- Secure $75k in angel funding or $200k in venture funding, from a list of designated Canadian funders.
- Score relatively highly on a language test in either English or French, for both verbal and written ability (note that everyone must take this test, even those coming from English- or French-speaking countries).
- Have satisfactorily completed at least one year of higher education (no degree required).
- Depending on family size, have a minimum of $11k-$30k in the bank initially to support yourself.
If anyone is seriously considering applying and needs assistance meeting the Canadian angel / VC requirement, feel free to reach out to me, I am based in Canada and active in the angel/VC community. Contact info is in my profile.
I actually want to set up a startup. But undecided on location, my current location will not do. I really want to go to valley, ideally get into YC itself, but the barrier to entry is high. How would you say is the startup culture over there in canada? How does it stack up against places like valley, london or NYC? Other and more accessible option for me is Banglore, no visa required (I am from India).
The nearly 500 tech startups in Waterloo was pretty big news a year or two ago, even on HN. Startup success seems to be the problem in Canada. I'm not sure I could name a single one of those companies, even after considerable time has passed since that media exposure.
It will be interesting to see if bringing in new cultural perspectives can change that.
- Pebble is in the Valley, after going through YC.
- Couple is in San Francisco.
- Vidyard is based in KW.
- BufferBox is based in KW, and got acquired by Google.
- Thalmic is in KW.
So two out of five have Canadian founders who left for the Bay Area. Three out of the five stayed, one of which has succesfully exited.
Vidyard's first round of financing came from exclusively American sources. Canadian investors did not join until they were well underway.
Thalmic's first round of funding came from angels that I can't find any info on, their series A came from exclusively American sources.
I'm not sure if these companies really support the notion that Canadian VC firms are ready to create success and nurture extremely early-stage startups.
Pebble is the only one I've heard of on the list and their website claims they are in Silicon Valley, so I guess that reenforces my point?
Additionally, I think it is quite reasonable to argue that Kickstarter is the source of their success, but Kickstarter is still not yet available to Canadians. Not until later this summer.
I live out in the country, but KW is nearby, which is why I find it so interesting that I cannot really name a single startup operating within. I feel like I have a closer connection to Silicon Valley, even though I've never been there. Is there something like HN for local startups?
Beside canadians participating in some large game jams and having cool events there, Quebec state is the second largest games producer in the world (behind US, and above the entire Japan)
My guess is that trying Amsterdam, or Berlin is a safer bet.
Apart from mature startup culture, for you as an Indian, these places also have an advantage of being relatively close, timezone-wise, to both U.S. (at least East Coast) which will be most probably your main market, and India where you will probably hire people.
I don't have a large sample size, but my small set of second-hand reports suggests that trying to live-and-work in Berlin can be problematic if you don't speak at least passable German. Not for the startup scene itself, where everyone speaks English, but for practicalities like interacting with the civil service, health-care system, housing, and banks, where German is expected. (This is a difference from Copenhagen, where everything can be done in English if you prefer. And Danes often prefer it, too, because they don't understand foreigners who try to speak Danish.)
True. There are very few places in the world where you can go without local language. It is a pleasure to see how this improves over years, pace of the change is dramatic, but we are far from there as far as Central and Eastern Europe is concerned.
In Amsterdam there is a famously strong one, best in Europe (while nothing compared to the Valley). Berlin is also a nice place in this respect, i know a few guys in Eastern Europe who worked in startups there. Berlin is a very unusual city because while being a capital of one of topmost tech countries in the world, it enjoys cheap rent and cost of living/doing business (because it's not overcrowded yet, legacy of the separation era, quite opposite to say, London).
You can always open a company and apply as a company manager. Also, you can get a Blue Card if you pay yourself at least 1.5x the average salary in a given country, which in the case of a funded startup should not be a problem. German immigration system is very kind to tech founders.
Quick question; what would kind of person would you imagine would successfully secure funding from an angel/VC as a person trying to immigrate to Canada.
I guess one would have to have more than an idea and a MVP.
Also, any differences between Canada's angels and VCs than the impression one would get from Hacker News stories which is probably more U.S. focused?
It's tough to generalize across all VCs and Angels in the country, but a few high level items to consider:
- Canada is somewhat unique in that there are federal and provincial subsidies for specific sectors related to technology (I.e. Video Game development tax credits, scientific research and develop credits - see http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site//cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/... for some of the big ones at the federal level). Most of these incentives don't require your business to make a profit. Some Angels and VCs have a preference to invest in businesses which are eligible to receive these incentives, and in rare cases will even ask you to relocate in order to a specific location in Canada to maximize incentives.
- IMHO, the cliche that Canadians are conservative with their money is mostly true - historically the majority of the big money in Canada was made in resources, banking, real estate & manufacturing, which are all (for the most part) much less risky than early stage technology investing. Yes, there have been a few big tech winners - but they are almost rounding errors compared to the amount of cash made in these other industries. My personal hypothesis is the "conservative" cliche is somewhat self-enforcing, as the Canadians who like early stage technology end up moving to NYC or SF, have success there, and then rarely return. This has resulted in the creation of informal Canadian clubs in those locations, as well as formal organizations like http://www.thec100.org/ .
I might be biased as I run a venture fund myself (Version One Ventures) but I think there are a handful excellent investors up here in Canada, most of which invest across North-America. Here is a good overview: http://www.techvibes.com/blog/state-of-venture-capital-in-ca...
The big part is this: you get the equivalent of a green card - Permanent Residency. The Minister's office actually did a lot of research into this thing before launching it, and consciously didn't want to put talented people into the awkward position a lot of H1B holders have when their visas expire and are forced to pack everything up and head home.
Timeline for citizenship is 5-6 years: 3 years of residency, after which you can apply for citizenship, which currently takes additional 2-3 years to get.
One key thing to note is that Canadian Citizenship Law does not require the applicant to be present physically on Canadian soil while the application is being processed, nor does it require "proof of intent to live in Canada" for award of Citizenship.
What this means is that in theory, someone could land as a PR one Day 1, file the application exactly 3 years and 1 day later, and then leave Canada and go sit in a hut in Guatemala while the application is being processed. [1] After it is ready for the test/oath in 2-3 years, applicant flies back, declares a desire to live and die in Guatemala, and still gets his Canadian citizenship, a shiny new Canadian passport, and leaves the country. And all this is 100% legal, at least as per Canadian Citizenship Law as of 2013.
[1] Unfortunately, C&IC will only correspond to Canadian addresses, so the applicant does need a reliable mailing address in Canada
Theoretically yes, but in practice, the current Harper administration is going hard against those PRs who leave Canada after applying for citizenship, using any possible way to deny them, even questioning and trying to reverse decisions made by Citizenship Judges.
This is somewhat correct and quite possible. Keep in mind the reason that this is possible is because to maintain Canadian PR status the residency obligation is 2 physical years in Canada out of a 5 year period[1]. So if you are outside of Canada for 3 years, you'd have to come back for the final 2.
There is ambiguity about whether it's a rolling 5 years or whether it's 5 year cycles based on the date you first receive your PR status. To be safe, it's usually best to assume modulo 5 from the start of your PR status.
In the example above, if you filed the citizenship application 3 years and 1 day later, the maximum you can stay in your Guatemalan hut is just shy of 2 years, or else you risk losing PR status and jeopardizing your Canadian citizenship application.
I'm not sure what benefit this gets them though, other than being able to travel on a Canadian passport and receive help from Canadian embassies when abroad. It's not as though one gets access to Canadian social programs when overseas.
…that's disquieting and disturbing to read. I had not realized that the Harper government had been that bad to immigration and citizenship. (I assumed it was bad because it's Harper, but I didn't know it was that bad.)
I got my citizenship about ten years ago (I only know because I'm on my third passport), about six months after applying and taking the test. I had been resident for just under four years at the time.
I was excited about this, until I heard the Canadian VC/angel requirement.
If they really want to encourage foreigners to found startups, they should allow private investors to become angels, even if the investor in question is of foreign status. Think about it: you have a bunch of rich people injecting large amounts of money into your economy, and the only thing you have to do is give one person permanent residency - and there's a chance their company will be successful and contribute to the economy even more.
They probably want to avoid the "fictitious investor" problem -- without the "Canadian" requirement, Canada would get lots of people jumping the immigration queue by having their friends and family "invest" in their "startup".
(There's already a way for rich people to buy their way into Canada, but it takes around a million dollars instead of a hundred thousand.)
A million dollars and an opaque amount of waiting time. Just having the money and fulfilling the stated requirements doesn't reliably get Chinese people into Canada. May differ for other nationalities.
I had to do the English test as part of my Canadian permanent residency and it was oddly terrifying. English is my first (and only) language.
Luckily it turns out I can speak the English reel gud. I now have a certificate to prove it!
There were other people in my test group who couldn't follow basic instructions that were given out before the test ("Please wait over there", etc.). I imagine they didn't do so well.
I didn't take an English test when I applied as a skill worker for permanent residency (it's not my first language). It was heavily recommended to do so but I wrote a page outlining my work experience in the US, other test results etc and I didn't have any problem.
It was a bit risky because it was up to the official reviewing the application to accept it or not but I didn't feel like spending a grand and flying to another city for a day to take a test.
I don't know if things have changed and now a test is required without exception; all data indicate that not knowing well the country's language(s) is the main factor for not succeeding in it as an immigrant.
As someone that speaks English "reel gud" I can understand that the test was "reeli harrd". It's amazing how many people have problems with tests of their own first language just for the fact that they have never learned grammatical rules and that they can't distinguish between "standard" language and a local dialect they are used to. After all, it's native speakers that are guilty of "their" and "there's" confusion.
For the skills-based immigration (not the startup immigration) you're right, you can do both. You can get up to 16 points for your primary language (out of [English|French]), and up to 8 points for the other one. So it can be worth getting even a very low qualification for your second language, if you need to tack on a point or two to reach the threshold.
Isn't having 11k around a slightly high bar? Do most under 25 founders have that kind of cash lying around? And if you are the kind of foreigner that has that kind of North American cash in your account you probably come from a family who isn't hard up for Canadian citizenship or have already experienced some business success.
$11K is irresponsibly low if that's your savings when you move from one country to another, even if your start-up is somewhat funded. After all, your chances of success are just as low as every other funded start-up and you're going to have nothing but your savings and your skills to fall back on in an unknown market if your start-up should fail.
Personally I think that $50K in savings is more in line with realistic expectations of moving country, setting up shop and getting a company under way, funding is icing on the cake, it's not as if that's your money.
Well who are they trying to attract with this visa? If you are the kind of person that has 50K in savings, is this startup visa really going to help you? If you have 50K in savings you are already wealthy on a global scale even though you are not really a person of high net worth (after all to have 50K in savings you have to have earned a healthy income in some line of work that allows you to save or have a wealthy family).
My impression of this kind of visa is it is should be attempting to attract young people with high potential but without necessarily having other great routes to the life they desire in North America. If you think they are targeting a different audience, say older foreigners with established businesses/careers who just want to move to Canada then 50K is reasonable.
Also there's definite risk on one side here, otherwise it's an opportunity for no one. If you have $50K of your own, why start a company in Canada rather than SV? I think to make this a worthwhile visa, Canada has to take on the risk that they are going to let someone into their first world country with a good social safety net because that person has untapped potential. Canada takes the risk if the savings threshold is low, but if the savings threshold is high they are not creating much of an incentive to move to Canada rather than an established startup hub and its the entrepreneur taking the risk.
> Also there's definite risk on one side here, otherwise it's an opportunity for no one. If you have $50K of your own, why start a company in Canada rather than SV?
Well, because you can't. You can't just simply walk into the US. That's the whole point why everyone raves about the Canadian Startup Visa. The requirements for the US for a foreign entrepreneur are one hell of a lot tougher in terms of funding/jobs created by company/etc.
> Well who are they trying to attract with this visa?
That's an excellent question. My take on this is that by being more open to start-ups Canada hopes that if the numbers are high enough that they'll have another RIM on their hands one of these days. It costs them next to nothing (the venture capitalists / angels are picking up the tab) and they get more skilled workers either way.
I think quite a few entrepreneurs will see this as a way of moving to the states without the drawbacks (it's North America, after all) and may eventually use it as a stepping stone to the US if they're successful.
Compared to London, Berlin, Prague or Hamburg I'd stay in Europe if I had to make the choice.
If you already have a life on the go in some other place $50K is peanuts when moving to another continent. I've done it and even though we were pretty well prepared for the move the first year was astoundingly expensive. (family of 3).
I take it that you haven't been in the position of having to enter the US as a visitor? You might be required to prove you have enough money to cover your stay just to get a tourist visa (or even a transit one).
For a permanent visa, requiring $10k savings is pretty reasonable. If you've been working as a programmer or engineer in the developed world, you should be able to save that much in 1 year, give or take a few months. If you're in an emergent country, 2 years or so.
That part's the same with the skills-based immigration visa (not specific to the startup visa). The motivation is that they want people who enter the country to have enough cash on hand to be able to pay for an apartment deposit, and their initial rent, food, etc. until they get an income stream flowing. If someone enters the country with only, say, $500 cash on hand, there's a significant chance they could end up homeless and/or needing to draw on social-welfare services almost immediately if their anticipated income stream falls through or is delayed. Requiring them to have a cash cushion means the person should be able to take care of themselves even if there are some early troubles.
I imagine if you managed 50k in angel funding or 200k VC, you can probably scrounge together 11k somehow. You may well be able to borrow it personally from your existing backers if they're already willing to fund your company. You will need to eat and pay rent for the first few months at the very least, so you'll need to have some money.
I'll look for myself, but in order to float both the question and possible responses out of the full details, are there age boundaries?
--
P.S. In an initial, brief search, I did not find any mention of specific age qualifications attached to this program (beyond, I suspect, being at least 18 years old).
Some bits and pieces of info for those considering this:
- remember to sign up for OHIP (or the local equivalent) as soon as you arrive, there is a time limit on how long you can wait before signing up after arriving in Canada. If you don't do this in time you will not be covered.
- Canada has some pretty severe weather in the winter, everywhere except for the area around Niagara falls and Vancouver. The latter is the better spot all year round. Big cities are your only chance to mitigate the worst of this, rural life is brutal.
- Don't make any irreversible moves (giving away stuff, actually moving) until all the paper work is done. I made the mistake of believing a bunch of government officials during my own move to Canada on an entrepreneurship visa and it cost me dearly.
- Elsewhere in this thread someone asks why not go to the US, well, (1) free (and good) healthcare, (2) a bit more laid back business climate. That said, the laid back atmosphere and the different venture capital climate make it a lot harder to get off the ground in Canada. Cost of living is slightly lower than in the US for most parts of Canada.
- Outside of Waterloo, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Calgary and maybe Quebec City it's going to be hard to find qualified employees. In Ottawa you'll be bidding against the government.
- No matter where you want to go in Canada you'll have to score reasonably well on the French language test. Even if that's the only time in Canada you'll ever use your French. (imho this is a ridiculous requirement, and that's with 5 years of French under my belt and a ton of exposure, you simply don't need it unless you plan on living in Quebec).
- Paperwork processing in Canada can be terribly slow, it is basically the luck of the draw whether your paperwork will be processed in weeks, months, years or even decades! (no kidding...).
I could go on like this for a while, if you have any specific questions about moving to Canada (but not about this program) feel free to ask.
The skytrain will take you from the YVR arrivals terminal right downtown. Cost is 6 bucks, and you will be at your apartment or hotel in 20-30 minutes.
The city is most the most walkable in the world, with almost no need for a car (unless you really like to go on weekend road trips). Crime is extremely low right now, and the city economy is very solid.
With TED moving to the city next year (and a bunch of other things falling into place), it is a great time to move to Vancouver to find a job or start a business.
Also, the thing about french is not true in the west. No one speaks a lick of french anywhere west of Ontario, and it will never be a job requirement, unless you are applying to work with the federal government.
I'm from Vancouver and I've lived in San Francisco. Compared the SF, the city is very walkable and the transit is far more efficient than SF's Muni, which crawls like a croaking dog. I never thought I'd say that transit in Vancouver is better than in other cities, having been part of the fight to get more transit funding in Vancouver, but it's not bad.
SkyTrain is the most beautiful rapid transit line I've ever been on.
Best in the world though? Not sure - I'd like to see it compared to Zurich or Hong Kong or Amsterdam in that regard.
Granted. It depends where you live. If transit is a priority, you want to live near the Canada line, which is fast, clean and has really good security.
If you live out in the burbs, transit is okay, but not better than most European cities.
Downtown Vancouver and false creek were designed with density and walking in mind. Every condo tower must have street level retail, and they make sure to have essential things like good grocery stores every few blocks. Check out the walk score for Yaletown: http://www.walkscore.com/score/davie-st-and-pacific-boulevar...
> Canada has some pretty severe weather in the winter, everywhere except for the area around Niagara falls and Vancouver.
Niagara falls is still brutally cold and snowy in the winter. The only place you won't freeze your ass off is the west coast of BC. aka Victoria/Vancouver.
> Cost of living is slightly lower than in the US for most parts of Canada.
Unless you are in Vancouver, where it is quite expensive to live. Housing, food, fuel... There are very few places in the US that are as expensive to live as Vancouver.
> the laid back atmosphere and the different venture capital climate make it a lot harder to get off the ground in Canada
It is harder to get VC funding in Canada than it is south of the border. From what I've seen startup's in the US/Silicon Valley that may get 20million, you can expect ~1million in Canada, and most won't even look at you unless you already have paying customers. I don't really know all the factors that cause this but investors are much more conservative here.
> - No matter where you want to go in Canada you'll have to score reasonably well on the French language test. Even if that's the only time in Canada you'll ever use your French. (imho this is a ridiculous requirement, and that's with 5 years of French under my belt and a ton of exposure, you simply don't need it unless you plan on living in Quebec).
I don't believe there's a French language requirement. It's either English or French, one or the other. From the website:
"You must meet the minimum level of CLB 5 in either English or French for all four language abilities."
Whether rural life in Canada is brutal depends on where you're from. And your definition of brutal. Between 20 minutes north of Toronto and the start of the Arctic Circle there is a fair bit of variation. If you grew up in the desert and have never lived anywhere cold, you might find it brutal. If you come from somewhere that has snowy winters and you don't mind bundling up you might find that you love Canadian winters (I do!) They're absolutely essential if you want to enjoy such lovely outdoor activities as tobogganing, skiing (downhill and x-counrty), snowboarding, ice skating, hockey, snowshoeing, beerbogganing, and camping in a Quinzhee.
> Cost of living is slightly lower than in the US for most parts of Canada.
I find cost of living in Vancouver (North Shore) quite high when compared, for example, with Portland, OR. Granted, this is one of the more expensive regions in Canada vs a city in a state with no sales tax, but still most of the goods and food in Canada are significantly more expensive than in the US.
Interesting, ok, you can xordon both mention Vancouver to be much more expensive these days, please note that any information about Canada that I have is likely to be 6 years out of date (that's when I last spent time there) and wrt Vancouver closer to 8 years.
I know several people that moved there from Toronto recently and neither of them mentioned expensive housing but I'll take your word for it.
Its house prices make it one of world's most expensive cities, with slightly worse weather than Seattle (where it's overcast at least 6 months a year), where houses are much cheaper.
As a developer working in Ottawa, I'd like to say that working for the government and working for a start-up are very different experiences. I don't think that the government takes so many developers away from the high-tech community here that an aspiring entrepreneur should consider them competition for employees. They're different kinds of jobs for different kinds of people.
I think there is a large concentration of talented people here who are far more interested in working in high-tech than working for the government.
Serious question: how are the Pakistanis and Zimbabweans and other folk who are elderly and whose skills aren't current (I'm assuming) becoming Canadian citizens? Vancouver, for example, is a melting pot. Is a skilled worker legally allowed to bring any number of their unskilled extended family over?
The bad part: The investment has to come from a canadian VC or angel firm. It doesn't clearly state if it is a requirement though [1].
The good part: As many have already mentioned, it is a permanent residency status and not just a temporary visa. It comes along with all the health care benefits and social benefits as what Canadian citizens get [2]. So even if your first business fails, you will have the opportunity to start another one or find a job.
Since I downvoted, I'll tell you why: this comment is factually incorrect. It's not possible to have sexual intercourse with a government program, let alone coercive sexual intercourse.
steve,down vote all you like. I could have chosen a better words. I agree. But we have seen the immigration system gamed by lots of people and companies. So having a qualified investors is a good thing. Trust me the Canadian government does not have the resources to look into everything.
Upvoted, that's great! I'm not saying that the system won't be gamed; I'm saying that using the word 'rape' in this context is inaccurate and of poor taste.
Your point could have been made the first time by just typing "we have seen the immigration system gamed by lots of people and companies. So having a qualified investors is a good thing. Trust me the Canadian government does not have the resources to look into everything." and I'd take zero issue with it.
I understand that often, metaphors are useful. However, I think this metaphor is both very poor and in very poor taste. For example, a government program could never experience any of the other effects of sexual assault[1] that are part of what makes rape such a heinous crime.
I know that saying 'rape' and feeling like one can hide behind a literary claim may make one feel 'edgy' or whatever, but it just comes across as excessively childish.
Yeah it's bad taste, but I understood it to mean that the program would be taken excessive advantage of.
I'm not even sure if it's an attempt at seeming edgy or w/e. Maybe once upon a time it was, but it's become a pretty common saying by now. You're fighting the good fight, but I doubt you'll win. :(
And there's a good reason why we need to push back against it. I think we've turned on the corner on this particular use of the word, but nonetheless.
This is the same thing as how people used to (and some still do) call things "faggy" and "gay". It's not cool, it's damaging and hurtful to a large number of people.
If you want to say "the system will be taken advantage of", we have an existing phrase for that. It's "the system will be taken advantage of".
While this is great in theory, it's likely not going to lead to anything other than one marquee Toronto Star story about the foreign entrepreneur who found success in Canada.
Canadian VCs are far too risk averse and conservative; that's why the uptick of start-ups in all areas of the country, even Toronto's own would-be "Valley" of Liberty Village and the Junction, hasn't fielded much in the ways of success.
Until Toronto VCs start taking more risks and going down the road of helping people experiment (much like YComb itself), I don't see this doing much other than acting as a talking point for why Canada is a good place to live.
(I say this as a Torontonian who has worked almost exclusively for start-ups in the GTA and is now moving to San Fran to work for another one).
You know they could have not introduced a startup-visa, because they thought they have too little VC.
Instead they said, damn we really want young entrepreneurs to succeed and start a change. We don't have much VC money, but let's freaking execute by introducing a startup visa and that way state an example for the U.S. to follow.
The government of Canada isn't doing this to set an example for the United States to follow. They're doing this because they want to grow the Canadian economy.
In fact, they'd be quite happy if the United States doesn't follow their example, because that will help Canada compete. See, for instance, this billboard in Silicon Valley:
The U.S. doesn't need any examples to follow since the machine seems to be running quite well. If anything Canada needs to set itself apart because we're losing too many entrepreneurs to the pretty neighbour below us.
The canadian "citizen and immigration" service is seriously understaffed (thanks, Mr. Harper!). Some consequences of this:
* It currently takes more than two years in average to process a citizenship request.
* The CIC stopped accepting any new application from canadian citizens or permanent residents to sponsor their parents or grandparents for permanent residency.
So, this all sounds good in paper, but Im skeptical about how well it will work in reality.
Permanent residency is the major step towards canadian citizenship, and the biggest bottleneck. Citizenship is (from what I heard) relatively straightforward after waiting the necessary number of years.
Actually you typically apply for citizenship after you become a permanent resident, and it takes less effort (from the candidate, at least). But in any case, it is the same service that is in charge of both citizenship and permanent residency, and they are understaffed. Perhaps they will give more priority to Startup visas processing than to other types of visa.
Well, I suppose this is a two way street. Hopefully something like this would kick-start Canadian VC funding, as they'll have a lot of very qualified international applicants knocking down their doors.
You would think it would be that simple, but you really need to look at it from the investor's point of view: What is my ROI if invest my money this way instead of that way? More unattractive investments won't help the tech startup community grow.
My suspicion[1] is that the thing that will really fix this is changing the way that investors are taxed on their capital gains and losses.
[1] Been a while since I lived in Canada, but IIRC capital gains and losses are not taxed like they are in the US.
That's not correct. Interest is taxed progressively like any other income, dividends are somewhat taxed according to a complex formula, and 50% of your capital gains are taxed at the applicable marginal tax rate depending on your income.
True, but that is an exemption that gets used up. There is a $750,000 lifetime capital gains exemption. Which most people don't hit, but a successful founder could.
My guess is that's part of the purpose, to use the visas as a carrot to improve deal flow to Canadian angels/VCs. Could also be that they think companies funded by Canadian investors will be less likely to jump ship to the U.S. later, versus if they were funded by a Valley-based firm.
(As for why the investors have to be from an approved list? Probably to avoid sham "angel investors" fake-funding their acquaintances, or outright selling visas.)
> "(As for why the investors have to be from an approved list? Probably to avoid sham "angel investors" fake-funding their acquaintances, or outright selling visas."
This is a valid concern, though I'm worried it will swing the pendulum in the other direction also - that it basically gives non-regulated, non-governmental, non-accountable entities the ability to wield immigration as a stick.
That or allow an existing cabal of VCs to lock out competing, upstart VCs.
Theoretically this is fantastic. I'm in the US on an H1B visa and there's no clear path for me to be able to start my own company. My visa still has a couple of years left on it, but this is something I will be watching closely.
Of course, the US could implement a similar program in a heartbeat. And by "in a heartbeat", I mean "never, because the government in this country is utterly dysfunctional".
I don't understand. I recently incorporated a C-Corp in Delaware remotely from Malaysia (never stepped a foot in American soil), single founder. So it means if you're _there_ under H1B then you can't do that? I wonder if you can setup a company in your country of origin and have that company incorporate a company in the US, will it work?
You can start a company, but you can't work for it. Unless you transfer your visa to that company, but then things like funding become very chicken and egg- you don't want to transfer your visa until your company is viable, but investors are going to be wary until you can prove that everyone can legally work for the company.
Yes, in US anyone can start a company, but the catch is, you can't work for it without proper work authorization. So, practically, this means you can't start a company if you are going to take an active operating role within the company.
That's the law. The reason is, you can be a passive investor in a company, similar to buying stock in a company. This is allowed on any type of visa including H1B. But, if you are taking an active role, you are working for your own company and you cannot work for a company without work authorization. The work authorization could be CPT, OPT, EAD or H1B ( there might be other forms of work authorization I am only aware of these few).
Stop complaining about vc, or culture; Canadians regularly blow billions on prospective mining companies on tsx-v. which never report any revenue.
Alberta spearheaded a funding model in the oil patch in the 90s, which is now accessible to the other provinces, which I believe could be useful in the tech sector. The capital pool company, http://www.tmx.com/en/listings/listing_with_us/ways/capital_...
We get a bunch of proven tech execs together, they issue shares, then they have 24 months to go find something worth buying and growing.
So instead of serial entrepreneurs, I believe we could also foster midlevel serial ceo's for instance I would buy stock in a jaquesm, pg or whoever, headed shell company to go and buy out some up and coming tech.
At least I think you could kickstart building a company out of aquihiring zombie startups. I would do this but I'm a no-name.
The best thing the Canadian government could do for Canadian tech entrepreneurship would be to work with the US government to make it easier for Canadians to work in the States and Americans to work in Canada. That, more than anything, would help the skills, knowledge and resources required to build good software companies flow between Toronto and SV.
Seems like a shot across the bow of their Southern neighbors. The US needs to get our act in gear. Vancouver and Toronto are already world class cities.
proof of having completed at least one year of post-secondary education
Seems oddly arbitrary. Most visas with educational requirements go for the complete degree, not just one year of education. All the tales of "drop outs" who make it big force their hand? :-)
It might be a streamlined way of applying some of the existing criteria from the skilled-migration points system.
The existing points system gives you the majority of the education points (15/25) if you have a "Canadian post-secondary degree or diploma for a one-year program" or something that you've gotten certified as the foreign equivalent (19 points for a 2-year degree, 21 points for a regular 3-year bachelors, etc.). I wonder if this is just intended to set the threshold at 15/25 but ease up the requirement a bit by allowing you to count 1 year out of any degree program as equivalent to a Canadian 1-year diploma, since many countries don't have actual 1-year diplomas.
That's the most discouraging requirement for me. I've completed the first 18 months of two undergraduate programmes (without actually graduating), and half a year of an MSc, before finally admitting that I simply didn't care enough about academia. I have no idea how'd I ever manage to demonstrate what I've done. I might have a sort of exam booklet somewhere back at my parents', god knows where. I cannot be the only drop-out who's not particularly plussed about storing mementos of his academic failure.
Either require a full degree or drop the requirement. This middle-of-the-road thing is just silly red tape.
Yes, the instructions specifically say that a transcript is sufficient documentation. Most universities have an easy way to request one (often online), and they usually keep the paperwork even if you didn't graduate, at least if you attended in the post-digitized-records age. Searching for [site:uni.edu transcript request] should turn up the instructions.
Post-secondary education is pretty much universally accepted as a good thing, but it doesn't pan out for everyone. This might be their way of both accepting that not everyone worthwhile gets their degree, but at the same time they don't want to motivate people not to go at all.
The education requirements are strange especially considering they only require one year. e.g. I started my business in the final year of high school and although I got accepted, decided not to attend University. I would be denied a visa. However someone who decided to drop out at the end of their first year of University would be accepted for a visa.
Doesn't seem to make much sense. Does anyone know how strict these requirements are yet?
Get your business idea funded and immigrate to Canada **permanently**
...
What happens if my business fails? [1]
Failure of your business will not affect your permanent
resident status. We recognize that not every business will
succeed and this program is designed so that the risk is
shared between the public and private sector.
I found this :
"If we approve your application, we will issue you a permanent resident visa. This visa includes your Confirmation of Permanent Residence (COPR) and your entry visa."[1]
> If we approve your application, we will issue you a permanent resident visa. This visa includes your Confirmation of Permanent Residence (COPR) and your entry visa.
There are a lot of smaller cities in Canada, i.e. cities that are not Vancouver, Toronto, Waterloo, Ottawa, etc. that are trying very hard to build their own start-up communities. You may want to consider these places if it suits your idea.
For example, I live in Thunder Bay, Ontario, and there are a lot of grants specific to our region because we're considered a northern community. Since we're smaller, there's less competition, and more people will be willing to help you and promote your startup.
Also, if you're startup is involved in medical research, definitely consider Thunder Bay because there is a big medical research community and it's one of the areas the city is trying really hard to build up.
Housing in Thunder Bay is much more affordable because it's in the middle of nowhere. Beautiful place, great steakhouse but not exactly a start-up hotbed.
Of course, if you really only need an internet connection and a couch then it might actually be an advantage but for most start-ups (apparently outside the medical research ones but those are few and far between) access to facilities, a nearby university, a pool of schooled talent to pick from and capital are their lifeblood.
I wonder what the impact would be across the different types of startups. I see this as a boon for foreign entrepreneurs but there are associated downsides as well. For one as an example, if you are planning to start a service based start-up, you may have to manually grab users until your start-up picks up steam.
Based on the numbers from International Telecommunications Union, US has 10 times more online users. I am pretty sure online services and in general start-up success is also tied to your market size. Heck, the first thing they taught me in Management Consulting is to size up the market. I am sure you can get a Temporary Business Visitor visa to the US but as always, this complicates the story.
All in all, as someone from India, looking to start something, I am thrilled by the news but I am not going to apply until I run out of all options in the US. Just my $0.02.
It doesn't mention any particular reason for the education on the website.
I'm at least a little glad it isn't a requirement to hold a degree or diploma.
I'm assuming this is simply an empty requirement to weed out people during application. That said, if a few very intelligent hacker types who never went to college had successfully achieved all of the other three requirements, then I'd see no reason to deny that application.
I'm pretty sure this rule also extends from my countries intense fascination with secondary education.
> I'm pretty sure this rule also extends from my countries intense fascination with secondary education.
That was my takeaway. A way to save face with the strong "education or else" group of people in the country, while acknowledging that formal education is not all that relevant to the program.
Exactly. While it's a compromise, I feel like they missed the point. As someone who has completed one year of college, but opted to drop out and start working, I would rather drop outs be given a chance.
I mean, if I have 12,000$ in the bank, a VC in Canada willing to invest, and can speak French and English, then that should be enough. My main criticism of this Visa is that it isn't inclusive enough. If we could even get 10 more accepted applicants by dropping the educational requirement then it would be worth it in my opinion.
I would guess that it serves as a risk mitigation strategy; if business was unsuccessful, you'd have some 'know-how' to survive with very little dependency on the social system. Just my $0.02
This might seem a bit superficial, but one of the reasons I fear a move to Canada is the weather; not the weather per se, but whether someone like me born in a tropical country would adjust well to the cold? I'm concerned that I would relapse into a depression ushered in by the winter blues (used to be depressed in my 20s, not sure why, it went away after 30, not sure why either), and lose my productivity. As a separate topic, it's slightly unsettling how much the ability to work hard defines many of us.
For context, I was born in South India and currently live + work in Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, the temperature is around the same number as you see for, say, Victoria, BC, except for that the former is in Celsius while the latter is in Fahrenheit! :-)
I can't speak for you, obviously, but I was born in Taiwan and moved to Canada as a child. The first winter was pretty brutal, but mostly because my family had to basically learn how to dress for winter weather, entirely from scratch.
But it's a complete non-issue now.
Keep in mind it also depends on where you settle in Canada. My family settled in Vancouver where the weather is fairly mild and rarely below freezing. If you are in, say, Ottawa (which also has a tech presence), you will sometimes see -20C to -30C weather. That's much rougher to deal with.
There are many Indian-Canadians who live in Vancouver as well as the Toronto area (among other places, but those two seem to be where the concentration is), you may be able to reach out to some of them and figure out the climate problem.
Having lived high in the Rocky Mountains and in Singapore (and various intermediate climes), it's my personal impression that "hot" people have a harder time in cold weather than "cold" people have in hot weather. Aircon is great! The thing is, you can adjust. When I visited central India with an Indian-American friend, both of us were in short-sleeved shirts the whole time, while his family were bundled in all the sweaters and coats they had and were still cold. (It was late January I believe.)
Just having an outdoor heater that needed daily refuelling (in itself a small miracle) was an excellent way to learn how to guess the temperature by the effects on eyelids, lips, ears and nose.
-40: move (while you can), especially if there is some wind to go with it.
Ah, wait until the dead of winter when you're trying to take the bus to work in -40C weather. Walking across a large parking lot, with snow billowing along the ground like a National Geographic special on the Arctic Circle, your face in excruciating pain because of high-speed snow/ice blowing into it.
The fact that your arms and legs are toasty warm seems like a distant comfort at that point...
Plenty of weather conditions in Canada where, no matter how well you dress, you're just not going to be comfortable...
I went to school in Waterloo, ON, Canada. I have walked multiple kilometers to class in weather that was -20 C or below. I'm not going to say it was like being on a warm beach, but geez, long underwear, a scarf, a hat, some thick mitts and a decent coat go a long way to getting a lot closer to comfortable. It's not cheap I suppose, but it's not complex.
Don't forget the ice that forms on the inside surface of your glasses below about -10º.
And the way you can be sweating on one part of your body even as another part is being frost-bitten. Then when you adjust your coats and scarfs the sweating part will cool down and the sweat will start to freeze leading to frostbite there, too.
Ugh. "Ice sweats" I call it. It's pretty bad when you've got a scarf wrapped around your face, and your breath condenses into ice that makes the scarf hard with ice.
Then when you go indoors all the ice melts and your scarf turns into a goopy mess.
Is it really that bad as long as you only need to get from A to B in something like an urban environment, though? Most of my problems with the cold have been switching clothes because of variations in activity levels, and having to actually work outside in the cold (for example having to take off my gloves because they aren't nimble enough with them on).
I'm assuming you had something like a balaclava on in those extreme conditions? If that wasn't enough you also have more wind-proof headgear: people use them to drive snow mobiles, so they should be good enough for the purpose of getting to the bus.
i'd like to hear more about the startups that have made the move from the us to canada. from my perspective, this seems great for startups looking to get into the us market by making a stop in canada, growing, and then attracting us investors.
it will be interesting to see the long-term affects this has. will startups stay?
also, i would love to see an article about the canada startup community in general. canada's economy is well-balanced and from what i can tell pretty risk-adverse. how well people respond to the influx of startups that must take risks, gamble, and move quickly in order to survive?
Pretty interesting. Is there an equivalent to 500 or YC in Canada? What are the best tech cities in Canada? I know Vancouver and Quebec have universities with good CS programs, but that's about it.
Tech cities: Toronto, Kitchener-Waterloo (poised for decline), Ottawa (poised to bounce back).
School-wise, the best talent in the country tends to come from UToronto, Waterloo, UBC or McGill. That said, there are tons of great programs all across the country.
We have some accelerator-like programs and initiatives aimed at fostering an entrepreneurial spirit generally[1][2][3]. Nothing comparable to YC as far as guidance and connections go, though. But I don't think anything has been particularly successful.
KW has been/is largely fuelled by RIM/BlackBerry and the University of Waterloo. If the situation gets any worse for BlackBerry, you'll see an enormous brain drain and capital leave the area.
Ottawa is the country's capital and some tech companies there are doing quite well (Shopify in particular).
I agree with Shopify, but what else ? I thought Toronto and KW were the only cities with a good startup ecosystem.
As far as I am concern, Washington DC isnt the startup capital of the US, so why would Ottawa be? In my opinion government shouldn't be a driver of capital in startups, nor is it ... ?
For what it's worth, when I mentioned Ottawa it wasn't because it's a startup hub, though there is an increasing startup scene there of which Shopify is a part. OP asked about tech cities, not startup cities, and Ottawa definitely makes the cut in that respect.
Much of tech in Ottawa is mid- to large-size IT/gov't contracting and telecoms. As for smaller firms, not many are setting out to build the Next Big Turnkey Ruby App. But there are tons of companies aiming to fill niche enterprise/government needs, e.g. [1], [2], many many more.
I thought so too. Certainly not the technical breadth of YC, but on par in terms of uniqueness of ideas, founder quality and traction. I thought our YC batch was a force to be reckoned with, but wow, this year's FonderFuel batch was killer.
I imagine that the one year of required secondary education will prevent a lot of founders from applying for this visa (I would be one of them) but I can understand why it's required.
Yes, what does Canada offer that the UK doesn't? Same language, both have a Queen both have a functional government that mostly respects other peoples rights.
The US has a great ecosystem for start-ups. Does Canada?
If you're from another commonwealth country it's a lot easier to migrate to Canada than it is the USA. Regarding what could be more attractive than the UK: there's more open space, cheaper housing, better schools, mountains, etc.
I would rather have temporary worker visas for startup employees. Our biggest labor problem has been the difficulty of getting programmers who didn't go to college into the US. We'd move to Canada in a heartbeat if we could get the developers we wanted colocated with us.
How about N temporary worker visas/amount of VC funding?
Having lived in numerous countries as a foreign programmer (neither from the U.S or Canada), I can assure you that it is significantly easier to move to Canada than the U.S. Their highly skilled migrant program is a lot more friendly to... highly skilled migrants. In fact, most countries are.
No, I'd like to be able to bring awesome people from Russia, the Czech Republic, Israel, etc who often don't have college degrees. If Canada would let me do that, I'd move my startup to Canada.
Canadian IT labour market is not so bad so you should profit by fact of moving here and have access to current pool and relatively lower wages then in SV.
Is should actually remove both of your pain points cost and qualified labor.
The issue isn't general supply, but specific engineers. Half our team is Canadian now, but many of the people we'd like to work with but can't are located elsewhere and Canadian immigration law is very unfriendly to immigrants without college degrees.
Maybe not a dime a dozen, but developer pay in Canada does seem to be considerably lower. Up to 50-60% lower, according to others in a recent HN discussion.
If an American VC firm opens an office in Toronto, does that count as Canadian VC money?
Seems like a good idea for American VCs to open incubators in Canada. Would allow them to global deal flow while only worrying about the regulations of Canada. Plus its quicker to fly there.
The Angel's and VC's need to be "designated." So simply starting a firm in Canada may not grant the firm access to this program.
Looking through the very short list of "designated" VC's it is quite obvious (from a Canadian's point of view) that these are all very well established Canadian companies.
I'm an American who started a startup in Vancouver, BC before this Visa existed. If anyone has any questions about doing that or would like suggestions/introductions to people in the area let me know.
i know that business taxes are relatively low, but what about personal incomes taxes? how will this affect having to pay double taxes (both us and canada). i believe you can write off the taxes you pay overseas, but you have to pay the difference in us taxes.
You'll never pay a dime of US taxes, since Canada has a tax treaty with the US and income taxes in Canada are higher than those in the US. Also, Canada has higher gasoline and alcohol taxes and double digit sales taxes in most provinces. Also, tax deferred retirement plans have lower limits than the US.
That said, healthcare costs are minimal in Canada, which are a huge plus for entrepreneurs who may not always have a steady income stream.
That said, if you're moving from a high tax US state (CA) to a low taxes Canadian province (Alberta), the difference isn't that great.
Keep in mind that if you have a Roth IRA in the US, it gets complicated. Canada doesn't recognize Roth IRAs thus there are tax complications.
That's not true. You can only get an exclusion on the first $97,000USD you make outside of the US, so YMMV. In Vancouver or Toronto, you'd be pushing it.
Not true. The US and Canada has a tax treaty which means any Canadian taxes you pay count against US taxes owed. In other words, you only have to pay US taxes if your tax liability is lower than what it would be in the US.
Since Canadian income taxes are higher than US income taxes, you'll never have to pay US income taxes (baring some odd financial situation).
Yeah, income tax is mostly the same, but sales tax is killer. I pay nearly double sales tax in my current province compared to my home state/city... large tech purchases become a couple hundred dollars more.
The primary contributors to points is education background, linguistic ability (English and/or French), work experience, and age.
It takes a fair amount of time (compared to H-1B or other US work visas), since this is considered actual immigration, not just a work permit (those are available too). If you are accepted you become a full-fledged permanent resident (with all of the social benefits afforded to all Canadians), not a temporary worker with a ticking clock.
Unless I'm reading the form incorrectly, it looks as if an eligibility requirement is 1 year of work experience in a very limited range of fields, given here:
Note that that list differs from the list on the official web site, which appears to be current as of May 2013: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/apply-who-ins... (Also see the top of that page for differently phrased instructions that might be clearer.)
That is correct. The skilled immigration program is not a catch-all for smart people, it's specifically designed to grow the economy in a planned direction, as well as to fulfill shortages that are anticipated to/already exist.
I'm actually no longer sure that I am right, unless you have another source. The website states [1]:
> You must have at least one year of full time experience in the last ten years in a management or
> professional or highly skilled occupation. These are listed as Skill Type O, Skill Type A or Skill
> Type B on the National Occupation Classification List. You will find further details in our
> skilled worker guide.
At first reading, it would seem that only "shortage occupations" [2] meet this criterion. However, the precise language would suggest that any occuption with an NOC skill type of 0, A or B qualifies. That would suggest any job with a NOC code beginning with 0 or with the second digit 1 or 2 would qualify [3].
Yeah, I'm pretty confused now that I read the official federal government site. I suggest you contact a lawyer if you want a definitive answer.
But my reading of it:
- If you do not have a job offer, you must fall under a listed shortage occupation (i.e., not the entirety of the Type 0, A, and B lists).
- If you do have a job offer (a good enough job offer, at that) in a Type 0, A, or B occupation, you do not need to be in a shortage class.
This makes some logical sense. If you don't have a guaranteed job coming into Canada, it makes sense for the government to ensure you are in a shortage occupation to maximize your odds of actually being employed.
A visa is permission to go to a country. VISA is a trademark of a consortium of banks to bilk low-information consumers with overpriced credit. Writing in all caps is rude unless it is necessary to be specific or in LISP.
Let's say an average person has a great idea but to come up with that idea she had to go through a lot of schooling and industry experience. Also she needed to earn enough to have a solid 11-13K bank balance. I have a feeling to attain these objectives that person would have to be in her mid-30s. How does a person at that age naturally adapt to a new country, when all she has experienced and adapted to so far is another culture in another country?
Most of the new immigrants I know in Canada are in their early 30s. It turns out that this is the age when you are most likely to qualify for the skilled worker immigrant visa, based on your education, experience and savings.
Adapting to a new country is going to be hard no matter what country you go to.
Canada is very well known for successfully mixing immigrants from many different cultural backgrounds into Canadian culture, there are many free programs in place, as well as many support groups. Canada's extremely diverse.
I think the Canadian VCs can take care of that, also since they are not lending the money, because it's an investment, not a loan. The founder doesn't have to return the money, if the money is gone and the company fails, the money is gone.
- Secure $75k in angel funding or $200k in venture funding, from a list of designated Canadian funders.
- Score relatively highly on a language test in either English or French, for both verbal and written ability (note that everyone must take this test, even those coming from English- or French-speaking countries).
- Have satisfactorily completed at least one year of higher education (no degree required).
- Depending on family size, have a minimum of $11k-$30k in the bank initially to support yourself.