Episode 2
===
[00:00:00] [00:01:00] Express Entry is by IRCC's own measurement, one of the most successful economic immigration systems in [00:02:00] the world. The immigrants it selects outperform all other economic immigration streams, outpacing even Canadian-born workers on earnings within even a few years. And the work and jobs that they- the work that they have are always in jobs that match their skill and education, at least predominantly.
So why is Canada proposing the most significant overhaul of the system since it was created in 2015? The answer to that question reveals everything about where the government wants to take immigration and what applicants need to do to stay ahead of it, and that's what we're gonna talk about today. All right, Alicia, so what do you think about all of this?
Does the data actually tell us where immigration is going? And I guess better- the better question is, uh, the data that IRCC is actually relying upon, is it actually good data? Mm-hmm. And the interesting thing is, Mark, they have, uh, quite a bit of data, and so they've been accumulating this over years.
They've been doing longitudinal [00:03:00] studies, and they are using this now to say, "Okay, well, we are going to reform the system." And when we think about this, this is an economic program, so Express Entry is our primary economic pathway, and they wanna make sure that they are getting the economic objectives that are desired.
Indeed. You know, like we talked about this a little bit in the intro, um, you know, by its own measurement, like I said, they, they, they feel like it's doing pretty good, and I've always talked about the challenge of politics sometimes playing a role in immigration policy creation. But what we're talking about today is all about data.
And so, um, you know, with these changes, the most significant changes in since 2015, um, you know, in your mind anyways, what, like, what do you think is actually driving this? Mm-hmm. It's all about the why, right? Why, why do they have an [00:04:00] economic program? Why are they reevaluating it? And the answers are, well, we want to make sure that the people that we're bringing into Canada are going to be successful, and their version of success is economic success.
And so they are looking at, all right, how many new immigrants who come under express entry and get their landing are employed? So employment is one of those big pillars in terms of what an economic successful outcome is. And then the other one is, are they actually working in their primary occupation?
And we all hear stories about or jokes about, you know, where's the best place to have a health emergency? Well, in the taxi cab, because probably that person's a doctor. Um, and we want people to be working in their primary occupations, the, the jobs that they have the skills and training and experience and certifications for.
So we are seeing already that by and large, most people do have strong outcomes in terms of working in their primary occupation once they've gone through express entry, [00:05:00] and their jobs are matched with skills and experience. And the other thing is we want to largely have Workers that meet demand in Canada.
But here's where the tension comes in as well. Not only do we wanna meet demand, which is really hard to predict in terms of we're living in a post-COVID world, we're liv- we're living in a very unpredictable world in terms of tariffs, in terms of, um, geopolitical tensions and war, and so things change quickly.
So one of the measures that IRCC's looking at is, okay, are, are people looking in tier zero or one? Are they working in a high-tier occupation? And that's one of their measures of success. One of our questions might be, but is it? Is, is that what we need? Um, and they're also looking at median earnings. So when they look at success, they also not only look at employability, but what are people earning.
Yeah. And, and let's dive right into the numbers. So remember these, you guys, these numbers are actually IRCC's own data, so it's not stuff [00:06:00] that, uh, Alicia and I have, have concocted. This is the data that they're relying upon that they've released in their various publications and, and their reports, and what they pulled from Stats Canada.
And, and in fairness, Express Entry is working, at least it would appear to be. Um, 93% were employed after landing, so people that come. And, you know, after landing, it's kind of a... The, the data you can see 2015 to 2022, this is the hard part for us because so much has changed. The landscape has shifted so significantly in the last four years, at least post, post-pandemic, that both Alicia and I have some issues with the statistics that they're drawing upon to make decisions now because the whole dynamic of, of who an Express Entry candidate is, um, has, has really been shifted.
Back in 2000, you know, '19, 2018, before the pandemic, um, there was a large portion of individuals that were being ab- they were eligible and immigrating through Express Entry who had no Canadian experience. They hadn't come to study. They hadn't [00:07:00] come, you know, to work in Canada. So the numbers you can see here, 93% were employed after landing.
77% were working in their primary occupation. So that's the occupation that they listed in their, uh, their express entry application. 88% of the jobs matched their actual education and skill, which makes sense. You'd probably need that if you're gonna work in your primary occupation. And then in a tier zero or one, this is professional or management level, um, you can see for occupations in 2024, which is, you know, this is at least a little bit more recent data, 62% were working in those high tiers.
Um, and then finally, 57.7 thousand or $57,700 was the median earnings year one after admission. And, um, you know, to sum it all up, it just shows that the immigrants are consistently outperforming non-express entry immigrants in employment and income across all cohorts from 2015 to 2021. So what [00:08:00] we're talking about to a large extent, the non-economic immigrants includes individuals that are maybe going through PNP programs, or I guess ultimately things that are non-express entry, um, could be Atlantic Immigration Program or those programs.
So and, and you know, to some extent, those are, uh, you can be eligible at times through lower tiers, so tiers four or five as well. So it's not surprising that the express entry folks are gonna be, um, outpacing a little bit the non-express entry. Um, but in terms of, you know, establishment, uh, from the 2019 IRCC evaluation, and this is, this is old, old data, Alicia, 2015 to 2018 cohorts, um, you know, they talk about 95% becoming economically established.
Well, I think that just means they've got a job, right? And they're working to some extent. And, um, and then more earnings versus non-express entry, they talk about being about 20% more earnings, so they're earning higher [00:09:00] wages. In their primary occupation, 83%, and in university-level occupations, 43%. So that's, that's a little bit older data.
Uh, well, ex- I guess it does overlap a little bit with it. Um, but you know, the, the, the key here is that what we're trying to get with this slide is that express entry, if it was truly designed to bring people in that are going to be able to economically establish and contribute because we are a socialist country.
We require people to come work, pay taxes, and contribute to our social network, and, um, you know, and those, those earnings are a big, big deal for us now with such an aging population. So that's what's driving the ship, Alicia. Mm-hmm. And this is important too, because it also helps explain a little bit why the federal government has been clawing back those PNP nomination allocations, right?
If they know that express entry applicants and people who land under express entry are consistently outperforming the non-express entry groups in terms of their economic outputs for [00:10:00] ability to get a job, a job in their field, and have higher wage earnings, then that's something that they want to try to encourage.
Indeed. So let's take a look now at, um, just how it compares the express entry applicants, how they compare to Canadian-born earners. So you can see here for year one median earnings, like we talked about, 57,000 roughly. Um, they, based on the non-express entry earnings advantage, there's a, a 20%, like we talked about.
And then the typical earnings after five years after admission rises to about 75 to 80,000. And when we compare those to the Canadian-born, you can see in this little chart, although we don't have the exact figures, you can kind of see relatively speaking, the express entry folks are in the red, and then the Canadian-born are in the light blue.
Um, you can see that, uh, consistently across the board, all of them, both the express entry and our non-express entry immigant- immigrants, excuse me, on average, their median weekly wages [00:11:00] are higher than Canadian-born. So, you know, they're, they're coming. They are, uh, filling roles that are, um, you know, they're at least a little bit higher wage than, than the Canadians.
Mm-hmm. And this is interesting too, because, you know, we often hear a lot about the, the low-wage temporary foreign worker program, but this is really not a low-wage temporary foreign worker program. This is express entry, high-skilled, high-tier, by and large, really skilled immigrants who have those higher wages as part of that skill set.
All right, let's jump to the next one. So the, the old CRS score and whether or not it actually predicts the long-term success of these people that are being pulled in. Okay, let's take a look at this. So what we see here is the pre-landing earnings, um, and whether or not they predict post-landing success. So if we [00:12:00] break down this little chart here, we can see that if there's no temporary resident earnings before, that's kind of the baseline before they come in.
So that's, that, that's where we're working off of, okay? So if the TR earnings are less than 25,000 when they are, um, working in, in Canada, we can see that their earnings actually, which is quite surprising to me, Alicia, after they get permanent residence, they are often earning less, like 18% less. So what, why do you think that is, Alicia?
Yeah. And I think this is where we are talking about some of the programs where they are express entry linked, but people had lower NOCs or lower wage, or were in an occupation where they were a little bit stuck, and they didn't have that upward mobility in terms of their options for getting promotions and for maybe working in their field.
And so IRCC is saying, okay, well, the people who had the lowest earnings when they were here in Canada as a temporary resident [00:13:00] tend to have the worst post-landing success. And it's interesting, like if you-- this is where the numbers... Okay, do the numbers really say what they're saying? If you look at this, Alicia, and you just think about, okay, if I'm working in a job where I'm making crappy wages and I finally got permanent residence, okay, I didn't have a lot of income before.
And so maybe you came first to do a post-graduate, you know, like studies. May- maybe, maybe you just came to do a one or two-year de- you know, diploma to be able to come here, and that's a lot of people, you know, who were trying to get through express entry who came and, you know, they take a two-year program, so they get a three-year post-grad work permit, and maybe they were then working in crappy jobs.
So I would fit them into this first slot. And so these individuals, what do they do when they get permanent residence? Like, we know what our clients do. They tell us what they're doing. Lots of them, they're like, "Man, I'm going back to school as fast as I can so I can get better education." And as a permanent resident, you are saving [00:14:00] way more money than you would have to pay as an out-of-country applicant.
So I-- uh, this is where the data, although on our little chart here it shows their earnings are minus 18%, you know, like post-landing. Well, I think it's kind of skewed by people who maybe decide to go back to school during that time. What, what do you think about that? Yeah, and that's something where when IRCC is looking at stripping away points for Canadian education, there is another study that they did, and they were looking specifically at what's happening with the outcomes for international students, and that's what the data was showing, was that international students are much more likely to go back to school once they get their PR because now they don't have to pay international tuition fees.
So what happens is their earnings sc- like dive because they're not working, because they're studying full-time or they're just working enough in a part-time job to make ends meet, and there is a dip. But over time, they are finding that like over a 10-year window, well, then those people now they have better [00:15:00] education, and over a longer time horizon, they do tend to pick back up in terms of their wage.
Yeah. And so let's continue down this little trend here. So $25,000 to $50,000, or $49,000 I should say, there's a, just a marginal increase in, in earnings after you become a PR. Uh, the $50,000 to $74,000 range, then it starts to make a little bit more headway. So if you're working in a position that's $50,000 to $74,000, um, then on average they're seeing about a 36% increase.
Uh, $75,000 to just under $100,000 at $99,000, a 73%, a big jump. And then the biggest jump of all comes from those who are earning $100,000 or more. They often see, after they become a permanent resident, earnings of, of over 162% more than that baseline. And so it's interesting when we look at this, Alicia, because, like when we're trying to unpack this $162,000 figure, um, you know, an [00:16:00] express entry immigrant who was earning $100,000 or more as a temporary resident in Canada before landing as a PR, you know, when they, when they say that that person earns 162%, remember that is more after landing than the equivalent immigrant who had no Canadian earnings at all.
So that's kind of what we're basing. So remember, that's the baseline. So 162%, it's not an, it's not a marginal effect, okay? That is a transformative one, and it's exactly why IRCC appears to be now saying, "Ooh, we want to reward high-wage Canadian work experience with bonus CR- CRS points, because these suckers are gonna be putting in lots of, uh, lots of taxes, um, you know, into our federal coffers to, to help us with, uh, you know, the cost of, you know, running this country."
So what, what are your thoughts on that? Yeah, and this is where we're looking at why, right? Why are they making all these changes? Well, because they have crunched the data that they had, and they've run the data over a long period [00:17:00] of time. So some of the studies are going back to 2005. So 2005, and they break it down by cohort, and they are saying, yeah, by and large, express entry is working as it was intended.
It is working well. We're getting good outcomes. Are there areas where we could improve? Yes, and that's what the report study had said. The areas for improvement are, well, we know that people who have higher wages are able to have even better outcomes, so maybe let's reward that with CRS points. And not only that, but let's reward that with job offers as well.
And we know job offers have gone through a few incarnations over the years. It's been fraught with issues because of abuse of the system- Yeah ... and so we're looking to see how they are going to actually implement changes or possibly bring back job offer CRS bonus points. Yeah. So here's more data, okay?
Median weekly wages in [00:18:00] 2021. Once again, we're kind of going back in time. This data comes from one of IRCC's, uh, reports from July 2025, wage outcomes of economic immigrants by express entry factors. So obviously this factor is job offers. So a person with no job offer, they're looking at about 61,000 per year.
If they had a job offer but it was not senior, so not a senior manag- managerial kind of position, then they're looking at about 88,000 per year approximately. But when you have that job offer And it's in a senior management position, then you've got a median weekly wage that is three times that of someone who doesn't.
So they just can't quite let go of this, right, Alicia? Even though the fraud is there, they're like, "Oh boy, this is such a strong indicator of economic success. We've got to find a way to make this work." And we touched on this a little bit, and we will talk about this when we drill down to each of these changes in the subsequent episodes, so stay tuned.
This is still [00:19:00] pretty high level. But in your mind, Alicia, do you think this is one of the factors that is... You know, and, and actually if the... Well, of course we know it's a factor that's gonna cause them to, to rethink it, but they're talking about skilled work experience, like high-wage work experience, just like kind of job offers were structured before, um, you know, uh, coupled with the experience, so high wage coupled with experience in Canada, or a job offer from outside of Canada, which, ah.
What, what are your thoughts on this? Can, can they actually craft something that's gonna be fraud-proof or at least reduce, you know, these individuals that are saying, "Hey, three times, you know, we know these job offers for the senior management position are gonna skyrocket your opportunities for success, uh, through the express entry program, so, ah, senior management.
This is more expensive than your food service supervisor position, so now we're gonna charge you $80,000 for your job offer versus 30 before." You know, how do you avoid this fraud, Alicia? [00:20:00] Mm-hmm. And to be fair, I don't think the whole arranged employment definitions under the old incarnation were wrong from a policy perspective.
It rewarded people who had an LMIA, so a new LMIA or an existing LMIA, and they'd worked in that occupation in a closed work permit for at least a year. Or under the old system with arranged employment, you could also have a closed work permit that was not LMIA-based, so under the IMP, as long as you also had a forward-facing job offer where the employer says, "We intend to continue to employ you for a year."
So that all makes sense because employers sometimes cannot find Canadians who have the particular skill set that they need, especially when you're looking at transnational or multinational companies. And it's usually beneficial to bring in a few key people who have international experience who can then level up the company.
They can share that knowledge to local workers. And so this is largely what we're [00:21:00] looking at, that if companies want to have somebody that's, that are high performers who have high knowledge base, then great, bring them in, pay them a really competitive wage, and it works for everybody because then you also have more money being earned.
We've got more taxes being paid, and that hopefully helps the Canadian economy overall. You bet. All right, let's take a look at the landscape, Alicia. So we can't ignore the levels plans. We can't ignore, um, what the government has said they are bound to do, both reducing numbers of temporary residents, uh, capping permanent residents, um, at these, uh, at these levels that they r- they announce every year.
So if we look at this, you can see 380,000 of new permanent residents are what they're shooting for for 2026. The new temporary worker arrivals, they have really tried to s- crunch that down. 'Cause realistically, they're just saying, look, um, you know, [00:22:00] we... And, and there's other figures that talk about this, and we've talked about this before, but one of the significant factors on the temporary side is they really want to reduce the overall temporary resident population down to 5%.
If they need to get a million out of the country, you know, they sure seem like they're on track as far as I'm concerned. But if they are short, then how do they prevent that, or how do they reduce the numbers? By reducing the entry of new workers. So they're down 37% fewer than they were last year. That is a lot of, of temporary resident workers.
And then of course, new student arrivals, this is even more. They've slashed it literally in half, so 49% fewer than the last year. And then finally, you know, we know that the overall 380,000, they're shooting for about 64% right around there, uh, that are gonna fall within the economic immigration class. Now, that's not just express entry, but express entry forms a large portion of that, so, you know, probably about 200, you know, 200, over 200,000 plus.
And so those are... That's, you know, that's kinda where they've capped it and then [00:23:00] what they envision for not just this year, um, at least, but for 2027 and 2028. So what do these numbers signal? Mm-hmm. And it largely signals that Canada's levels plan w- underwent a fundamental shift when we started adding the quotas effectively for temporary residents.
And so because we've now done two things, we've reduced our overall number of permanent residents that we want on a yearly basis, so basically we're saying we want a flat population. We do not want any population growth in Canada. That is gonna have significant economic effects and effects in terms of access to services, as well as it's gonna have effects on who's here right now.
Um, and that's what they're looking at. So because they reduce the overall number of permanent residents who they will admit every year, and they are scrutinizing how many temporary residents we have and people have to go, we have this [00:24:00] large bubble of people right now who have very difficult decisions because it is harder and harder to get permanent residence.
There is just not an easy way to do it unless you're very targeted and strategic. Yeah. And, you know, the hard part, at least right now, is that the people here are the ones that the temporary residents now are the ones that are really gonna be hit hardest. Anyone that projects their, you know, their, their future permanent resident options not arising until maybe 2028, 2029, well, you're gonna benefit from these changes.
You just are. And the reality is when you're reducing, you know, the total temporary foreign worker arrivals by 37% and, and international students by, by virtually half at 49%, well, it means that there's gonna be fewer people entering the CEC pathway over the next two to three years. And we will talk about the regulatory changes, and so what we can say is, you know, at least in the short term, those CEC pathways are still here.
Those- but [00:25:00] they're looking at consolidating, so what we don't know is the extent to which outlanders, as our listeners typically refer to them, um, are going to now be eligible and fill in the ranks and continue to put pressure on the, the CRS scores. But for this, you know, the way things are structured now with the way they're stripping things away, um, truly the, it...
You know, what this indicates is that for people who can ride it out longer, they're gonna have increasingly more positive options available for them as time passes. And as the government does this great purge and, uh, and, you know, we- as we go to the next slide here, we can see This goal, number one on their three immigration commitments, you know, number one is to reduce the temporary residents down to 5% of the total population by the end of 2027.
And so, uh, you know, it's so interesting just to see how fixated the government is with these numbers. You know, you remember, Alicia, through the pandemic when they were so concerned that there weren't enough people coming in, you know, they were shooting [00:26:00] to get to 500,000 permanent residents and, uh, you know, a year.
And if that's the case, that would have been probably, at that rate, um, there would have been room for many of these people to transition to permanent residents. Now, not all of them. I think the figures are almost less than 20% now of, of temporary residents or foreign workers in Canada who have options for PR in the current regime, just because of the numbers.
And, um, uh, but the reality is going forward, um, if they had kept to those levels and not res- reduced it down to 380, well, there would have been more room for people to transition. But now it's like this awful storm of reduced PR numbers and then desperately trying to get people out of the country. But the interesting thing, Alicia, is this second pillar, increasing Francophone immigration.
I'll let you talk about that one. So this is, this is the difficulty from a policy perspective for me. If you have an economic system and you're tying everything to your economic goals, then tie them to your [00:27:00] economic g- goals and show that you're doing that transparently The difficulty is that they are grafting on a requirement under different legislation federally to increase the number of Francophone immigrants outside the province of Quebec.
Mm-hmm. And that is not an economic goal. It is a goal for, um, respecting the fact that we are a country of two official languages, that we have a big tradition, um, of French language and culture in our historical past. There are other reasons why we want to prioritize Francophone immigration outside the province of Quebec, but they are other reasons.
They are not economic reasons. This is not something that's economically driven. But it is being grafted on here because the only two levers that the federal government has is increase Francophones by having more schooling and education in French across the country. Um, we know there's not a ton of Francophone educators.
That's something where we're usually in [00:28:00] short supply. Or the other lever is, well, let's bring in foreigners who are French-speaking. Mm-hmm. And when you look at this, just to reemphasize for those who are watching our podcast episode here, and for those, I guess I sh- should say, that are, that are listening.
So Canada has basically three commitments that they've really highlighted: reduce the temporary residents down to 5%, stabilize permanent residents at below 1% of the total population, that's where we get that 380,000 total landings. Um, but nestled right in there is this inc- desire to increase Francophone immigration.
So any of you who are wondering, well, is it worth it to study French, just understand that as long as that becomes a priority for this government, it will always be an advantage to anyone who's looking to apply through Canada's federal economic PR programs. Let's adjust here and just, let's just talk about whether or not, like, if it's working, why change it?
Um, and I think for [00:29:00] us, Alicia and I, we've got a few reasons why we're pushing back, and I guess there's four real answers, if you will. Um, you know why at least IRCC feels like changing this working system makes sense at this time. So like we talked about, they've in- and we'll, we'll address this kind of at a high level, and then we'll, we'll dig into these in a little bit more detail.
But one, government policy priorities. Two, the category-based selection is evolving. Three, new research identifies stronger predictors. We'll talk about those. And four, digital platform modernization. So these are all some of the factors at play with them now having a desire to kind of change the system for various reasons.
So let's hit on the government policy priorities, Alicia. Mm-hmm. So to be fair, there are things within express entry that could re-w- are due for updates, right? So there are things that are [00:30:00] unnot- unnecessarily complex, uh, that we could simplify. And so that's something where they do wanna have more transparency, they wanna have a simplification.
So that makes sense. Um, they have always, in terms of express entry, talked about bringi- bringing the best and the brightest from the world to Canada. And so that has always been an aspirational goal, and it's something that still exists. And this is also why they're turning towards the higher wage earners when they are looking at a new factor to build into the new CRS, because they, they do wanna have higher economic outcomes as a policy priority.
Yeah. And we're gonna cover a lot more on that in episode seven, so stay tuned for that. You know, it's interesting, Alicia, as we've watched the category-based selection evolve, that it has become increasingly, um, the key predictor, at least for us, when we're trying to identify what clients have for options going forward.
You know, the general draws are kind of out, [00:31:00] at least right now. Um, this heavy emphasis on transitioning temporary residents into permanent residents through the CEC program and the category... and, and to a large extent, the category-based draws, has really driven everything that's happening in 2026, and that hearkens all the way back to the levels plans.
This is what they say. This is where our priorities are. And, um, and really for them, they can really be precise in, in who they want to target with these category-based draws. That's why the list has expanded. Um, and so, you know, w- with these c-category draws doing the heavy lifting, um, there's a real argument that, you know, these three program structure is redundant, and that's why they're shifting away, at least with the regulatory changes at the end of 2027, 2028.
Well, we don't need it anymore because we have these new levers that we've created. And remember, all of these category-based selection, the- all these categories were created after express entry was launched. So that's why we kind of have this redundancy, this overlapping, and so it makes sense that [00:32:00] they would need to change just to simplify things.
Um, you know, and they're not wrong for doing this, right? Like the overlap creates just, uh, like it, it extends processing, it causes complications for people when they're trying to apply. Um, but yeah, I, uh, I think, I think you'd probably agree that, you know, at least if this is the path they're going down, and if they're really emphasizing the category-based selection, then it, it doesn't make sense to have a CEC program, an FSW, and an FST, at least from, you know, I'm trying to be fair here with them.
Yeah, I, my main concern is it is always hard to pick winners and losers, and we've seen this provincially, we've seen this federally across the board, that we are just not good at predicting the future as humans. Things change that we just cannot anticipate. And so to the extent that we are sacrificing core human capital In favor of these very targeted NOCs, there is a risk, right?
The risk is that we get [00:33:00] it wrong, that these category-based selections, if that's really where more than 60% of the nomination ITAs are coming from, then if you've gotten it wrong on who your categories are, that's gonna have significant economic impacts down the line. Yeah. And lots of times it's trial and error, right?
I remember in initial meetings, Alicia, that I had when I was on the national executive where the government was, um, just really surprised why so many international students were all funneling in. Now, let's leave aside the money that's there to be made, and, you know, there's... as long as you've got agents overseas who are making money by getting students who want to apply, and you have schools that really like international students and the three times the tuition that's coming in, it creates an environment where, um, you know, those factors obviously are gonna drive an increase.
But the one thing they never made the connection with that I remember specifically addressing to them is that the reason the numbers were increasing be- was because of express [00:34:00] entry. And once express entry was lost in 2015- launched in 2015, and when they had those extra bonus points for Canadian education, and then those, you know, very favorable three-year post-grad work permits to allow them to gain even more experience, individuals that before would not necessarily have had sufficient human capital to really compete internationally to immigrate direct to Canada, they were using this as a backdoor to permanent residence, at least the international student program, and then all of the challenges that we had.
So, you know, it takes time. Sometimes you have to look back, and I think it's, it's good that they're looking back and they're reevaluating and trying to, you know, to modernize it and make things a little bit, um, you know, uh, well, just more targeted to the specific needs of the country. Uh, and we'll get to some of the other issues, but, but so that, you know, this new research, it, it's according to them is saying, "Hey, you know, if people make higher wages," like we've said, "then, you know, maybe they're the ones we, we need to prioritize a little bit more than, than the others."
And then [00:35:00] finally, the digital platform modernization, which you know, it, it is what it is. Like, it, it is old. It's hasn't changed in over 10 years, and there is a need to kind of modernize it, and combining everything into a single program will make it easier for applicants when they're trying to apply. Is, you know, there's no need for three overlapping programs.
But we'll see ultimately how this all plays out because those things with respect to the programs are ones in which we can actually respond and comment and that are going through the, you know, the, the traditional regulatory process where there's oversight and ability to, you know, um, to discuss and point out problems.
The ministerial instructions, boy, those are really... there, there's not a lot of room to, to test or challenge. Okay, so here's our questions. One, Alicia, how is economic success defined? Like, how have they defined it? Mm-hmm. And this is where the equity piece comes in. And so IRCC did say, "Well, we wanna make [00:36:00] changes, and equity is one of the things that we're looking at."
The difficulty is they're using two definitions of economic success. One is being employed, and the other is what are the earnings when you are employed. And the risk is that we skew towards too much of that high, high-wage, high-knock kind of white-collar work, when in fact that might not be the skillset that we actually need for an evolving world with we've got all sorts of innovations in AI right now.
Maybe we actually need more of those hands-on jobs, and not all of them necessarily have the higher wages. So that's one issue. Yeah. Yeah. And then the age penalty, right? And we've talked about this a lot. You know, is it penalizing the wrong people? Like, if we want high-wage-earning people, typically it takes time to kind of reach the top of your, you know, your profession and, and to, to reach the, you know, the, the, the highest level where you're earning [00:37:00] the most money.
It just takes time. But to go from, you know, max scores up till you hit 30 and then things drop off a cliff once you hit 45, I, I don't know. Does that, you know, does that disadvantage these mid-career professionals? Mm-hmm. Yeah, it does. And this is also gonna become worse. It will be made even more pronounced if they are looking at instead of a 10-year window of work experience for eligibility, we're looking at a three-year window.
So people who are educating themselves, who are going through a bachelor's or a master's or a PhD, you know what? You might not even qualify anymore for eligibility to come into the pool if you don't have recent work experience. And so if you are an applicant who is spending more time with your education before you start working, this is gonna be something that shakes up the system.
Yeah. Okay. Let's, let's talk about the elephant in the room, which we've already addressed in the past a little bit, but French at all costs. You [00:38:00] know- Yeah ... let's read, let's read the quote, Alicia, from the IRCC report back in August of 2025. So this is on- this is less than a year ago, okay? What does that report say?
Mm-hmm. Like, essentially, they had done a study in August of 2025 that said really minority language speakers had lower employment rates and lower income rates. And they basically said that if you want to have higher economic success as a permanent resident in Canada, you need to be speaking the majority language.
And that is at odds with an economic program where you are trying to make sure that the immigrants that you bring in have high economic success rates. We'll leave it at that. We'll talk about this a little bit more, uh, in future episodes. Okay, and then the final real question just revolves around the red seal catch-22 for, for [00:39:00] basically skilled trades workers What's basically being proposed, uh, for Red Seal certification, um, is, you know, that, that, that, that, that Red Seal is, is the licensure route.
It's the requirement to get the points, the Red Seal or I guess the provincial equivalent of, of whatever trade certification you need. But the reality is, okay, that's all fine and dandy, but the, none of the trades programs really facilitate international people at all. It's really, really difficult. So it's increased internationally trained workers.
Um, basically these internationally trained workers are often inaccessible, and so before they arrive in Canada, um, they can't even get through the gate, so it creates this kind of catch-22. You want the trade certification, but they can't get it unless they're essentially a permanent resident. So it just kind of spins in circles.
So, you know, in fairness, Alicia, we're, you know, we're not opposed to reform. Like, we aren't. But we are [00:40:00] advocating, um, that these reforms be imf- implemented thoughtfully and, you know, with transitions that don't punish people who built their plans around the old rules who are already here, and basically there's no advance notice of, of, of what's happening.
So we'll... Yeah, so that's, these are kind of the, the things that we wanted to focus on in terms of our concerns at this stage. So what this means actually for you. Let's take a look at some of the personal strategies that you're gonna have to start thinking about right now. Okay, so number one, if you earn above the Canadian median wage and have Canadian work experience or a qualifying job offer, we don't know which one ultimately IRCC is gonna settle on, then the proposed reforms may actually improve your co- your competitive position going forward.
Um, there's still uncertainty, right, Alicia? Because we don't know what direction they're gonna go. Like we talked about, there's lots of pitfalls [00:41:00] and, and just crazy stuff that they're gonna have to consider to eliminate the fraud from within the job offer situation. But, uh, we're just, that one's a wait-and-see, right?
Yeah. They're looking at either a combination of how many years you've worked in Canada plus that high-wage occupation factor, or they're looking at a high-wage occupation factor and a job offer. But what kind of job offer? Are they gonna use the same qualifying employment, arranged employment that they had in the past, or are they going to revise it?
We don't know, and we don't know if it's gonna be one or the other. Yeah. And understand right now, you guys, labor market impact assessments are a freaking nightmare. They are so difficult. And so even an employer who may want to support someone through a job offer, if that's a possibility, um, they've had so many issues with job offers not even being legitimate when people come to the country, and I'm just curious o- on if they're gonna hold, like truly revert back to what they'd [00:42:00] done for years and years.
Um, when you create job offers as such a major, major factor in eligibility for permanent residence, it just breeds this environment in which, you know, uh, people who are trying to make a buck and those who are desperate then start to cause problems. And, um, and that's kind of the world that we're in a little bit.
So that's one. Number two, if your CRS strategy relies on bonus points, well, these could disappear this year via ministerial instruction, not in 2027. So if you're relying on them, then you need to act now Yeah. And so the real detriment will be to people who are relying on Canadian study experience. So if you've got those Canadian studies and you're currently counting on getting those additional points, so when we look at section D on the CRS grid, when you look at those additional points, it's currently gonna give you bonus points if you've got your Canadian education, qualifying Canadian education.
[00:43:00] Those might get wiped out. The other thing that could really affect your CRS score that gets wiped out is the points for a Canadian sibling. So if you needed those extra points for your Canadian sibling to get your CRS high enough, then that could get wiped out. The ones that might get wiped out but probably won't make that much of a difference would be the French and the PNP points, because even if you wipe out the bonus French points and the bonus PNP points, if they still have category-based draws for Francophone and they still have PNP category-based draws, or well, PNP program draws, then you would still be able to get an invitation to apply if you meet eligibility.
It's just that literally the level of the water in the pool is gonna drop because everybody's CRS is gonna go down. But the ones that are real, um, determinative factors would be if you're relying on Canadian sibling and you're relying on Canadian education. Yeah. All right, another factor. Number three, IRCC is, is still [00:44:00] explicitly prioritizing Canadian experience, so those points are still there in 2026.
So if you're here working and you're CEC-eligible, you're still in a stronger position as it stands right now than those outside of Canada. Now, the one caveat always is French. If you speak French, then that's kind of this crazy wild card that's this golden ticket. We'll leave it at that. We've talked about that enough.
Uh, number four, work experience is in the future with the regulatory changes, it's going to be collapsing from 10 years to three years for eligibility. Language minimums increasing to a level six. Education really isn't a factor because a minimum of high school to get into the pool is not much, as long as you have your educational credential assessment.
But Alicia, what do you see or foresee with this number four with the collapsing of 10 to three? We've talked a little bit about it, but maybe just remind our listeners what this potentially can mean for people. Mm-hmm. So again, we're looking, and we haven't talked as much about it. We will get into more of this collapsing of the [00:45:00] categories when we look at future episodes.
But- This requires regulatory change. This is not one where they can just easily change the ministerial instructions. At least I don't think so, um, because you're fundamentally saying, "Okay, now we're collapsing Federal Skilled Worker, Federal Skilled Trades, and CEC into one category that's gonna have a consistent eligibility, and that eligibility in some cases is going to go up," right?
So having that minimum language to six is gonna be an increase from some CEC and some FST categories. Having that minimum education is an increase for some of those categories. So people will have to look at their long-range planning and think about, okay, well, what are the new eligibility criteria gonna be?
The biggest one is collapsing a 10-year eligibility window for work experience to three years. And so we know that under FSW versus CEC, for FSW, it had to be that one year continuous in one NOC. So they are saying, well, [00:46:00] it doesn't have to be continuous in one NOC, but it does have to be within the last three years.
And my big worry is that's going to significantly disadvantage students, people who are doing their bachelor's degree, their master's program, their PhD, 'cause if you can't show that you've accumulated at least one year, and you could do it over 24 months in equivalent part-time, but you better be working part-time while you're studying or you're not gonna qualify.
Yeah, and it's hard not to believe, Alicia, that that was a deliberate decision. So once again, I'll leave it at that. The, uh, the love affair that they had with international students is clearly it's on the rocks, if not, you know, a breakup. All right, and the last, obviously, we don't even really need to say this, your occupation matters as much as your overall CRS score.
So the, if the category-based draws are driving the ship, and we see this with French all the time, um, you know, the, the, the, the fact you speak French is pretty much a golden ticket. If your occupation is one of the [00:47:00] category-based draws, then your CRS score doesn't necessarily need to be as high as those that are otherwise trying to race and, and compete for those limited CEC draws.
So know your occupation, make sure that it's in the right tier. Uh, if you get your NOC code wrong and you think that you've been eligible under one of those category-based draws, and they say, "Nope, that's not the right NOC code," that could mean the difference in, in you wasting, you know, s- six, five, six months, whatever it takes for them to assess your application, and maybe having been eligible for other draws in the interim.
So, so, so careful you need to be with all of this. All right. So wrapping things up, couple key, key takeaways. You know, does my current CRS strategy, the factors I'm counting on, the timing I've planned, the profile I've built still make sense under a system being recalibrated toward high-wage earnings?
That's a question, and that question is relatively uncertain for a lot of people, and [00:48:00] that is what we, Alicia and I , are trying to resolve as we work our way through this series. Episode by episode- And starting on, uh, episode number three that will be coming up here, um, on Monday, um, you will see that, uh, we're gonna talk about...
It's kind of like a, um, you know, what's changing, what isn't, but a deeper dive. It's your early game plan. We're gonna show, at least to our extent what we can, a strategic map of the full reform landscape, and then our deep dive will begin. Episode four, it's about the big shakeup since 2015, the policy context, the targets, why IRCC is doing what they're doing right now.
Episode five is gonna be all about inside the IRCC consultation. That's the, uh, you know, as far as the consultation, it's more about what we heard from the government at the, at the CBA conference, and the two tac- the two track timeline. You know, basically firsthand intelligence on what I learned as a speaker on the panel with [00:49:00] the, um, uh, with Jonathan Joshipara, um, and my other colleagues when we discussed the reforms to express entry.
This is the latest, most up-to-date information, and that's all gonna be dropped in episode five. Don't jump to it, okay? If you're watching this as a, you know, as a recording, and we've already got all these released. So make sure you w- you listen to three and four before you get to five. And then of course, episode six through 11, we're gonna really get into the, the nitty-gritty.
We're gonna get into, you know, each, each episode will be, will cover each reformed area, and basically what it means for you and what you need to do about it. So Alicia, any last thoughts for our viewers before we wrap this one up? Yeah, Mark. I mean, they are changing things not because that they, they don't work, not because they're broken, but they're actually changing things because they want to make it better.
And so we are hoping, we are optimistic that some things will improve, but we also wanna make sure that people are prepared so that they understand when these changes are made, it fundamentally [00:50:00] changes the landscape. So eligibility will change, and then the CRS r- points will change. It is likely that those category-based draws will continue, but again, we know that those category-based draws are done on a little bit of a different schedule, so those have consultations yearly.
And we don't know which categories are gonna come up, but it's based on that long-term COPS data. So all these are things that you're gonna want to listen carefully to so that you can be prepared. Indeed. All right. We will see everybody. Episode three is dropping right away. What's changing? What isn't?
We'll get into it then. Thanks, Alicia.
[00:51:00]
