Most Canadian schools are pretty solid. And your undergrad tends to matter less than your graduate program. Ryerson is in Toronto which will be better in the long term (connections and city living). Carleton's program is highly conceptual and veers towards avante-garde. Those that leave Carleton (specifically leave Canada) after undergrad tend to go other highly conceptual graduate schools (UPenn, SCI-Arc, Bartlett, Columbia, etc.)

Kind of important to understand what you want to do with your architecture degree. ie do you want to design and build stuff or are you interested in being published and draw pictures ( now granted those are the extremes ) but it really is what you enjoy long term.  I am not familiar enough with each program and how they would characterize them selves but it kind sounds like they definitely have a "focus". So ask yourself how you want to spend your time, or as a contrast take up a more theory based education if you have a strong technical background or vice versa to stretch yourself!

which variation of the undergrad at Carleton are you considering?  They certainly had a great artistic and conceptual degree back in the day... not so much lately since they split the undergrad three ways (design, conservation, tech) but the old ways are still there, as well as my initials written on the ceiling in that 3 stores tall atrium.   Carleton has the opportunity to either set you up with great design thinking chops or you can fall flat on your face. If you make the most of it, you can take your undergrad and move onto better graduate schools. I certainly did. 

RYU, while better than its neighbor UofT, will pump out decent office workers but suffers due to the weight of its technical program. Nothing wrong with tech since it’s really what we’re paid to do in the end, but that’s the norm there. 

If you live in Ontario, you owe it to yourself to visit the schools and look at the work of their undergrad studios. Don’t base important adult decisions on the ramblings of anonymous internet folks.