Karsten Wenzlaff, Advisor
August 26th, 2025
September 15, 2026 | NCFA Insight | Capital Markets And Market Infrastructure, Competition And Market Structure, Public Sector Policy And Industrial Strategy

Today, on September 15, 2026, Canada's first Canada Investment Summit 2026 commitments reached nearly $500 billion across Canadian pension funds, insurers, banks, investment funds and a major AI infrastructure project. The September 14–15 summit in Toronto also brought together investors from nearly 30 countries managing more than $100 trillion in assets.
The $500 billion isn't one pool of foreign equity. It combines institutional investment, bank financing and capital mobilization, investment funds and corporate infrastructure spending. A large share comes from Canadian institutions putting more capital to work at home while Ottawa tries to attract additional global investment.
These commitments work in different ways. Bank financing, pension investment, venture capital and corporate spending support different types of projects and companies. Together, they give Canadian businesses and infrastructure projects more ways to access capital.
Canadian institutions already invest a lot of money outside Canada. The Bank of Canada recently estimated that pension funds, insurers, investment funds and banks have about C$500 billion invested in private credit, much of it abroad. The summit is trying to put more of that Canadian capital to work at home.
Investment funds added more than $14 billion. Power Sustainable committed to invest and mobilize more than $10 billion for infrastructure including power, grids, fibre, data and food supply chains. Radical Ventures plans to invest and mobilize $4 billion through its new Radical Breakouts Fund for Canadian AI scaleups.
Bell Canada and Saskatchewan also announced an AI infrastructure project of up to $52.5 billion. The proposed 1.2-gigawatt AI hub is expected to create more than 4,500 jobs across construction, operations, management and related services.
Another September 15 announcement lowers the tax cost of making new business investments. Ottawa's proposed Productivity Mega Deduction would let businesses write off roughly two-thirds of eligible capital investments right away, up from about 15% under the earlier Productivity Super-Deduction.
Most qualifying assets bought on or after September 15, 2026 would be covered. That includes software, computers, fibre-optic cable, mining property, certain pipelines, aircraft, vehicles, patents, rail track, bridges and roads. Most buildings, goodwill and some vehicles would remain outside the main rules or receive different treatment.
Finance Canada estimates the change would cut Canada's effective tax rate on new business investment to 6.4% (from 13.0%). For comparison, it estimates the U.S. rate at 16.9% and the OECD average excluding Canada at 19.0%.
This isn't just an incentive for foreign investors. Canadian and international companies could both benefit when they make qualifying investments in Canada.
The federal government estimates the measure would reduce tax revenue by $36 billion over five years. Finance Canada also estimates that about $8.5 billion a year in investment support could eventually generate up to roughly $22 billion in additional annual economic activity. The final impact will be based on how much new investment follows and whether it lifts output and productivity.
The Canada Revenue Agency has also begun prioritizing advance tax rulings for proposed Canadian investments of $1 billion or more. Investors can seek binding tax treatment before committing capital, reducing one source of uncertainty on large projects.
Statistics Canada productivity research found investment per worker in 2022 was nearly 20% below its 2014 level. Real non-residential business investment in early 2024 was still 22% below its peak a decade earlier, and weak capital investment has been a major contributor to slower labour-productivity growth.
The latest business surveys are more encouraging. Bank of Canada survey data show 43% of firms in the second quarter of 2026 identified improving productivity as an investment objective, up from 31% a year earlier. Equipment upgrades, technology adoption and AI investment give companies ways to convert financing into higher output rather than simply expanding balance sheets.
Foreign capital is also rising. Statistics Canada recorded $96.8 billion of foreign direct investment into Canada in 2025, the highest annual level since 2007. In the second quarter of 2026, inward direct investment reached $25.9 billion, up from $18.8 billion in the first quarter. Manufacturing attracted $7.0 billion and finance and insurance $6.6 billion.
Canada now has more domestic capital earmarked for Canadian assets at the same time that foreign direct investment is rising. Domestic institutions can finance assets and companies through longer investment cycles, while foreign capital adds outside balance sheets, customers, expertise and international connections.
Trade pressure adds another reason to build more productive capacity at home. Canadian companies looking beyond the United States still need capital for technology, production, regulatory work, new customers and foreign operations. Stronger financing at home gives more firms the option to build those capabilities from Canada rather than moving capital-intensive parts of their growth elsewhere. See: Budget 2025 Accelerates Fintech, AI, and Capital Growth
Video: CBC News coverage of Canada’s first Investment Summit, where nearly $500 billion in new investment commitments were announced.
For Canadian founders, the most accessible commitments are much smaller than the $500 billion headline. Radical Ventures' $4 billion AI fund, RBC's nearly $1.5 billion technology commitment and CIBC's $2 billion defence and dual-use program can reach companies below major infrastructure scale. Pension and bank commitments can finance the data centres, energy systems, digital infrastructure and customers around them.
Canada has plenty of capital on paper. It now needs to move the needle in funded projects, higher investment per worker, productive technology adoption, export capacity and Canadian companies reaching larger scale.
$500 billion gives Canada a large starting balance. How much is actually deployed, where it goes and what it produces will determine whether the summit becomes a capital-formation milestone or a very large collection of commitments.
Can Canada turn nearly $500 billion of new capital commitments and a proposed 6.4% investment tax rate into measurably higher productive investment, larger Canadian companies and stronger domestic and foreign capital flows?
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
Explore and compare companies in Canada’s open banking market by capability, market layer, documented Canadian traction and selected global benchmarks, from financial data and bank infrastructure to payments, business systems and intelligence.
Loading market map…
Learn how open banking and consumer-driven finance work, use Canadian market evidence alongside leading international examples, test key claims, and apply what you learn to product, operating, investment and policy decisions.
Choose A Topic (match it to your product, investment or policy question)
Choose A View
Gain Practical Insight
Start with the decision in front of you. Work through one topic or use the full guide to connect regulation, infrastructure, products, competition, adoption and risk.
Connect customer permission, standards, shared infrastructure, business models and trust.
See what could slow launch, adoption, scale or commercial value.
Compare who pays, who benefits, where margins sit and what evidence is still missing.
Separate announcements from operating evidence, activity from adoption and access from outcomes.
Search the full 146-module guide or narrow it by the perspective most relevant to you.
Search the full guide or narrow the modules by the decision or market question you are working on.
Explore selected current and emerging Open Banking discussions through verified market evidence, competing commercial cases and NCFA insight. Cast your view and compare with the market as participation builds.
Canada’s first phase has to prove that data access can improve real financial tasks before payment initiation arrives.
Your View
Vote to reveal NCFA’s take.Thanks for voting. Results will appear as participation builds.
The near term opportunity is strongest where better data cuts underwriting time, verification cost or manual work. If those services do not generate repeat use, payment initiation becomes more important to the commercial case.
Canada must decide how much operating evidence it needs before moving from data access into customer authorized payments.
Your View
Vote to reveal NCFA’s take.Thanks for voting. Results will appear as participation builds.
A staged rollout tied to transaction risk and proven operating performance would let Canada add useful functionality without treating every payment use case the same.
Compliance costs can protect consumers and still become a barrier if they do not reflect the activity and risk of the participant.
Your View
Vote to reveal NCFA’s take.Thanks for voting. Results will appear as participation builds.
Consent, security, liability and consumer redress need a firm baseline. Other obligations should track the activity, exposure and risk a participant creates. If smaller firms carry costs that do not reduce material risk, the framework can weaken the competition and consumer choice it is meant to support.
Private agreements and industry standards continue to develop while the federal framework remains unsettled.
Your View
Vote to reveal NCFA’s take.Thanks for voting. Results will appear as participation builds.
Commercial data sharing can keep growing without a settled federal rule. The competitive issue is who controls access terms. Continued uncertainty favours firms with the scale to negotiate bilateral arrangements and absorb repeated integration costs.
The UK has proven demand for Open Banking. The commercial test is whether payment services can fund continued investment without restricting access.
Your View
Vote to reveal NCFA’s take.Thanks for voting. Results will appear as participation builds.
Paid services make sense when they deliver functionality, service levels or risk controls beyond the baseline. Charging for ordinary access too early can weaken fintech economics and reduce the demand needed to support a durable market.
Australia shows what happens when a mature data right expands faster than the ability to complete customer actions.
Your View
Vote to reveal NCFA’s take.Thanks for voting. Results will appear as participation builds.
More data can improve advice, comparison and underwriting. Action becomes more valuable when it removes a meaningful customer step. The case for wider authority should be judged against the friction it removes and the additional fraud, consent and liability risk it creates.
The UK now has to decide how standards should be governed once the market is established and commercial interests are stronger.
Your View
Vote to reveal NCFA’s take.Thanks for voting. Results will appear as participation builds.
Standards need to adapt faster than legislation without giving the largest participants control over market access. Funding, technical administration, consumer representation and statutory enforcement should remain clearly separated.
AI agents can progress from reading financial data to recommending and executing financial actions.
Your View
Vote to reveal NCFA’s take.Thanks for voting. Results will appear as participation builds.
The key control is authority. Customers need clear limits on what an agent can do, for how much, for whom and for how long. Auditability, revocation and liability become more important as autonomy increases.
Brazil links Open Finance to a high frequency payment system, giving customers an immediate reason to use connected financial services.
Your View
Vote to reveal NCFA’s take.Thanks for voting. Results will appear as participation builds.
Brazil shows the value of pairing data access with an action customers already understand and use frequently. Canada does not need the same payment model, but its early data services still need to solve problems often enough to create repeat behaviour.
Open finance can improve advice and competition, but every additional data category increases consent, privacy and implementation complexity.
Your View
Vote to reveal NCFA’s take.Thanks for voting. Results will appear as participation builds.
Wider access is most useful when the additional data changes a financial decision or removes customer friction. Scope should follow clear use cases, with common identity, consent and liability controls reducing the cost and risk of expansion.
Explore commercial opportunities in Canadian open banking, consumer-driven finance, data access and financial infrastructure, then assess where new products and business models may be viable.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
September 9, 2026 | NCFA Insight | Capital Markets Infrastructure And Funding, Competition And Market Structure, SME Finance And Business Banking

On September 9, 2026, RBC announced a C$1.4 billion Canadian technology initiative anchored by RBCx Growth Fund I. The proposed fund will make direct late stage equity investments in Canadian technology companies with global ambitions. RBC plans to invest up to C$416 million, or US$300 million, including an initial US$200 million commitment to portfolio companies.
The C$1.4 billion headline encapsulates the wider initiative, not the size of RBCx's Growth Fund I. But its disclosed something more interesting: equity will be invested alongside commercialization support, strategic partnerships and access to RBC's banking, capital markets and public sector relationships.
RBCx already has reach. It says it banks 3,500+ technology companies, has invested in 10 venture funds and more than seven companies directly, and operates four RBC owned ventures. Fintech runs through part of that history: Mydoh has reached more than 140,000 Canadians, Ownr has registered or incorporated more than 130,000 businesses, and Dr.Bill has processed C$4.1 billion in medical billings for more than 14,000 physicians.
The new fund has a broad mandate spanning enterprise software, AI, cybersecurity, health tech, frontier technology, energy, climate and agricultural technology. Its strategic value comes from the model around it. RBCx can potentially combine equity, venture debt, banking, customers and capital markets support across the same company lifecycle.
Canadian companies do not become global competitors because someone writes a larger cheque at Series C. They get there by building management depth, repeatable sales, enterprise customers, regulatory capability, financial controls, technology that can handle growth and enough distribution to reach new markets. Those capabilities need to start forming years before the biggest financing round arrives.
The capital data shows how narrow the funnel becomes. Canadian venture investors deployed C$2.69 billion across 250 deals in the first half of 2026, yet only 18 later stage deals accounted for C$984 million. Sixteen rounds of C$50 million or more absorbed 59% of all venture dollars, while RBC cites PitchBook data showing Canadian investors led only 33% of domestic growth rounds over the past decade.
There is pressure further upstream too. Canadian VC fundraising fell to just over C$2.1 billion in 2025, with the five largest funds capturing 83% of the capital raised. When fewer funds have enough capital to support companies through multiple rounds, fewer startups get the time and resources needed to build serious operating capability.
That is the bigger Canadian issue. Founders need capital, but they also need customers, talent, workable regulation, financial infrastructure and enough room to execute. International growth only gets harder when those capabilities are weak at home. If too few startups build them early, there will be fewer strong growth companies and even fewer Canadian firms capable of competing globally at scale.
This is where RBCx could be more useful than another pool of equity. A scaling company may need venture debt, operating credit, FX, treasury, foreign accounts and enterprise customers while it is raising its next round. RBCx already works across many of those needs, which gives founders a chance to build financial and commercial capacity before the company becomes large enough to attract the biggest investors.
Customer access is another valuable part. RBC says portfolio companies may receive commercialization support, customer strategy help and introductions through its commercial banking, capital markets and public sector relationships. Founders will care about what those introductions produce: paid pilots, enterprise contracts, distribution and follow on capital.
RBC has a clear commercial incentive in seeing those companies grow. A startup that becomes a large technology company can eventually become a valuable client across lending, treasury, FX, employee banking, wealth and capital markets. RBC has not stated customer lifetime value as the motive for Growth Fund I, but the economic alignment is obvious.
BDC and Canadian venture firms already supply growth capital, so success shouldn't necessarily be measured by dollars deployed. A better measurement may be whether RBCx backed companies win larger customers, build foreign revenue faster, raise future capital from a stronger position and keep meaningful operating capability in Canada. That connects directly with Canada's productive growth challenge where promising companies need enough capital and operating capacity to become globally competitive businesses.
Canada's scaleup problem starts well before the scaleup round. RBCx already works across banking, venture investing and technology businesses, and Growth Fund I adds equity to that mix. If the combination helps more Canadian companies build customers, capability and financing strength early enough to compete globally, the initiative will have earned its C$1.4 billion headline.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer to peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
Sep 3, 2026

Anyone who has onboarded a client at a fintech startup knows the bottleneck. The product works, the API integration is done, and then someone emails a photo of a passport taken at an angle in bad light, with half the machine-readable zone cut off. Multiply that by fifty applicants a week and your compliance queue turns into a photo-editing job.
Small lenders, brokerages and crypto exchanges all hit the same wall. Identity verification and record-keeping are document-heavy by law, and the documents arrive in whatever format the customer's phone produced.
That is the gap a mobile scanner fills. OKEN, listed on the Play Store under the longer name OKEN - camscanner, pdf scanner and published under the name CAMBYTE Pte. Ltd., is a Productivity app that turns a phone camera into a document scanner with edge detection, OCR text recognition, and export to PDF, JPG, Word or TXT. It also reads QR codes, which matters more than it sounds in a payments context.
The core loop is straightforward. Point the camera at a page, let the app find the borders, and it flattens the perspective into something that looks like it came off a flatbed scanner rather than a kitchen table.
OCR is where the finance use case gets interesting. A scanned invoice or ID page that carries a searchable text layer can be indexed, queried and pulled up during an audit without anyone flipping through image files. A scan without OCR is just a picture of information.

The format range is the practical part for anyone assembling a client file:
The store listing pitches it at students and small business people, accountants, realtors and managers. That is a fair description of who benefits most: teams too small to own scanning hardware but still accountable for the same paper trail as the big institutions.
Phone scanning is fine for capture. It stops being fine at the point where you have thirty scanned pages sitting on a handset and a Windows machine holding your CRM, your case management system, and the shared drive your auditor actually looks at.
That handoff moment is usually why people start looking at OKEN scanner for PC rather than sticking with the phone alone. On a desktop, the app runs inside an Android emulator, and the exported PDFs land somewhere your other software can reach.
Most emulator advice is generic. For a scanner app, only a couple of things really change the experience.

Batch OCR is noticeably more comfortable on a large monitor. Correcting a misread account number in a recognized text layer is tedious on a 6-inch screen and fast with a keyboard.
Treat the app as capture and formatting, not as verification. OKEN produces a clean, readable, searchable document. It does not authenticate an identity document, check it against a sanctions list, or satisfy any regulator on its own.
For internal paperwork, supplier invoices, signed agreements and expense records, that distinction barely matters. For customer identity files it matters a great deal, and the scanner should sit in front of a proper verification provider rather than in place of one.
One caveat worth carrying away: scanned identity documents are among the most sensitive files a small firm will ever hold. If you run the app on a shared office desktop through an emulator, the exported PDFs live in a Windows folder that anyone with access to that machine can open. Decide who that is before the first scan, not after.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |

On September 3, 2026, Canada's July trade report put two stories beside each other. Exports to the United States fell 6.6%, while exports to countries outside the U.S. rose 7.4% to a record C$25.6 billion. Canada's merchandise trade surplus with the world narrowed from C$4.2 billion in June to C$769 million. Its surplus with the United States fell from C$10.3 billion to C$5.9 billion.
Those numbers now sit inside a much rougher political relationship. On August 22, the United States imposed a 50% tariff on roughly US$20 billion of Canadian exports, while the Government of Canada values the affected goods at C$27.6 billion. Canada has rejected the terms on offer and announced matching counter tariffs on C$27.6 billion of U.S. imports, scheduled to take effect on September 8.
Canada is still deeply tied to the U.S. economy, but the reaction is no longer confined to government. Buy Canadian sentiment has returned. Companies are reviewing suppliers and customers. Travel choices have changed. More Canadian businesses are looking beyond the U.S. at the same time that Ottawa is asking them to absorb the cost of doing it.
The question running through this story is whether the tariff fight is merely disrupting Canada U.S. trade or helping create commercial relationships that remain different even after the politics cool.
The evolving trade war began with a border argument. Washington said Canada was not doing enough on fentanyl and border security. Ottawa said the scale of the problem did not justify an economy wide tariff and answered with retaliation rather than concession.
Ottawa disputed the premise while tightening the border anyway. Canada argued that the U.S. was imposing an economic penalty far larger than the border problem it cited. At the same time, Ottawa strengthened enforcement, giving the fight an early contradiction that never really disappeared.
North America already has a trade agreement designed to make cross border commerce predictable. The surprise is not that Canada and the U.S. disagree. It is that the disagreement can still produce sweeping tariffs while CUSMA remains in force.
CUSMA then became the shield Canadian companies hoped it would be. A large share of continental trade kept moving under the agreement, offering businesses a degree of protection from the broad tariff threat.
The most politically sensitive sectors did not get the same protection. Steel, aluminum and autos became proof that a trade agreement could survive while the industries most tied to jobs, factories and regional politics still took direct hits.
CUSMA remains in place, but businesses now know that compliance with the agreement does not eliminate every tariff risk. A company can remain inside the North American trade framework and still be exposed to a separate sector fight.
Canada entered the 2026 CUSMA review looking for certainty and left without it. Ottawa wanted companies to know the North American rules would hold for another generation of investment. The review did not deliver that reassurance.
The United States did not give Canada the long runway it wanted. The agreement stayed alive, but companies making plant, supplier and capital decisions measured in years were left with a shorter political horizon.
The agreement remains in force. But the failed long term extension means companies can no longer assume the relationship will simply return to the old operating model after one review.
Then the tariff ceiling moved again. After bilateral talks failed, Washington raised the pressure to levels that made another Canadian response almost unavoidable. The dispute was no longer about whether tariffs would remain. It was about how much economic pain each side was willing to absorb.
Canada chose retaliation over the deal on the table. Ottawa said the U.S. terms would leave Canadian workers and businesses worse off. Canada announced matching counter tariffs on C$27.6 billion of U.S. imports, scheduled to take effect on September 8.
This is where the fight stops looking like a temporary tariff negotiation and starts looking like a choice about economic autonomy. Canada is accepting the risk of another round of costs rather than take terms Ottawa says would leave important industries worse off.
Trump then turned Lake Ontario into part of the dispute. The Lake America order gave Canadians something more visceral than a tariff table to react to. A fight over market access suddenly had a symbol that touched geography, identity and sovereignty.
The symbolism hit a country already primed to push back. The tariff fight had been accompanied by statehood rhetoric and repeated claims that Canada depended too heavily on the United States. The lake renaming made the argument feel less like a dispute over customs schedules and more like a challenge to Canadian identity.
A tariff can feel remote until it affects a price, a contract or a job. Renaming a shared Canadian lake for U.S. federal purposes created a cultural symbol that was easier to understand and harder to separate from the wider sovereignty argument.
Canadian resistance is showing up in everyday choices. Buy Canadian sentiment has strengthened as consumers reconsider groceries, travel, technology, vehicles and other purchases. Businesses are also reviewing where they source products and whether U.S. dependence still looks commercially sensible.
American opinion is much less supportive of the escalation. A Reuters Ipsos poll found 57% of Americans opposed the latest tariffs on Canada and only 20% supported them. The same poll found 63% opposed Lake America and 14% supported it.
Canadian patriotism has many sources, so the tariffs should not be treated as the sole cause. But the observable response to repeated tariff threats, statehood rhetoric and Lake America includes stronger Buy Canadian behaviour, support for retaliation and a more explicit case for economic self reliance.
Some companies are acting on the anger instead of waiting it out. Reuters reported that Chapman's Ice Cream plans to cut U.S. imports by 70% by mid 2027. Other firms are reviewing suppliers, sourcing more at home and looking for customers outside the United States.
Once a supplier is replaced, politics may not put the old relationship back together. New contracts, certifications, logistics routes and internal processes create switching costs. A future agreement could remove a tariff quickly while leaving behind commercial relationships built during the dispute.
This is where a patriotic reaction can become structural economic change. The first purchase may be emotional. The lasting effect depends on whether Canadian and non U.S. alternatives become good enough to keep the customer or supplier relationship after the anger fades.
The July numbers show Canada really is looking elsewhere. Exports outside the United States rose 7.4% to a record C$25.6 billion. Non U.S. destinations accounted for roughly one third of Canadian merchandise exports in July.
America is still too large to replace quickly. Canada's trade surplus with the U.S. fell to C$5.9 billion in July, while Canada ran a C$5.1 billion deficit with countries outside the U.S. More trade elsewhere reduces concentration before it replaces the commercial value of the American market.
The record non U.S. export figure shows diversification was already underway before the August 22 escalation. It does not prove the newest tariffs caused the change. It does show Canada was already finding more business outside the U.S., even while the American market remained too large to replace quickly.
There is also a cost to weakening the North American relationship itself. In a September PBS NewsHour discussion, former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick argued that the original logic of North American economic integration went well beyond lower tariffs and prices. Combining Canadian, U.S. and Mexican minerals, energy, manufacturing, supply chains and services made all three countries stronger competitors globally. The PBS discussion raises a larger question for both countries: how much competitive strength does North America give up when an integrated economic relationship becomes a zero sum fight?
Every new route creates another bill before it creates resilience. New buyers can require longer shipping, different payment terms, more foreign exchange and more working capital. New suppliers can require deposits, inventory changes and fresh credit checks. The cost arrives before the exporter knows whether the new relationship can match the economics of the old one.
Canada can become less exposed to one market while making individual companies more complicated to finance. Diversification works only if firms have enough liquidity to survive the period between leaving an old relationship and making a new one profitable.
Lenders now have to see tariff risk before the financial statements do. U.S. customer concentration, tariff sensitive inputs, margin exposure and the time needed to replace a buyer can change a borrower's risk within weeks. Historical revenue can therefore look healthy while the economics underneath it are already deteriorating.
Payments, foreign exchange and treasury providers face the opposite problem. More destinations create more currencies, settlement routes, counterparties and cash timing issues. The same diversification that reduces geographic concentration can increase demand for cross border payments, hedging, trade finance, receivables tools and working capital.
Trade policy becomes financial services work once companies start changing customers and suppliers. Credit has to recognize new exposure sooner. Payments have to reach more markets. Treasury teams have to manage more currencies. Working capital has to cover the period before new trade relationships mature.
Markets still assume some of this confrontation eventually fades. Currency forecasts are already looking past the current hostility and pricing a calmer relationship later. Businesses have less freedom to wait for that version of the future.
Businesses cannot wait for that forecast to come true. Carney said on September 1 that the United States must start being serious before talks can resume. At that point no new bilateral negotiations were scheduled. A company choosing a supplier, market or plant location has to make the decision under today's rules.
That is the deeper consequence of the dispute. Governments can reverse tariffs quickly. Companies that have spent months replacing suppliers, winning customers and building payment routes may have less reason to go back. The tariff war could therefore leave a commercial footprint that lasts longer than the tariffs themselves.
Talking Point
Trump's tariff campaign has done more than raise the cost of Canada U.S. trade. It has turned economic dependence into a Canadian political issue, revived Buy Canadian behaviour and pushed companies to look harder for customers and suppliers elsewhere. The unresolved question is whether that response leaves Canada with stronger companies and more durable trade relationships or simply a more expensive way to do business.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: [www.ncfacanada.org](http://www.ncfacanada.org)
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
Sep 2, 2026

India is increasingly relevant to fintech companies for more than market access. It is also a significant source of technology, product, finance, risk, data, and operational talent that global scaleups can integrate into international teams.
India's wider startup ecosystem had more than 2.23 lakh government-recognised startups by March 31, 2026, while the country's digital financial infrastructure continues to expand rapidly. UPI alone processed more than 24,000 crore transactions during FY26, illustrating the scale at which digital financial services now operate in the country.
For a Canadian or international fintech, however, deciding to recruit in India creates a strategic question:
Should the company establish an Indian entity before building a team, or can it begin hiring first and make the larger corporate investment later?
For many scaleups, these decisions do not need to happen simultaneously.
A phased talent strategy can allow a fintech to test access to Indian talent, build an initial team, understand operating costs, and validate its long-term requirements before committing to a full local entity.
India combines a large technology workforce with an established ecosystem across financial services, digital payments, software development, data, and startup innovation.
This creates hiring opportunities across functions that fintech companies frequently need as they scale, including:
India's digital payments ecosystem also gives fintech professionals exposure to financial products operating at substantial scale. UPI accounted for 85.5% of India's digital payment transaction volume in the second half of 2025, according to RBI data reported by IBEF.
But the business case for building a team should not begin with the question, "How many people can we hire?"
It should begin with:
Which capabilities should the company own internally, and which of those capabilities can be built effectively in India?
That changes hiring from a cost exercise into a talent strategy.
A fintech talent strategy defines which capabilities a company needs, where those capabilities should be located, and how employees will be hired, managed, and integrated into the organisation.
For an India expansion, a useful talent strategy should address five areas:
This is particularly important for fintech companies because many roles interact with sensitive financial data, regulated products, security systems, or customer operations.
Hiring should therefore be considered together with data access, information security, governance, internal controls, and business continuity.
The first India hires should solve clearly defined business problems rather than simply expand headcount.
A practical approach is to prioritise functions where the company already understands the workflows and can manage outcomes remotely.
| Function | Why a Fintech May Build It in India |
| Engineering | Product development, integrations, platform infrastructure |
| Data | Analytics, reporting, data engineering and modelling |
| QA | Product testing, automation and release support |
| Cybersecurity | Security operations and technical monitoring |
| Finance operations | Reporting, reconciliation and operational support |
| Customer operations | User support and service delivery |
| Risk operations | Process-driven risk and verification support |
| Product operations | Coordination between technology, product and commercial teams |
Leadership should also identify whether the function is supporting the global business or conducting activity directly in the Indian market.
That distinction can affect entity, regulatory, tax, and Permanent Establishment considerations later.
Yes, depending on the type of relationship and business activity.
A foreign fintech typically has several potential models available.
Contractors may be appropriate for genuinely independent, project-based work.
For example, a fintech might engage a specialist for:
Contractors should not simply be used as substitutes for employees where the actual working arrangement functions like regular employment.
A fintech can outsource a complete function or defined process to another company.
In this model, the external provider typically manages its own employees and delivers an agreed service or outcome.
That is different from building a dedicated internal team.
Where a fintech wants dedicated employees in India but does not yet have a local employing entity, an Employer of Record India model can provide another option.
The EOR becomes the legal employer in India, while the fintech continues to manage employees' daily responsibilities, goals, projects, and performance.
A fintech can establish its own Indian company and employ staff directly.
This generally provides greater long-term control but also introduces ongoing corporate, accounting, payroll, HR, tax, and administrative responsibilities.
The best structure depends on the company's stage and objectives.
| Factor | Contractor | Outsourcing | EOR | Own Entity |
| Dedicated employee relationship | No | Usually no | Yes | Yes |
| Local entity required | No | No | No for EOR employment | Yes |
| Client controls daily work | Limited by independent relationship | Usually outcome-focused | Yes | Yes |
| Local payroll | Not employee payroll | Provider handles employees | EOR handles | Company handles |
| Initial setup burden | Low | Low | Lower than entity | Highest |
| Suitable for testing India | Yes, for genuine projects | Yes | Yes | Possible but larger commitment |
| Long-term large workforce | Limited | Depends on model | Depends on scale | Strongest fit |
For a fintech building an internal product or operations team, the main comparison is often between EOR employment now and direct employment through an entity later.
Entity establishment is a strategic corporate decision.
Hiring can be an operational decision.
Those decisions may move at different speeds.
Suppose a Canadian fintech has funding to build a six-person engineering and data team in India. It already knows the roles it needs, but management is not yet certain whether India will eventually support 10 employees, 50 employees, or a much larger operation.
Immediately building a company around an uncertain headcount assumption can create unnecessary fixed infrastructure.
A staged approach allows the fintech to answer questions such as:
The business can then make its entity decision using operating evidence rather than projections alone.
Salary is only one component of India workforce costs.
Finance teams should compare the total cost of different structures.
Relevant categories can include:
An EOR may involve a per-employee service fee, while an owned entity introduces more fixed organisational costs.
The economics can therefore change as the team becomes larger.
Companies comparing these structures can also review State of India EOR 2026 when assessing employment costs, entity considerations, compliance responsibilities, and potential tax exposure.

Fintech teams often work within more sensitive operating environments than ordinary remote teams.
The question is not simply whether a developer or analyst can work remotely.
Companies may also need controls around:
Employees may interact with customer data, financial information, transaction records, or internal risk systems.
Access should be based on role requirements.
Devices, authentication, credentials, source code, and internal platforms require appropriate security controls regardless of where employees are located.
Certain finance or payment workflows may require multiple layers of approval rather than giving one employee end-to-end control.
Teams should understand who owns decisions, where approvals are recorded, and how processes are audited.
Hiring someone in India does not itself determine whether the fintech is permitted to offer regulated financial services in India.
Employment structure and financial-services licensing are separate questions.
A company building an India team to support overseas operations should therefore distinguish workforce expansion from market entry.
India's four consolidated Labour Codes came into effect on November 21, 2025, covering wages, industrial relations, social security, and occupational safety and working conditions.
Companies employing workers directly need processes covering relevant employment requirements, including areas such as:
Under an EOR structure, many agreed employer-side administrative responsibilities are handled by the EOR.
However, using an EOR does not remove the fintech's responsibility for how employees access systems, handle information, perform regulated activities, or represent the business.
Potentially, depending on what the employees do.
An EOR or contractor arrangement does not automatically eliminate Permanent Establishment or wider business-connection considerations.
India's Income Tax Department states that business income of a non-resident can be taxable in India where the enterprise has a Permanent Establishment or business connection, subject to applicable tax treaties.
Indian tax rules also identify activities such as habitually concluding contracts or playing a principal role leading to the conclusion of contracts as potentially relevant to business-connection analysis.
A fintech should therefore obtain appropriate tax advice where India-based personnel:
A developer supporting a global product and a senior commercial executive entering contracts on behalf of the foreign company may present very different risk profiles.
An entity can become increasingly attractive as India moves from an experimental talent location to a strategic operating hub.
Common indicators include:
There is no universal employee number at which every fintech should incorporate.
The decision should consider scale, cost, tax, regulation, employment requirements, business activity, and long-term strategy together.
A practical expansion sequence can look like this:
Identify the roles that India can support and the business problem each role solves.
Recruit a small number of clearly defined roles using an appropriate employment structure.
Implement security, communication, management, documentation, payroll, and performance systems.
Compare productivity and total employment costs against the original business case.
Estimate whether the India operation is likely to remain a small global team or grow into a major operating centre.
Once the scale and commercial requirements are clearer, evaluate establishing a local entity.
This approach allows a fintech to treat entity setup as a consequence of proven scale rather than a prerequisite for exploring Indian talent.
For fintech companies that want employees in India before establishing their own entity, Asanify provides an India-focused Employer of Record model.
Asanify operates through its own Indian entity and can act as the legal employer while the client fintech retains control over employees' daily work, responsibilities, and performance.
Its EOR support can include:
This structure can be useful for scaleups testing the Indian talent market or building an initial team while their long-term entity strategy remains under evaluation.
Tax, regulatory, financial-services licensing, PE, data, and other business-specific risks should still be assessed separately.
For fintech scaleups, India expansion should start with the capabilities the business needs, not with entity setup.
Companies can first define the right roles, choose a suitable employment model, and validate costs, compliance, and team performance. This gives leadership a clearer view of how India fits into the wider operating strategy.
As the team grows, the business can then decide whether a larger local infrastructure or entity is justified. A phased approach helps keep early expansion flexible while supporting more informed long-term decisions.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |