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.
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.
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
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? :-)
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
…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.
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.
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...
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 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?
- 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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
> 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).
> 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.
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.
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.
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 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'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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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".
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
248 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 266 ms ] threadYou can apply as soon as the PAFSO strike ends...
"Get your business idea funded and immigrate to Canada permanently."
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?q=657&t=6
[1] http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/business/start-up/nex...
Now if you read more about permanent residents in general, here it is
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/newcomers/about-pr.asp
Canada Permanent Resident (PR) =~ US Green Card
File the paper work, pay the fees and when the visa is stamped, just pack a small car and drive north.
Too bad I'm too old...
... and that I already did just that a decade ago... :D
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.
See: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/09/27/and-the-worlds-most-educ..., https://duckduckgo.com/?q=canada+most+educated+country
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.
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.
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? :-)
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.
Either require a full degree or drop the requirement. This middle-of-the-road thing is just silly red tape.
My guess that it's a proxy for high school academic performance? If you can get into a university, you must possess a certain level of intelligence.
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.
[1] http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?q=653&t=6
[2] http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/newcomers/about-pr.asp
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.
1: http://www.rainn.org/get-information/effects-of-sexual-assau...
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".
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.
- 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.
Almost anyone can be a founder in Canada now. Congrats Canada!
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.
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.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/times/canada/cit-pr...
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
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.
[1] http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/newcomers/about-pr.asp#keep_sta...
(Having no dog in this hunt as I'm not Canadian nor do I have any claim on Canadian citizenship or permanent residence, much as I'd like to.)
Good discussion here: https://secure.immigration.ca/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8848... (see a post by dpenabill toward the end of the page), and the entire thread is good as well.
The estimate is based on "processing time from receipt of application to final decision for 80% of cases".
The rather excellent British Expats (not just for Brits!) forum users keep track of the various processing times of Canadian immigration applications.
http://britishexpats.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=33
British Expats forums is a great resource for anyone trying to move within the English speaking world.
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 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?
- 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.
- There aren't THAT many VCs in Canada, and of the few that there are, some of the more active ones are are operated by pension plans (http://www.omersventures.com/) and arms-length government organizations ( https://www.bdc.ca/EN/solutions/venture_capital/ , http://www.marsdd.com/aboutmars/partners/iaf/, etc... ) . As can be expected, this affects the types of companies most likely to get funding in Canada.
- 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/ .
Some general links for more info: - http://www.cvca.ca/ - http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/061.nsf/eng/h_02772.html
(Saying this sadly, as I'm a Canadian)
It will be interesting to see if bringing in new cultural perspectives can change that.
Vidyard (http://www.vidyard.com/), Pebble (http://getpebble.com/), BufferBox (https://www.bufferbox.com/), Couple (formerly Pair) (http://couple.me/), or Thalmic Labs (https://www.thalmic.com/myo/)
All the above are also YC alumni.
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.
- 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.
There's also Freshbooks in Toronto.
But besides all this, there are popular and noteworthy startups based in Canada, like HootSuite, Shopify, 500px, UrtheCast and Freshbooks.
I get the impression that it is not, though I have a small sample size.
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)
They did quite well.
#8 - Toronto
#9 - Vancouver
#16 - Waterloo/Kitchener
Also worth a mention are Montreal, Ottawa, and Hamilton.
[1] http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/startup-...
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
$11k is a crazy (as someone else said, irresponsibly) low number, even for an individual.
The number for 7 people is absolutely ridiculous, fyi. $29k for 7 people? Absurd.
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.
(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.)
--
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).
Doesn't seem to make much sense. Does anyone know how strict these requirements are yet?
http://500px.com/zachaysan/sets/startup_visa
How about N temporary worker visas/amount of VC funding?
Is should actually remove both of your pain points cost and qualified labor.
Start packing :-)
You might be able to find $100K jobs in Toronto or Vancouver, but those areas have costs of living that is approaching SF and NYC.
(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.
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.
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.
* 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.
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.
Since Canadian income taxes are higher than US income taxes, you'll never have to pay US income taxes (baring some odd financial situation).
Gas, cigarettes and booze are definitely cheaper in the USA though.
Using the online paycheck calculators I get:
$50K/yr in BC would net you $36,758 after taxes.
$50K/yr in Florida would net you $38,296 after taxes.
http://www.ey.com/CA/en/Services/Tax/Tax-Calculators-2013-Pe...
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?
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".
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).
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.
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:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/photos/2013/20...
AFAIK, YC doesn't invest anywhere close to $200k; so it's probably not fair to compare.
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.
Why would I want to do a start-up in Canada, rather than say the UK or Germany or Chile?
The US has a great ecosystem for start-ups. Does Canada?
They forgot the big one:
* FREE SNOW