of highly skilled scientists, physicians, medical researchers, regulatory experts, and commercial experts we’re able to bring these innovations to hands of patients who need it most.

Sonia Sennik: And maybe just in the simplest terms, Peter, how does OXcan’s liquid biopsy work and how is it different from other diagnostic tools?

From a patient perspective? [00:21:00]

Peter Liu: Yeah, for sure. Uh, Sonia and John, when was the last time, uh, you were at a family doctor’s office for a blood test?

Sonia Sennik: Within the last few months. I’m a great citizen. Peter. John, what about you?

John Stackhouse: It would’ve been last summer.

Peter Liu: Well, you know what? For me it was just a couple months ago.

It’s the same kind of blood test you had done there that can tell you whether you are at a higher risk of cancer and whether we would recommend you to proceed with further confirmatory testing. The reason why we have decided to go with a blood-based approach is because it can be very cost effective, is fully integrated with existing pathways.

All the infrastructures are already in place. The challenge is really knowing what to test for in the blood and whether to, um, identify whether someone is at an increased risk of having cancer. And that’s why a lot of our R & D is focused on analyzing within the blood to identify the risk of cancer.

So all in all, it sounds very simple, simple blood test that many people would’ve experience, but the science behind it, it’s a lot more complex, but requires a lot of hard [00:22:00] work.

John Stackhouse: Well, simple is good, and as a male of a certain age, I get that mailing here in Ontario from the health ministry for a prostate test, which I’m glad to do.

But point being, we should all be doing more, and the more that the system does to make it easier for us, probably the more uptake there’s gonna be.

Peter Liu: Yeah, precisely and very similar to, um, the colorectal screening guideline. There is an existing screening guideline for lung cancer, which is a leading cause of cancer that’s worldwide.

But fortunately, many countries, including the US has reached some hurdles in terms of people adopting it. There is, uh, an exposure to radiation. Plus there’s also cost and there’s only so many people you get screened through these gigantic donors. So that’s where we come in as through a simple blood test.

And that’s why actually, uh, we’ve been doing quite well in terms of working with some of the, um, the largest, uh, screening programs for lung cancer in order to better triage and to allow more patients to be screened, uh, [00:23:00] faster at a lower cost. So that, and we can detect, um, more lung cancers. Earlier.

Sonia Sennik: Peter, cancer’s such a personal and emotional disease for many. How has working so closely on this issue affected your outlook, either professionally or personally?

Peter Liu: Yeah, Sonia, I grew up in, uh, Calgary, Alberta, and I remember when I first started my undergrad, I was volunteering at the Tom Baker Cancer Center working with quite a lot of families and patients who were struggling with cancer. What I saw were each individual human being, each with their own identity, their dreams, and I saw cancer as a disease that deprived people of their fundamental identity, often altered people’s personality and to behave in a way that were not them, but also deprive them of their, of some of the most fundamental dreams and hopes.

So these encounters ground [00:24:00] the purpose of what I did, and that’s how I started Paths to Cancer Innovation. Fast forward over a decade later, I continue to be motivated by these day one stories, uh, from patients. I have also lost some very close family members, uh, of my own, uh, two cancer, including lung cancer when I was developing this company.

So not only this personal, it’s also meant for, uh, other families and people who are. Currently fighting cancer, but also people who are focused and will continue to fight cancer. In a way, it’s unfortunate that my own family member would not be able to benefit from this technology, but I hope other families and other people will be struggling with cancer will have the opportunity to benefit from this, the whole ambitions to drastically transform the way that we detect cancer and treat cancer to enable more treatment, security attempt to save lives.

John Stackhouse: Peter, as we move towards close, I wonder if you can share a bit about what’s next for OXcan and, and [00:25:00] maybe also give us a sense of where you see AI taking your company, your work, and the broader field.

Peter Liu: Yeah, so AI at its core is a tool to help us analyze data and get an output from it. So what’s important is what goes inside of it and what comes out of it.

So AI is only as good as the data you put in there. So that’s why at Oxford Cancer Analytics, we have formulated a new generation of proteomic technology so that we can unravel previously unseen data in the blood for the first time so that we can feed this data into the machine learning algorithms so that it can tell us what new biomarkers can be, uh, used for early cancer detection.

And, um, in terms of what comes out of it, uh, it’s also important because you need to control these parameters in a very careful way. I think a lot of times people may misuse machine learning, people may misinterpret the data, uh, coming out of it. And this is especially [00:26:00] important in the field of clinical medicine and also early cancer detection because it’s one of these fields where there’s an increasing need for humans to be extra prudent in terms of AI use.

When we started back in uh, 2020, people were only beginning to try to use machine learning in this area of data analytics. We realized that actually a lot of the machine learning used at the time were not necessarily tailored appropriately. For example, we used a lot of high dimensionality and low sample size data, whereas a lot of machine learning were meant to be applied to millions of people compared to the hundreds of thousands of, uh, sample size that were dealing with in clinical medicine and science.

So we actually had to directly design a lot of the machine learning models from the ground up in order to tailor them towards getting the most. Out of these data in terms of the future, we have further built in an explainability component to address a lot of the concerns that people have for AI, especially in the, um, clinical medicine and regulatory domain.

Some of the, uh, more modern but complex machine learning models [00:27:00] can be seen as a black box. What we have done is actually, we added an explainability component. So the AI actually talks back to us telling us exactly how it’s made that decision. So not only I think this patient has cancer, and I think these are the important biomarkers, it actually tells us, this is why I think this patient has cancer, and this is how I made that decision at.

And we have to pioneer a lot of new generation machine learning models, explainable AI models in order to best utilize this tool in the most responsible and suitable manner to maximize what we can get. From these innovative proteomics data for early lung cancer detection, I’m highly optimistic about AI.

I think it’s inevitable that AI will become an everyday part of our, uh, work and life, but also, especially certainly in our field, there’s an increasing need to approach it with responsibility and prudence. Uh, in terms of what’s next for Oxford Cancer Analytics. We’re excited to launch our product in the next year, starting from the US North America, UK, and EU, and hopefully being able [00:28:00] to benefit, uh, more patients globally.

Sonia Sennik: Thanks so much for joining us on the podcast.

Peter Liu: Thank you very much, Sonia and John.

Sonia Sennik: In the words of Coldplay’s, Chris Martin, it was all yellow. Daffodil month is upon us, and we’ve heard from some amazing visionaries and innovators in the cancer space.

John Stackhouse: There was so much to learn from in that episode, and sometimes cancer can seem overwhelming, but there’s a few very simple things all of us can do, not just in Cancer Awareness Month, but through the year.

Number one is to talk about it. This isn’t a secret that we should tuck away. It should be a common part of our conversation so that we’re all learning and sharing and supporting. We could also spread awareness through those daffodils and donating our time and money. And then lastly, perhaps most importantly, get tested.

No matter who you are, no matter what age or stage, there’s no real good excuse for not testing yourself and helping others get tested for cancer. That’s how collectively we can all live up to that motto of beating cancer. [00:29:00]

Sonia Sennik: John, one of my favorite parts of the CDL Cancer program is our patient contribution group.

So we’re piloting a new structure where we have patients in the room, in our CDL sessions with the innovators and our mentors and scientists. Engaging firsthand in technological development. Having the chance for the patients to share their stories and provide input to our technologists at these early stages is a really rare and special experience to observe.

And what I’ve learned is no two cancer journeys are the same. So as you mentioned, educating yourself, getting tested early and contributing to our ecosystem that has incredibly smart innovators that can tackle this problem, is an opportunity for all of us.

John Stackhouse: That’s so well said, Sonia. No two journeys are the same, so whatever yours is, don’t be afraid to share it.

This is Disruptors, an RBC podcast. I’m John Stackhouse.

Sonia Sennik: And I’m Sonia Sennik.

John Stackhouse: Talk to you [00:30:00] soon.