Is Business Immigration to Canada Dead? A Reality Check | Episode 232 with Sam Bayat
What happens when a country shuts down every business immigration pathway precisely at the moment it needs entrepreneurs the most?
Canada is staring down a $2 trillion crisis. With 75% of Canada’s 1.2 million small business owners reportedly planning to exit within the next decade, Canada is facing a succession crisis. Whilst the solution seems obvious to attract new entrepreneurial talent to the country, Canada has instead systematically dismantled almost every route for them to enter.
In this episode of Global Investment Voice, immigration expert Sam Bayat joins our host Mona Shah to explore the shocking closure, suspension, and redrafting of major federal business immigration programmes in Canada, at precisely the moment Canada needs entrepreneurs the most.
The Federal Investor Programme? Terminated in 2014 after 70,000 fraudulent applications overwhelmed the system. Quebec’s investor option? Reduced to single-digit applications after introducing mandatory B2 French proficiency. The innovative Start-Up Visa that once promised so much? Shut down in late 2025 under the weight of 42,000 applications and 35-year processing times.
Sam discusses the systemic failures which ended these programmes, such as paper startups and widespread abuse of the system with virtually non-existent enforcement. Perhaps most damning is the maths. Canada needs 100,000 entrepreneurs in the next 20 years, but their current intake now is merely 500.
Find out which pathways still exist for serious investors in 2026, what created the growing gap between political rhetoric and economic reality and whether the perfect storm of retiring Canadian business owners alongside closed immigration routes is disastrous or an unexpected opportunity.
It’s fair to say easy immigration to Canada is over. But has a more strategic game just begun?
“If the government asked me, is business immigration to Canada dead? My answer would be, is politics struggling at the worst possible moment, economically?. This is the time to expand business immigration, not to contract.”
— Sam Bayat
Sam Bayat
In 1993, Mr. Sam Bayat established a boutique law practice in Dubai to promote Canada as a preferred destination for investment and migration. The firm, initially known as “Canadian Legal Services,” marked the first Canadian law firm in the GCC. In 2007, the firm name was changed to Bayat Legal Services. Today, Bayat Group boasts a global presence. The primary areas of expertise encompass corporate migration, economic citizenship, investments, and tax planning. Mr. Bayat has also served as the former president of the Canadian Bar Association’s International Section in Quebec.
In addition, check out our previous podcasts with Sam Bayat here!
Think you may have missed a podcast? Then check out our recent episodes to catch up!
Transcript
This transcript was produced using AI and subsequently edited for style and clarity. The edits do not alter the substance of the speaker’s remarks
Mona Shah
(0:59) Hi, everybody. Hey, Sam, good to have you back on our show.
Sam Bayat
(1:04) It’s good to be back.
Mona Shah
(1:07) You’ve been here many times, I know. And we’ve discussed all kinds of issues, from the Caribbean to what’s going on in the world globally. And you are a Canadian lawyer, but we actually haven’t talked very much about Canada.
Sam Bayat
(1:22) Well, it’s about time.
Mona Shah
(1:27) When did you become, when did you pass the bar in Canada? (1:30) And when did you start practising?
Sam Bayat
(1:32) Ninety-two. Ninety-two was when I was admitted to the bar. (1:36) So it’s what, it’s what, 34 years now?
(1:39) Wow, it’s a long time. Doesn’t make me younger, but make me wiser.
Mona Shah
(1:43) But Canada has really come into the news quite a lot lately, from not only from Carney’s great speech just recently at Davos, but more so because it’s been a destination for business immigrants for the longest time. I mean, Canada, like America, is built on immigration, but recently 2025 has marked a dramatic turning point.
Sam Bayat
(2:06) Yes. Well, first of all, Canada, and when we talk immigration, is a brand name. I mean, everyone’s desire is to come to Canada.
(2:14) We’re such a great country, despite the harsh winter we’re having this year, but it’s great. Unfortunately, I’m not practising much in Canada. Most of the business immigration routes are nearly closed.
(2:32) It used to be great.
Mona Shah
(2:33) Right. I see that. I mean, Canada traditionally has welcomed business immigrants in multiple ways.
(2:38) I know that. But, and there were four federal programmes, or maybe more, which I’m sure you will enlighten us on, but they all now seem to be closed, suspended, or severely restricted. And it seems that this has come at a critical time when really Canada needs entrepreneurial talent more than ever.
Sam Bayat
(2:55) Oh, yes. Entrepreneurial, for one major reason, is the fact that most of our small and medium-sized businesses are about to, well, the owners are about to retire. We’re talking nearly 200,000, 300,000 businesses.
There was recently an article by BDC Canada saying about that there’s going to be a wave of $300 billion of business acquisition, where nearly half of the small and medium-sized businesses are owned by people who are 50 plus, and they’re planning to take their retirement in the next five years. So who’s going to take over these businesses? We’re talking billions, we’re talking hundreds of thousands of jobs, and we’re talking a significant part of our GDP.
Mona Shah
(3:45) Mm, yeah, yeah, I can see that. Well, when we first started doing EB-5, Canada really was the main competitor. And I know the Federal Immigrant Investor Programme was the one launched in 86, and when that was terminated in 2014, I know over here in the U.S., we were really happy about it. And that one was the one I understand which required 800,000, initially 400,000, then 800,000. (4:10) But why was it cancelled?
Sam Bayat
(4:13) First of all, the federal investor was a passive investor route, which was basically writing a check and getting their permanent residency visa, a small few qualifications, like you had to have a net worth, and of course show that how you have some management experience for two years, and how you have accumulated your network. That was easy. But before the federal investor programme, we had other programmes provincial, similar to Quebec there was a Northwest Territory Fund, there was Alberta Fund, there was a Saskatchewan Fund, which was plagued with lots of problems.
(4:52) Of course, the federal investor programme ran very well up to, I would say, 2010. And that’s where, I think, in my opinion, the federal government made a monumental mistake, and that was to simplify the application process by introducing a two-page application form, where a potential investor had to just fill up a two-page form, basic identity, and informing if they have enough network, and they’re willing to make the investment.
(5:19) And there you go, they had a file. That made the file number skyrocket to nearly 70,000. And in 2012, the federal government realised that most of these cases were bogus.
(5:34) So they stopped the programme in 2012, and effectively in 2014, they closed the programme, and I think there was nearly 65,000 applications which were refunded.
Mona Shah
(5:45) Oh, wow. I did write a blog post at that time, I remember. And I did say in my blog post that the problem was that the investors are mostly from China, paid less taxes, and they didn’t maintain ties to Canada.
Sam Bayat
(6:00) Well, there’s always been a negative perception of the investors. Yes, it’s true. They were coming in by just paying an entry fee to come in.
And did they pay their fair share and contribute? Probably not. But there could have been ways around to entice them to stay longer.
(6:20) And it’s not just investors. The same thing with skilled workers. We have the same problems, people coming in, and then once they have the citizenship, they relocate to the U.S. or they go back to their country. So it’s not just the investor programme. I think it’s the overall view of how to push people to stay. For example, look at the Australians.
(6:39) When you migrate to Australia, you must stay within the designated area that you said you were going to settle, and you must stay there. Plus, some people are getting their permanent residency conditional on the fact that people are working within their designated field that they said they were going to work in. In Canada, this seems to be very difficult to enter, but once they come in, they’re free to do whatever they want.
(7:04) They can move, go back and forth, work, not work. So that creates chaos, which Quebec tried to address in their Quebec investor programme in 2024, which is a disaster, because they introduced some factors that nobody can fulfil, almost.
Mona Shah
(7:23) Well, that’s what I was going to ask you, because really that was what I would say the last passive option standing for Canada was the Quebec, or rather is the Quebec investor programme. Is the Quebec. And it was closed.
It was suspended from 2019, reopened in 24, I believe. But you’re telling me in 25 that the new requirements are problematic. I know one of them is mandatory French proficiency, which would put a lot of people off.
But what else?
Sam Bayat
(7:49) Well, first of all, let’s again, go back to history. I sound like a history teacher. Quebec used to take thousands. I mean, we’re talking eight, nine, 10,000 applications a year. Then they introduced a few years ago, a cap of 1,950 reserved 60% of that for the Chinese applicants. You know, the 40% of that 1,950 for the rest of the world.
(8:14) And it was always well oversubscribed. So they were always had more than 1,950 application. Then suddenly they closed it.
(8:22) Then in 2024, or when they introduced the new legislation, they had this mandatory French B2 level, which is someone speaking fairly well French, listening, speaking. And then that made it that the numbers dropped to one digit. You know, so we went from thousands into, you know, few a year and the programme is now dead in the water.
(8:47) And basically by introducing the French requirement, and now we have basically closed potential applicants from Asia, Middle East, Latin America, and even parts of Europe.
Mona Shah
(9:00) But people can still go there if they want to, if they want to invest 1.2 million.
Sam Bayat
(9:04) Yeah, if they want to, if they want to, but they don’t seem to be much. Plus if someone speaks well French and he has the management and has the money, well, why would they put 1.2 million as zero interest with the Quebec government for five years? They just come in and buy a business or start a business. They’re capable, they’re educated, they speak the language. So they come in as an entrepreneur.
Mona Shah
(9:26) But I was going to ask you, I know Sam, you speak French very well, but do you need it on a day-to-day basis when you’re working and moving around in Quebec?
Sam Bayat
(9:35) Absolutely not. I mean, Montreal is fully bilingual and there are parts of Montreal actually people don’t speak French, they speak English. But overall, in the province, you need French because of the laws.
(9:46) You know, so the signs are in French, if you have a company above 25 employees, everything needs to be in French, which I can understand historically why they want to keep the French heritage. But then again, you’re swimming against a current in a sea of nearly 400 million English-speaking people in North America, an American culture, which is omnipresent.
Mona Shah
(10:13) So from your perspective, it’s really not viable. But Sam, a lot has been said lately and from on business chats and articles about the whole problems with the startup visa, which started very optimistically.
Sam Bayat
(10:30) Well, the startup programme when it started was a tremendously great idea, you know, a modern innovative programme to attract innovators, you know, but it did not work the way it was intended. The original idea was innovative business ideas or businesspeople that have innovative ideas can convince a venture capital fund, an angel group or an incubator in Canada to support them. And then they get a visa to come immediately to Canada on a non-conditional residency visa.
(11:09) And they could be five co-founders in that programme. The idea is great because when it started, you know, all the tech business and innovative businesses were highly on everyone’s agenda, high on everyone’s agenda, I would say.
Mona Shah
(11:25) Yeah, highly sort of. And especially right now that all the tech people are leaving the U.S., well, not all, but many, where they can’t get visas.
Sam Bayat
(11:33) But basically what happened is the people in the industry, I think they destroyed it by filing thousands and thousands of applications where when they had to close it in October 2025, there was 42,000 applications where the last ones were going to have a processing of 35 years waiting time. It’s ridiculous. That’s why they had to close it.
(11:58) But there was a lot of sham in it. You know, there was a lot of sham. There was a lot of, I call it paper startups where on paper, there was an idea.
(12:08) Of course there was fraud. I mean, the whole thing was sold outside of Canada as a passive visa to Canada. You know, although this was a non-conditional permanent residency visa, it was sold outside as a non-conditional visa to Canada as an innovator where you’re part of a group of five, but once you get this non-conditional visa, then you’re free to do whatever you want.
(12:35) And of course, enforcement is an issue here as well, because if the government would actually beef up its enforcement, inland enforcement, a lot of these files would be flagged as, yeah, you said you four, your five were going to work together on this idea, but it appears after you landed, your communication with each other is zero. And there was zero work on this file. So this was a sham.You mislead us. So therefore we need to cancel your visa. If there would be a massive enforcement on that, people won’t be able to sell.
And I think the government has completely neglected its advertisement saying to potential applicants that, hey, this is not a passive way to get a residency to Canada. You need to be actively engaged with your core founders, partners. That’s where we have what we have now.
(13:30) And now that Canada needs to have these sorts of businesses come in to start these innovative ideas. Instead, there seems to be a big gap between the political rhetoric and operational realities, and the trust is gone.
Mona Shah
(13:49) I thought that you could still apply until June 30th of 2026, no?
Sam Bayat
(13:53) Yeah, but with processing times going years and years and years, who would be interested? Because you would be at the end of the queue.
Mona Shah
(14:02) Well, you’ve told us what went wrong, but how could this have been prevented, in your opinion?
Sam Bayat
(14:08) Well, as I said, inland enforcement, you know, to show some people that, hey, you cannot defraud us. That would have been served as a lesson to some people. Public execution, not literally, but of consultants who are selling these programmes, and that could also eliminate a lot of fraudsters.
(14:29) But then again, the government, they know what’s being said, advertised outside. They don’t act on it, you know, and there could be more interviews where they could talk to these applicants and truly see if they’re working together. The idea, I think, is still great.
(14:46) We need these. There was a lot of oversight on incubators, not truly respecting the ministerial instructions, you know, those are some of the problems. And as I said, there was a lot of paper startups rather than real innovations.
Mona Shah
(15:04) That’s sad, but there are still two other options for people wanting to come in, I understand, and you can tell me if I’m wrong, but there’s a self-employed persons programme. Is that closed? And then there’s something called the Canada’s SMEs?
Sam Bayat
(15:18) Yeah, well, the self-employed is closed at the federal level. You know, this was a great, again, programme, a pathway for people to obtain their permanent residency. It wasn’t about investors, it was about artists, athletes, and people, professionals in the cultural and recreational areas.
(15:38) That would have been, that was to bring in people that would significantly contribute to Canada’s cultural or athletic life. That programme is closed, but it didn’t have a formal network threshold or anything else. We just had to show that you are truly a self-employed.
(15:57) The programme is closed. It’s very sad. It closed in April 2024 again. ‘24 and ‘25 seems to be the year they’re closing all the business avenues. So yeah, no more self-employed. So if Ronaldo wanted to come to live in Canada, we couldn’t take him.
Mona Shah
(16:14) And I also read that rural Canada has been hit the hardest because everybody seems to just progressing and migrating towards the big cities like Toronto, but apparently, what is it, 98% of rural businesses, locally owned, they’re really struggling.
Sam Bayat
(16:30) Well, that’s what I said in the beginning. We have an SME succession crisis now, the perfect storm, I call it, where nearly 75% of 1.2 million small business owners plan to exit within the next decade.
Mona Shah
(16:49) Wow.
Sam Bayat
(16:50) That’s over $2 trillion of business asset that needs to change hands. And then who’s going to take over these? I mean, what is needed now?
(17:01) I mean, if the government asked me, is business immigration to Canada dead? My answer would be, is politics struggling at the extremely worst possible moment, economically. This is the time to expand business immigration, not to contract.
(17:18) And as I said, in 2024, 2025, it seems we’re contracting. And I don’t think in 2026, we’re going to see if Canada doesn’t solve this issue of SME succession.
Mona Shah
(17:33) Canada really does need entrepreneurs to solve this crisis, as you say. And there does seem to be a policy disconnect. But what opportunity do you see for policy advocacy and reform, if any?
Sam Bayat
(17:46) Well, definitely we need to design intelligent programmes that match immigrant entrepreneurs with those of succession opportunities with SMEs, you know, and that’s what’s needed. Immigrant entrepreneurs could be part of a solution where we bring capital experience and a strong motivation to succeed and match them with these SMEs and these owners, owner operators who want to leave the business, you know. So we need 100,000 entrepreneurs in the next 20 years.
(18:24) That’s just impossible. I mean, current numbers are 500. And in my estimate, we need 100,000 for the next 20 years.
(18:31) So that’s a great opportunity. And in the same time, well, 500 is definitely not going to answer that. So what’s the answer is for people maybe to get the SME, you know, to get a work permit, come in here, set up their business, get involved in a business and go through the maybe Entrepreneur Nominee Programme, provincial one, build a Canadian presence, the PISA C11, and then do the ultra-intercompany transfer, get a work permit, invest genuinely in a relationship with Canada, banks, local partners and businesses, and then see what we can do.
Mona Shah
(19:12) Some great thoughts there, Sam. It couldn’t come at a worse possible time with ageing business owners and all of the crises there. But thank you for giving us your thoughts and the bigger picture.
Sam Bayat
(19:24) Canada is not dead as a destination for an entrepreneur. It is no longer an easy one-size fits all market. But the era of purely passive write a cheque investor programme at the federal level is over.
You know, the new game is active, engaged and often regional. (19:47) You need to build a real business case, accept some geographic flexibility, and be prepared for a multi-step journey, work permit, establishment, then permanent residency.
Mona Shah
(19:59) Sam, Bayat, as always, it’s a pleasure to hear your theories, your thoughts, and we welcome you back again.
Sam Bayat
(20:07) Well, it’s good to be back, Moana. (20:09) It’s always a pleasant exchange of ideas and information with you, and I love to be on your show.