Should the Maple 8 Invest More in Canadian Startups?
Brett House, a Canadian professor of economics at Columbia Business School, wrote a comment for the Globe and Mail on how to get Canada’s pension funds to invest more in startups:The recent Canada Investment Summit mobilized $500-billion in new capital, according to the federal government, demonstrating that the world is paying attention to the country, particularly our major infrastructure and resource projects.
Canada now needs to put the same spotlight on the financing of its early-stage companies.
Canada’s major public pension funds, the Maple Eight, manage $2.6-trillion in assets, but just a fraction of these finance the country’s venture and growth companies, the engines of innovation and high-value job creation.
While the Investment Summit saw Canadian pension funds and insurers commit $100-billion in fresh capital to domestic investments, new funding for early-stage tech companies barely registered. The most exciting announcement for this sector, the roughly $1.4-billion Radical Breakouts Fund, underscored the scarcity of capital for innovation.
Canadian venture-capital fundraising declined year-over-year by 39 per cent to just over $2-billion in 2025. That’s well off the recent peak of $7.4-billion in 2022.
Consequently, when Canada’s most promising companies are ready to grow, they tend to seek foreign financing, largely from the U.S. In 2024, 84 per cent of Canadian companies’ growth-stage fundraising rounds included American investors. Moreover, in 2025, 60 per cent of venture capital raised in Canada came from American sources, the highest share in a decade. American funding increases the odds these companies will relocate to the U.S.
This won’t be changed through peer pressure or mandates imposed on the Maple Eight. Browbeating Canada’s pension funds into financing the country’s scale-ups is at odds with these funds’ fiduciary responsibilities and the opportunities innovation investing presents.
Fortunately, we have a model proven to draw investment into Canada’s venture capital pipeline. In 2013, the Canadian government launched the Venture Capital Action Plan (VCAP) and followed it with two rounds of the Venture Capital Catalyst Initiative (VCCI) in 2017 and 2021. An independent study for the Business Development Bank of Canada found that a combined government commitment of about $1.2-billion under the VCAP and VCCI has catalyzed more than $17-billion in private financing for Canada’s innovation economy.
These programs aren’t handouts. The federal government invests alongside private capital in a subordinated role: private investors get repaid first and earn enhanced returns. The government’s junior claims encourage private investments that may not otherwise happen. When investments succeed, the government shares their success.
This structure is consistent with the institutional duties of the Maple Eight. It provides diversified exposure to professionally selected investments on commercial terms, and Ottawa’s junior position boosts private capital’s risk-adjusted returns.
This model has also delivered results: in the BDC study, cash distributions to private investors in VCAP and VCCI partner funds outpaced global benchmarks for conventional fund structures, a direct result of Ottawa’s secondary role and strong asset selection by these funds.
Until now, these programs haven’t been structured to match the Maple Eight’s needs: most investment opportunities were too small for them and retaining capital at home wasn’t the priority it is now. The costs are visible today: the equity structures of some of Canada’s most successful innovation companies are dominated by American investors.
Canada’s Budget 2025 earmarked $1-billion for a new Venture and Growth Capital Catalyst Initiative (Growth VCCI), nearly three times more than its predecessors. Ottawa needs the Maple Eight’s engagement in it to attract the multiples of Canadian private capital achieved by the VCAP and VCCI. The right incentives are required to achieve this.
The Growth VCCI must be able to invest across the full lifecycle of innovative firms, from startups to later-stage growth companies, to facilitate pension fund co-investment. The Maple Eight will participate in the Growth VCCI if they can flexibly match opportunities to their mandates.
Ottawa should link infrastructure access to venture commitments. Rather than preaching to the Maple Eight or politicizing their investment decisions, participation in the airport concession scheme could be structured as an incentive to work with the Growth VCCI. Pension funds already prize infrastructure’s stable, long-term yields, which makes it a natural way to engage these funds with Canada’s innovation agenda.
In addition, the country’s pension funds should publicly report their allocations to Canadian venture and growth investments. What’s measured gets done.
With these features, the federal government could make the case for the Growth VCCI on returns, not nationalism. This argument would move real money.
Alright, Quebec elections today, my attention is focused there, but I wanted to cover this quickly.
I recently discussed why OMERS promoted Laura Lenz to lead its ventures group, noting this:
I've seen it all in venture cap: the good, the bad and downright ugly (I was at BDC in 2008, VC got massacred).
It's not an easy game but necessary and can be lucrative (just look at OTPP's success with SpaceX, and soon Anthropic and other companies in its portfolio, including Harvey, the leading AI legal platform).
For it's part, OMERS Ventures has done very well with Xanadu despite that stock's recent selloff.
Its Canadian focus comes at the right time but there is competition in the space.
I recently covered the Canada Investment Summit where I noted Radical Ventures launched Canada’s largest AI fund with $1-billion USD first close and lots of top Canadian pension funds backing it.
I said Canada's VC industry desperately needs major capital and expertise to nurture startups into mature growth companies. Hopefully this new fund will be a huge success.
I wish the same for OMERS Ventures as Laura Lenz takes over the helm.
Just remember, venture cap is never an easy game; you can allocate $5 million or more to 100 companies and are lucky if one or two hit a home run (or grand slam like SpaceX).
This is why pension funds typically allocate between 1 and 3% of their total assets to venture cap/ growth equity.
Now, should Canada's pension funds report exactly how much they invest in Canadian startups (venture cap)? Sure, I am all for that proposal; more transparency is always better than less.
But should they invest more in Canadian venture capital specifically? There, I am more skeptical than Brett House and will freely explain why.
Most of the best opportunities in venture capital lie in the US. It's not even close because that's where the best, most innovation tech companies arise and they have the best ecosystem to nurture these companies, scale them and make them into global powerhouses (think Mag-7 and more recently SpaceX, Anthropic, OpenAI).
In Canada, apart from Shopify, there haven't been as many global tech successes. That's just a fact.
And I seriously doubt if the Maple 8 throw more capital their way, Canadian tech startups will rival their US counterparts.
Moreover, there's a reason why Canadian startups get funded by US VC funds; they're generally better positioned to help them grow their operations over the long run.
Sure, we have some good VC funds up here, but nowhere close to what they have down south.
Nor do we have a Nasdaq up here.
All this to say, I'm genuinely skeptical about all these proposals for the Maple 8 to fund more venture capital in Canada. Something just doesn't sit well with me.
Alright, let me end it there; time to watch Quebec election results.
Below, on this episode of The Buck Stops Here, host Catherine Murray speaks with John Ruffolo, founder and managing partner of Maverix Private Equity, about Canada's economic sovereignty. Ruffolo explains why he believes Canada's greatest trading partner must be itself, why exporting raw resources and buying back finished goods isn't a path to prosperity, and how food and healthcare security became urgent lessons after COVID.
He also unpacks how Canada birthed the AI industry through Geoffrey Hinton's research at the University of Toronto but failed to commercialize it, and why critical minerals and domestic processing could put Canada back in the game. Excellent discussion; John provides great insight shere.







Recent comments