Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.
My name is Grigori Potapenko. I am a Canadian Armed Forces veteran and a full-time entrepreneur. I've built several businesses and have acquired one. I've also struggled to build them. Entrepreneurship is hard, and I won't pretend otherwise. In my own case, the biggest barrier has often been me—my decisions, my risk tolerance and my execution. Beyond individual accountability, there are structural factors that either accelerate or constrain outcomes. That's what I'd like to focus on today.
If you strip a business down to its fundamentals, there are really three things—capital, talent and a revenue engine. If you take one away, the business fails. In my experience, and in conversations with other veteran founders in Canada, our veteran entrepreneurship ecosystem struggles precisely in those three areas.
Number one is capital. It is always the primary barrier.
I bootstrapped my businesses off credit cards, and then used the proceeds from one venture to acquire another. My businesses were predominantly asset-light and Internet-based. I could not even consider pursuing opportunities that required significant upfront capital.
Veterans are trained to operate under pressure, manage risk and lead teams, but our current underwriting systems don't necessarily value or reward those signals. If veterans are, as some evidence suggests, a high-probability operator class, then capital should flow accordingly—not as a favour, but as a rational capital allocation.
That leads to a related opportunity. When we talk about entrepreneurship, we often think about start-ups— starting something from scratch, from zero, which is risky. We're missing a massive macroeconomic opportunity. Canada is facing a silver tsunami, a generational transfer of $2 trillion in small and mid-sized businesses. Their owners age out, and thousands of viable companies need successors. At the same time, thousands of CAF members transition out each year. We're not systematically connecting those two transitions.
ETA, or entrepreneurship through acquisition, is buying and operating an existing business. It can be a lower-risk transition pathway than starting from scratch. It also preserves jobs, maintains productive capacity and stabilizes communities.
In the U.S., SBA- and VA-backed loan programs are frequently used for small business acquisitions, including by veterans. In Canada, there isn't a comparable veteran-focused acquisition pathway that I know of.
However, BDC recently launched a special fund to facilitate ETA for women entrepreneurs. That's an excellent initiative. A similar instrument for veteran operators would recognize the same principle. Targeted capital can unlock capable operators. If we are serious about productivity and SME continuity, funding veteran operators and connecting them with retiring business owners is a strategic lever. Once again, it's not preferential treatment; it's matching capability with opportunity.
Number two is talent. If we want veteran entrepreneurs to create jobs, we must reduce friction on their first hire. The jump from solo operator to employer is one of the most difficult transitions in business. Right now, however, our system often punishes veterans for their initiative.
I've spoken with multiple peers, including Kevin here, who were denied their benefits from EI or VAC because they decided to pursue a business instead of traditional employment. We're effectively saying, “We'll help you if you're an employee, but we'll penalize you if you're an employer.” Measures could make a difference, such as a payroll tax holiday for the first hires, a wage subsidy for veteran-owned firms, and simplified federal hiring credits for veteran-owned businesses. Again, these are not special deals; they're growth accelerators applied to a population with demonstrated leadership and operational experience.
Several years ago, there was a program by RBC that subsidized hiring CAF veterans. I used it in my business, and it helped tremendously. Government already provides tax deductions and credits for apprentices, tradespersons and youth employment. Why not include veterans?
Number three is revenue. If Canada wants veteran entrepreneurs to succeed, government procurement is your biggest lever. Government is one of the biggest spenders in the country, but right now procurement is a black box. It's difficult for small firms to navigate. I could never figure it out myself, and lots of others couldn't either. Government procurement should be an economic development tool with mechanisms that recognize veteran-led firms where appropriate—again, not as a favour, but as a strategic allocation.
Finally, one major barrier that I experienced is the data and education gap. I attempted to launch a business on coaching and mentoring for veterans, and I couldn't find any data on the state of Canadian veteran-owned businesses. You cannot manage what you do not measure. If we don't measure it, we cannot design policy and we cannot track outcomes. We can't scale what works.
Why did I want to start the coaching program in the first place? At transition, they don't teach you that it is even an option. It was not presented to me during my transition. Exposure to this should start before release, not at the door.
If we measure properly, align capital intelligently, leverage procurement and reduce early hiring friction, veteran entrepreneurship can move from a niche topic to a meaningful contributor to Canada's productivity.
Thank you.
