Startup Visa Program Timeline

[Fiat@fifo]

Good news. Thanks for sharing
Where did you see that?

From many sources, including traditional media and social platforms. Nothing is formal yet, and the final amendment text has not been published. The Liberals obviously support the bill because they are the ones who introduced it, so my main concern was the Bloc Québécois. From what I can infer, the Bloc is not fundamentally opposed to the “public interest” cancellation power and appears willing to support it in principle, but at the same time they have expressed concerns about giving the minister an unchecked or overly broad authority.

The amended version of Bill C‑12 seems to aim at putting some clearer limits and definitions around these “public interest” powers, which may reduce—but not completely remove—the risk of arbitrary cancellations. If the bill passes in its amended form, the government could still cancel or suspend applications or documents, but only in specified situations (fraud/misrepresentation, public safety or public health risks, national security, or obvious administrative errors) and with an obligation to report afterward to Parliament on what was done and why.

Many sources exist, here are two of them:
https://www.cicnews.com/2025/12/com...ve-powers-1263034.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://immicalculator.com/committee-amends-carneys-border-bill-to-limit-sweeping-executive-powers/

 

[RonaldoNazario]

From many sources, including traditional media and social platforms. Nothing is formal yet, and the final amendment text has not been published. The Liberals obviously support the bill because they are the ones who introduced it, so my main concern was the Bloc Québécois. From what I can infer, the Bloc is not fundamentally opposed to the “public interest” cancellation power and appears willing to support it in principle, but at the same time they have expressed concerns about giving the minister an unchecked or overly broad authority.

The amended version of Bill C‑12 seems to aim at putting some clearer limits and definitions around these “public interest” powers, which may reduce—but not completely remove—the risk of arbitrary cancellations. If the bill passes in its amended form, the government could still cancel or suspend applications or documents, but only in specified situations (fraud/misrepresentation, public safety or public health risks, national security, or obvious administrative errors) and with an obligation to report afterward to Parliament on what was done and why.

Many sources exist, here are two of them:
https://www.cicnews.com/2025/12/com...ve-powers-1263034.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://immicalculator.com/committee-amends-carneys-border-bill-to-limit-sweeping-executive-powers/

Sounds good! If that passes Our only enemy is the annual cap for now.

 

[yhyy1983]

Hi,
I submitted PR application in Mar this year and then Work permit applied in April, but heard nothing updated from IRCC so far.
My support letter is from non-priority incubator. Does that mean they are now only processing the applications that are supported by priority-organizations, including the work permit? If it’s true, I have to give up this suv program and try to find the other way to go, right?
I am so shocked when I checked the processing time of work permit and noticed the processing time of PR is more than 10 years from the ircc website. Thanks.

 

[Fiat@fifo]

Hi,
I submitted PR application in Mar this year and then Work permit applied in April, but heard nothing updated from IRCC so far.
My support letter is from non-priority incubator. Does that mean they are now only processing the applications that are supported by priority-organizations, including the work permit? If it’s true, I have to give up this suv program and try to find the other way to go, right?
I am so shocked when I checked the processing time of work permit and noticed the processing time of PR is more than 10 years from the ircc website. Thanks.

In regard to the work permit, I’m not aware of any official indication that IRCC is prioritizing work permit applications based on whether the incubator is priority or non-priority. To get a definitive answer, it’s best to ask your supporting incubator directly, as they usually receive updates faster than applicants.


As for giving up the SUV program, you don’t have to. You can still apply for another immigration program while your SUV file remains active. Many applicants keep multiple pathways open.


Regarding processing times, the number shown on the IRCC website is misleading. Based on everything we know so far, the is actually much longer than 10 years, mainly because IRCC still has tens of thousands of untouched files in inventory. The posted number doesn’t reflect the true situation of how long these files sit before an officer even opens them.


One more point: even if your organization is priority-designated, it’s still too early to expect updates. Even priority files are sitting on shelves along with thousands of others. For example, we applied in 2021—when the backlog was smaller and the posted processing time was under 3 years—yet our file still stayed untouched for about two years.

 

[kenkenk]

In regard to the work permit, I’m not aware of any official indication that IRCC is prioritizing work permit applications based on whether the incubator is priority or non-priority. To get a definitive answer, it’s best to ask your supporting incubator directly, as they usually receive updates faster than applicants.


As for giving up the SUV program, you don’t have to. You can still apply for another immigration program while your SUV file remains active. Many applicants keep multiple pathways open.


Regarding processing times, the number shown on the IRCC website is misleading. Based on everything we know so far, the is actually much longer than 10 years, mainly because IRCC still has tens of thousands of untouched files in inventory. The posted number doesn’t reflect the true situation of how long these files sit before an officer even opens them.


One more point: even if your organization is priority-designated, it’s still too early to expect updates. Even priority files are sitting on shelves along with thousands of others. For example, we applied in 2021—when the backlog was smaller and the posted processing time was under 3 years—yet our file still stayed untouched for about two years.

As the principal applicant under the (SUV program, can I submit an SUV application and, at the same time, apply for other Canadian immigration programs? If this is allowed, I really need to think about whether I should take some additional steps. Are there any immigration pathways that would conflict with an SUV application, for example occupation‑based “in‑demand” programs or employer‑sponsored permanent residence streams?

 

[Fiat@fifo]

As the principal applicant under the (SUV program, can I submit an SUV application and, at the same time, apply for other Canadian immigration programs? If this is allowed, I really need to think about whether I should take some additional steps. Are there any immigration pathways that would conflict with an SUV application, for example occupation‑based “in‑demand” programs or employer‑sponsored permanent residence streams?

Formally, yes — you can apply under the SUV program while also applying for other Canadian immigration programs.
IRCC allows multiple active applications at the same time.

However, ethically and practically, it becomes complicated if you are the Principal Applicant of an SUV team.
If you apply for pathways like Express Entry or a PNP and you receive an ITA or approval, you would be required to withdraw your other pending applications before IRCC makes a final decision.

This creates a major issue:

• Once the Principal Applicant withdraws from the SUV application, the entire SUV file collapses and the co-founders are refused automatically.
• This is especially serious because the Principal Applicant is considered essential for the venture.

For solo SUV applicants, holding multiple pathways is usually fine since it doesn’t affect anyone else.

For non-principal co-founders, the impact is smaller — but still causes delays, restructuring, and is generally not practical for an active SUV file.

In short:

• Allowed? Yes.
• Recommended for the Principal Applicant? No, unless you are a sole applicant with no team members depending on your SUV file.

 

[Fiat@fifo]

Another 600 applications have been added to the backlog—the same number as last month since the system update—bringing the total to 44,400. Strangely, the 2021 backlog has remained unchanged over the past two months, indicating that no progress has been made in clearing it during this period.

 

[kenkenk]

Thank you very much for the detailed reply. As the principal applicant, it feels like I can only sit and wait for IRCC’s “redemption” at this point. It is really painful. Looking at how things stand now, I may have to pin my hopes on the next government, since they will probably need some different policies to increase public support.

I used to feel that the Start‑up Visa was the most suitable program for me, because entrepreneurship is exactly what I am good at, and building a business in Canada could perfectly combine immigration with what I genuinely wanted to do here. Unfortunately, I underestimated the policy and government risk, and that has turned both my immigration plan and my start‑up into a lose‑lose situation.