Dr. Mike P. Moffatt

No. At least, I don't think it gets at the heart of the demand problem.

Again, I studied 40+ years of federal thinking on this in my previous role, and it's been 40 years of the same reports and same broken thinking over and over.

That small business capital is a supply problem rather than a demand problem.

I can't tell you how many reports I read at ISED on this, not one of which ever mentioned the demand side of the equation.

It is, yeah. You should hear some of pitches I've received in my career.

I think governments have, and continue to, look at this problem entirely the wrong way, and it's led to decades' worth of bad policy.

We need to change our thinking.

Again, I think the focus on "banks" is the problem. They're not the best place to get SME capital, IMO.

In my brief tenure for the feds, I probably read 40 years worth of reports, all which kept making the same, untested, assumptions.

As someone who has been on both sides of this, I found it much easier to find capital as a small business person than it is finding profitable investments (in either debt or equity).

And I know small businesses report they can't get capital, but it isn't because capital is lacking, IMO. It's because nobody wants to loan at 3% a year for 5 years to a company with a 15-30% chance of default.

Will do.

FWIW, I think examining banks looks at this too narrowly, as there's a whole funding ecosystem out there to fill in the gaps left by banks. And they have trouble finding worthwhile investments.

And then there's equity. In general, the valuations that Canadian small businesses want makes it not worth the return, unless it's getting acquired into a larger company. Much better off getting equity in US SMEs.

The "decent rates and terms" kill the viability of investments.

Nobody wants to lend at a 3% a year, for 5 years, to companies that have a 15-30% chance of default.

I disagree with availability of capital being an issue. My experience in this space is that, in Canada, capital for small business investment is greater than the supply of viable investments.

Canadian governments, IMO, have spent the past 40 years looking at symptoms, rather than root causes, which has led us to where we are.

For example, it's well known in the consumer packaged goods space that the easiest way for a Canadian company to sell 50,000 units to Shoppers is to sell 500,000 to Walgreens first.

Big Canadian co's won't touch you unless you've succeeded in America first.

And it's been trash because Canada, strictly speaking, is an incredibly harsh environment for small businesses.

That's where I'd disagree. There are alternate lending sources. But, in general, the rate of return on those investments have been trash. It only really worked as charity, not as investment.

The input vs. consequence distinction is so crucial.

FWIW, our low small business investing is likely a consequence, not a lack of inputs. In general, Canadian small businesses have historically been a horrible investment.

<throws red flag>

There's a massive distinction between inflating the price of existing assets, and creating the conditions to invest in new asset creation.

One is inflationary, one is deflationary.

The City of Toronto approved six-storey units on major roads. But bureaucracy is still killing these projects.

I was so mad about this article, I had to rant about it. I can't believe councillors are still fighting for "neighbourhood character" in 2026.

www.thestar.com/news...

I honestly think this is one of the best things we've done in months. And it's the one thing that I had absolutely nothing to do with.

There's a lesson there :)

The City of Toronto approved six-storey units on major roads. But the bureaucracy is still killing these projects. This is Why Toronto's Housing Crisis Won't Go Away #housingmarket #housingcrisis #realestate #nimby

I love, absolutely love, this new short from Cara, on how the Scarborough committee of adjustment is rejecting perfectly legal housing projects due to vibes. Toronto's housing crisis in a nutshell.

Despite very different methodologies and very different metrics, Canada has similar ranks on both the UN HDI and the World Happiness Index. There are some outliers on each list, but, typically, if you do well on one, you do well on the other.

And you think this particular UN initiative isn't doing that?

How?

New episode! We look at Canadians boycotting US goods, how younger Canadians are less likely to participate, "luxury beliefs", and how my car was recently destroyed in an ice storm.

Watch "Why Canada’s Wealthy Can Afford to Hate America" here: www.youtube.com/watc...

That is the methodology; it's surveying people's individual personal assessments of their own happiness, life satisfaction, and emotional state.

I will always find it funny when people dismiss measures of subjective well-being as being "subjective", as if it's some kind of gotcha moment.

It's right in the title, folks.

The tendency for a subset of progressives to dismiss the value of the social sciences is bizarre.

In Canada, we call them "international students".

Possibly. But either way, the metric excludes the very people who are most impacted by the affordability crisis.

That data is a bit misleading, because it excludes the people who have been priced out of renting.

Fair. Though they weren't in the UN HDI, where we've been in decline for awhile.