WatTF? – Jim Murphy

{It’s Safer to be Risky}

WatTF? – Jim Murphy header image 2

Save Canada: Reform Section 116

April 22nd, 2009 · 1 Comment

Rick Segal mentioned his approach to the ailing Canadian venture industry and to the lack of local experienced operators: The Farm Team.  This was in response to some controversial (if mostly damn true) conversations that are all too well known at this point.

I think Rick’s fundamentals are right but the mechanism is wrong.  Scrape together a few bucks to squander on training is a cynics take.   To me what I noticed immediately after moving back to Canada is simply the lack of game.  We don’t need special consideration we need more action. Problem is to get more action you need more VCs playing and more LPs willing to invest.    For cultural, population and scale reasons Canada can’t rely completely on domestic investment – and shouldn’t want to either.  It especially shouldn’t wait around for a few tens of millions to be handed down from the government in ham handed way as the primary LPs to local VC.  Completely wrong headed as well.

What Canada needs more than anything is more capital to work with.  We’re a resource rich country – in more ways than minerals and lumber.  I mean in skilled and talented people.  To scale and deepen the level of skill and experience you need to do it.  You do it by funding more companies and iterating more often.  We don’t have enough oxygen in Canada to do this and will always be chronically underfunding this critical emerging part of our economy.

Stephen Hurwitz recently articulated this much better than I and to a level of detail I’ve been craving ever since moving back from Boston and wondering what the hell was going on with Section 116.  His article titled: Reforming Section 116 – Key to Opening Canadian Borders to Foreign Venture Capital lays out the case:

The notion that Canada makes it simple for investment to flow outward but not encourage the other direction is in my opinion the single largest problem facing Canadian start-up founders (or would-be founders that fail to find investment).

By simply alleviating the administrivia surrounding this issue we can unlock the potential of billions of dollars of investment that is otherwise squandered or leaves for other more favorable places.  In this area I know of what a speak.  I’ve made that choice and met tons of fellow Canadians that did as well.

I’d place  abet that Section 116 is not a rational, thought out position with a purpose but rather a sloppy oversight that has yet to be corrected by people with interests in seeing entrepreneurs flourish in Canada.   If there was one thing we could do, wave a wand and change a single thing this would get my vote.

Bookmark and Share

Tags: VC · canada · economics · politics · rant

Comments
  1. Pingback from Articles about Investors in Startups as of April 22, 2009 | The Lessnau Lounge

    [...] -Crank, Editorial Director, PCMagCast.com David Hornik , General Partner, August Capital David Save Canada: Reform Section 116 – wattf.com 04/22/2009 Rick Segal mentioned his approach to the ailing Canadian venture industry [...]


Leave a reply

Click here to close

Add a Comment