How the Canadian Tech Scene Encourages Finite Gameplay

I try to be charitable when I critique an article, so Alex please don't take this comment as a personal attack. I appreciate your writing of this article and your efforts to improve Canada. There are some truths in your article and an interesting perspective on the cascading feedback loops, which I think has merit, but there are some factual errors here that I think should be addressed.

> The problem with SR&ED credits, honestly through no fault of their own, is that you have to say what you’re doing with them.

That's not true. The SR&ED program is retrospective. It's an earned grant. If your company does real scientific or technological research you get a portion of the salaries and overhead back after you already did the research. And a small portion of consultant or contractor fees as well.

It's true that you can have your project span multiple years, but at the end of each year a new report is written with the chief technical and scientific uncertainties that were encountered and how they were addressed. I've written multiple, funded claims for my own business and for others with Paul Vice from GetGrants in Toronto. None of my claims to date have been rejected or failed to survive an audit. It pays to have professional help with these so you don't waste time doing unnecessary, distracting work. They can be assembled by the natural exhaust of real research, like Git commit logs or project plans.

> To be clear: I am not saying there are no individual success stories of Canadian startups, or that there are no good angel investors or VCs here, or that there are no individual instances of things going right.

Well, you kinda are though. Most American companies don't raise rounds in 72 hours. Even ones that go through YC sometimes fail to raise for months. It's true that it's slower here, but there are some good angels like Andrew Peek or David Crow, both of whom have invested in a company of mine. One private angel invested $50k in less than a day of thinking about it.

Also, on the topic of individual success stories: We have RIM, Shopify, and plenty of successful financial services startups. We're one tenth the size of America, we're not going to be unleashing Facebooks or Googles every couple years.

> Including salaries, which is helpful if you’re staffing entry level positions but a huge problem when you’re trying to recruit experienced managers & senior talent.

I completely agree. But there is a reason why salaries are lower here in Canada. Most of our workers don't work as hard and they don't have to worry about healthcare costs. There is less of a culture of brashness here and, subsequently, our startup scene looks different. We make less, true, but we see our families more. I'd rather have it this way, and if you're really good smart companies pay out big anyway.

Anyway, thanks for writing the article I hope you take these comments well.

I know many will disagree, but I think the commentary on SR&ED killing momentum and motivation in startups is bang on, even though it's a nearly impossible thing to measure or quantify. I'm sure many fellow Canadians reading this comment can relate to the absolute draining feeling when you see that message "remember to update your SR&ED timesheets by the end of the week!".

Time tracking isn't inherently bad, or counterproductive, but I haven't once come across a startup that does their SR&ED reporting with an ounce of honesty. Timesheets are essentially fabricated based on either what the developers think their managers expect to see, or based on what the managers tell them to fill in, and it's entirely understandable - programming is not a job where tracking hours makes sense.

Rather than timesheets, it would make _so_ much more sense if instead, high level but detailed quarterly reports were made outlining what was completed, and if there needs to be more detail, an audit can be done. Timesheets kill productivity, motivation, and curiosity to try new things and accomplish actual research and development - what the SR&ED program is intended for. At the end of the day, it's the implementation of the program and the industry of consultants surrounding it that is flawed.

Good? Trying to be like SV and push Canada in that direction is toxic. I agree salaries should be better, but they should be better across all sectors, not just technology.

Not sure if I follow this logic. Are you saying that importing SV salaries and culture will create a Dutch disease effect in the broader Canadian economy?

Interestingly, I haven’t ever seen actual candidate data used to determine compensation. Ie companies almost never use a candidate demanding more to actually change anything. It’s all based on these “professional comp surveyors” as the parent has described.