Canadian Government Makes Call to Foreign Startups for New Startup Visa
techvibes.com
techvibes.com
Canada's software engineering industry has a massive brain drain problem, bigger than the mainstream media knows, and bigger than even many tech insiders know. Of the people I graduated university with the people who are still in Canada are the minority, a notion that still boggles the mind.
The bulk are in the US, and almost everyone I know who works on "startupy" things are in the US. In fact, I can count on one hand the number of people I know, still in Canada, working on startupy tech. The vast majority of my peers who remain in Canada are working in BigEnterprise, not exactly a talent pool well fit to encourage startups.
Without making meaningful strides at reversing the brain drain, I feel like any policy changes are just bandaids over a gaping wound. Can there be a startup revolution when the bulk of your engineering talent is busy diving across the border?
There are some distinct advantages to staying up here though. First, at least in Toronto, the cost of living is substantially less than that in San Francisco. To maintain my standard of living, I estimate that I would need to earn 35 - 40% more in Cali, which would be at the upper end of most salaries I've seen. Second, "standing out" career-wise is much easier when there aren't 100,000 people with a duplicate skill set.
If I were a Canadian policy maker, I'd probably work from the intrinsic potential of Vancouver. Pour money and talent into UBC and/or SFU, set up hundreds of live-work artist studios, sponsor the construction of maker spaces and publicly accessible wet labs, liberalize drug policy, and set up a visa program to bring in and house the best and the brightest from all over (South America, Europe, Asia), and direct them all to a relatively small and extremely fun area.
And perhaps most of all, avoid "Made in Canada/BC" provincialism.
^ This has been my experience as well.
Screw this new start-up visa -- what we should really be doing is providing subsidies to companies as an incentive to hire junior developers and/or paying Canadian developers of all levels what they're actually worth. The problem with Canada's start-up culture isn't that we're low on talent. We generate plenty of talent. Canada's problem is a problem of retention.
Freshly minted Canadian C.S. grad here. I'm passionate about my craft, did well in school and I've done several very cool (I think) "for fun" personal projects. I've even successfully shipped one. For what it's worth, this is my perspective on the current climate.
As it stands, we do have a bit of a start-up culture up here (see http://startupnorth.ca/). However, there are some major problems which desperately need to be addressed before any real growth can happen here:
1) Probably about 90% of the "startupy", or relatively interesting, coding gigs are located in Ontario. Not situated in, or interested in moving to, Toronto/Waterloo? Guess you're SOL. Oh, what's that? You are interested in relocating? Well, there's plenty of cheap talent here in Ontario from UT and/or UW that won't cost us anything in terms of relocation. We're probably just going to go with them instead. Thanks for applying, though.
2) Junior developer positions are practically non-existent. There are a few that are advertised as "junior" positions. They're not. Canadian employers: "two years of professional experience in a production environment" for a "junior" position is two years too many. Junior developers are recent grads. Recent grads who head south because of your ill-conceived, rigid criteria.
3) Setting aside my own gripes, it seems that even senior developers are being undervalued. I caught this the other day: http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/rds/sof/3705649489.html. Not cool, Canada.
For now, I'm currently working in systems administration. While I still really, really want to pursue a career in software development (or even just an intern position for now), I can't even get my foot in the door for an interview with anyone in Canada. I'd really rather not relocate to the US, but it's looking increasingly appealing with each passing day.
It's a little surprising me how bad it is considering how much the Canadian government offers to tech startups (IRAP, SRED, etc.). However, the wages I see most established software companies paying let alone the startups probably has a lot to do with it. The lack of good software companies likely has more to do with the brain drain than anything else does.
[1]: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-magazi...
This is just silly. Especially the "academic experience". A good chunk of the people that do startups of this nature, probably won't have "academic experience" - so that's a self-selecting, self-defeating bias right there.
That said, I completely agree it's a stupid requirement to place on this.
"In order to apply for the program an entrepreneur or startup must first have secured a minimum investment of $200,000 if the investment comes from a designated Canadian venture capital fund or $75,000 if the investment comes from a designated Canadian angel investor group. Applicants will also need to meet general program requirements, such as language proficiency and academic experience."
The academic requirement is only 1yr post secondary but doesn't say if you need 1yr in a recognized "western" school or if your university of Bangladesh degree will be accepted.
Umm, I'm not sure why you decided that this was an American idea that Canada "lifted". Isn't it just a little possible that the Canadian government had this idea first?
To paraphrase fake Mark Zuckerberg. "If you had invented Facebook. You would've invented Facebook."
I think you'll understand if i ask that you back up your claim with a valid source:). Any links?
Yeah that last part sounded a little bad, like nepotism-bad.
Really? SHRED was all about helping new tech companies get started in Canada.
Which isn't saying "it's as certain as the sun coming up that there's a startup bubble.". I'm mean that, as far as startup-favorable actions go, this seems way too benign to signal much of anything. It could be driven by clueless end-harbinging followers try to cash in, but, on this article alone, it could just as likely be a small progressive victory, with the Canadian federal government doing something for a relatively voiceless potential constituency.
The Canadian government rarely leads anymore on "progressive" matters, so perhaps if you could trace the influence that got this policy through it would point to something that could better answer that question. I am not personally familiar with the opposing parties involved.