Enough to be substantial in relation to the total cost of establishing the enterprise, and enough to hold the ownership and control the requirement expects. There is no fixed figure.
Two different pressures on the same number
Substantiality is proportional: the comparison is to the total cost of creating an operating enterprise of this kind, including premises, processing equipment, licensing and working capital. Separately, the ownership requirement pushes her share upward because the enterprise must be majority owned by treaty nationals and she must develop and direct it. Those two pressures often mean a larger personal contribution than the commercial negotiation would otherwise produce, and a partner expecting an equal split needs to understand why. Funds she has borrowed can count where she is personally liable and the debt is not secured by the enterprise's assets, which is worth exploring before conceding equity to raise capital. A personal loan secured on Canadian property is a very different instrument from an equity contribution by a partner, and the choice affects both requirements at once.
Hypothetical example: A Canadian investor is choosing between leasing high-end bakery equipment and buying a smaller set outright for a new United States bakery. The first review should list every launch cost, identify what the investor has actually paid or become personally obligated to pay, and distinguish retained personal reserves from venture funds. Contracts, invoices, and account records settle the comparison. The decision is not whether a familiar dollar amount sounds large; it is whether the documented commitment is substantial for this particular business and supports a viable, non-marginal operation.