CIP 183 - EE Reforms - Episode 4
===
[00:00:00] [00:01:00] Over the last three episodes, we built the foundation, how express entry works, what the government's own data says, and the strategic [00:02:00] map of what is changing and what isn't. Today, we step back and make one correction that reframes the entire conversation. For weeks, the immigration world is fixated on the express entry reform consultation.
Here's what almost nobody is saying clearly. That consultation was about the part of this reform that will actually change your life the least. The part that actually decides whether you get invited was never on that table at all Alicia, what are your thoughts? Yeah, and it's interesting because I think there's a lot of confusion.
So when we're talking about express entry reforms, we know big changes are coming, but it's really important to sort out which changes and when. So there's really three different things happening here on three different timelines with three different levels of public consultation and processing, and they don't all matter equally to people's odds of getting an [00:03:00] invitation to appl- apply based on their CRS.
So most of the noise, most of the conversation has been about the slowest process, and that's the consultation on the minimum eligibility criteria and collapsing the three categories into one. So our job today is to show you what these three different changes are, what the track timelines are, and why and how you should prepare for these separately.
Exactly. All right. We know in the past that in the previous episodes, we've covered a little bit about the multiple tracks, the things that are happening at different timelines, and we covered a little bit on the ministerial instructions. We also addressed the comprehensive ranking system changes that we expect to, to happen.
And one of the areas that we hadn't focused on as much was the category-based draws and how they play into this whole mix. And right now, if you look at what's happened since 2015, there has been changes in the [00:04:00] past. It's just that they've never been this big before. And when you think about the shift away from what was the most important factors, Canadian education, Canadian work experience, age is still right on the, on the radar as an important factor, both positive if you're young and negative if you're old.
But there was never much more of a focus on occupations other than is it skilled or not? Is it a tier three or higher? Or in the old days, is it, was it a NOC B or higher? Now, the government has decided they're gonna turn things upside down, and they're gonna focus on new metrics. As we go through this, one of the things that we wanna focus on, I'm just gonna flip the slide over here with our big shakeup here, is, is this upheaval.
And when you look at this, Alicia, you can see back in January 2015, that's when this all started. That's when this all launched. And like we talked about before, there was just massive backlogs, and people were waiting [00:05:00] years to have their applications processed. So they decided, "Okay, we need to make a change."
So they launched Express Entry so that people could put their profiles into the pool, and then they could rank who they think were the best candidates and then invite them to submit an actual application and then process it quickly, six months. Over time, they just didn't feel like it was hitting the right areas, that they were targeting the right people.
So then they decided, okay, if we have too many food service supervisors that are getting through, let's start to create category-based selection, which is not new, Alicia. The concept of category-based selection has existed and h- did exist in the past before IRPA was even created. And I remember some of our older colleagues who've been at this a little bit longer than us, in the 30-year range, Alicia and I are just in the 20-year range of practice, they talked about the dangers and the challenges of these category-based selections.
But in 2023, after the pandemic, when they had a lot of people that were kinda going through and they [00:06:00] didn't feel like they were hitting quite the right cohort, they decided to slow down a little bit on the general draws and instead start to institute category-based draws. And that was probably the biggest change in a decade, moving to these targeted draws that focused on skill, like their occupation and language.
And so that's where we see our 10 categories right now. And then flash forward to April the 1st, 2026, when they put forward their new regulatory plan. And lots of people, all of the news media, all the coverage is all about what's gonna happen to the Federal Skilled Worker Program, the Canadian Experience Class.
What are they gonna do? How will this impact people? And the more we dug into it, the more we've looked at it, the more we see that this April 1st, 2026 big regulatory plan that where they opened up for r- responses and feedback from the government, we can see now that really that's not the big deal.
That's not the big shake-up. [00:07:00] And even though it will have impacts, and we'll have to see how things play out in 2027, 2028 when the official regulatory plan is released, the reality is that the real deep reform that we're talking about is really within the comprehensive ranking system because that's where all the levers really are put in place to determine who's gonna win and who's gonna lose.
So April 1st, 2026, the regulatory plan was released, and then it closed, and now this reform, which what they expect to happen coming forward, is going to merge those three programs. They're gonna rewrite the CRS, and this, we can honestly say, these changes will have been the biggest structural change since the whole program was launched.
So in 2015, they built the house. In 2023, they renovated a room, maybe arguably two rooms. But in 2026, they're proposing to move the actual [00:08:00] load-bearing walls that supports the whole foundation. And as we go forward, there's still some uncertainty, but let's... Alicia, maybe you can address what the government's rationale was in the first place.
And so we are seeing a shift, right? We are seeing... And one of the things, just to emphasize what you said, Mark, was that this whole express entry reform process is not about category-based draws, right? And we know that category-based draws are one of the most important levers in terms of who's getting an ITA right now and who's not.
So it's not about that, but what they are looking at is let's look at minimum eligibility criteria and let's look at recalibrating the CRS. And the reason that they're doing that, and we've talked about that a little bit in episode one and two and three, are because they really want to hone in on the economic factors of success, and they are talking about earnings.
So theoretically, it should also look at [00:09:00] who's employed, so employability and ongoing employment. But there seems to be more of an emphasis now on high-wage occupation, and so who is actually the highest wage earner? Most closely related to your time of landing. So they're looking at that on the short term, maybe prioritizing that a little bit over the long-term wage earnings.
They're trying to simplify, and that's, that is a laudable goal. I think that is something that is good. They're reducing the overlap, and they're trying to make sure that this application process for express entry is more streamlined and intelligible, so that's good. That hopefully is going to reduce complexity and increase transparency.
The equity and integrity, this is where for sure we've had instances of fraud. This is where they've been really looking at those job offer points, so that's why they removed them in twenty twenty-five. And now they're thinking of bringing them back because they realize that those job offer, if they're correlated with high wage, really is [00:10:00] probably a strong economic indicator.
Yeah. Yeah. It's interesting as you look at how these changes play out, especially when they're talking about equity and integrity. A lot of this has arisen as a result of fraud to some extent, at least with how they're restructuring the points. And when they strip points away, especially from the job offers, it really caused a lot of problems for a lot of people who were genuinely counting on it.
A lot of our senior executives who now we have a category-based draw to cover it, but also those that had job offers who were using those extra points to be able to establish themselves in Canada, excuse me, through the PR process. And when I think back to how they're gonna have to tackle this and how they're gonna grapple with this ongoing fraud, it's gonna be interesting, Alicia, just to see if they make any measurable changes to what they did before or whether they emphasize, to some extent, greater enforcement [00:11:00] measures.
And over the years, we've seen attempts repeatedly through the temporary foreign worker program and other programs to get at the heart of this fraud. But aside from assigning more officers to do site visits or actually spending more time really digging deep into an employer, their background, the individual, it's gonna take more resources in order to combat it.
'Cause like it or not, if the job offers are something that they want to reinstitute, which I think are a pretty good indicator of success if you're looking at economic measures, having a job and a high wage or otherwise that's waiting for you when you immigrate to Canada is a very strong factor as opposed to arriving without one.
So I get why it's there and why it's been there since the beginning, but how they're gonna deal with that is going to be very interesting. Okay. So two reforms. We've talked about these reforms. We talked about the fact that generally people just talk about it as an express entry reform. We've spent a little bit of time breaking down the difference between [00:12:00] ministerial instructions and the regulatory changes, but there's been one kind of sleeper on the side that we've just taken for granted that plays a role in all of this, and that's the category-based draws and how they are selected, how they're chosen, how they play a part in all of this.
And so even though there's one reform, there's actually three unequal tracks. And you can see from our slide deck here, we cover three areas, what it changes, public input, is it involved or required? How fast are we expecting this to roll out, and the impact on your odds. So let's touch on that briefly.
Let's start with the regulatory process, which we have addressed a little bit in our previous episodes, but we can hit on that quickly and then zip through to the ministerial instructions, the impact, what they have, and then category-based and how you deal with those. So regulatory reforms are a longer fuse.
We're talking about longer times because everything that has a regulatory [00:13:00] requirement in terms of changing IRPA or probably the regs more likely, so IRPR, those have to go through a few different legislative steps before they can get passed. And so we're looking at probably the earliest would be twenty twenty-seven, maybe into twenty twenty-eight, because they have to get published in the Canada Gazette.
Here's actually what these changes in the regulations might state so that there can be input and then debate, and then they can get passed. So that's gonna take a lot longer, and we know that will be the structural minimum eligibility criteria changes. So collapsing those three categories into one, making sure that now there's a new floor for what eligibility will look like.
But some of that is gonna be a much faster timeline through ministerial instructions. So we talked about this in episode three, and this is where they can make drastic changes that affect your CRS score [00:14:00] really darn quick. So they can make these changes by ministerial instruction pretty much overnight.
There's no advance warning or notice, and all of a sudden you look at your express entry profile and your points are quite different than what you thought they were. It might be in your favor, or it might not be, and it'll probably change where the entire pool is sitting when we look at who's in that pool for express entry-eligible candidates.
And then we take a look at the category-based draws. And what's interesting with the category-based selection, they kinda run on their own separate clock, if you will. So outside this reform process altogether, they already have 10 categories. Individuals that are being drawn, they did make a slight change recently to require that a person work for 12 months for many of the programs before they were eligible versus the old six months.
And so it really makes sure that people are genuinely working in those occupations. And once again, I can't help but think the [00:15:00] shift from six to 12 was as a result of pe- they're just not getting the candidates that they were looking for, or my finance person who left the bank and worked as a welder for six months to get his ITA and then guaranteed's going back to the bank.
And so they bumped that up to 12 months. But here's the twist. Of all the three tracks, the categories at least carry the strongest public input requirement. Now, a consultation Is something that the law mandate- mandates for the category-based draws, and there's an... plus it impacts on the annual report to Parliament, and that's why whenever we do the rounds of invitation- sorry, whenever we do the annual levels plans in their publications, they talk about where their priorities are for the category-based draws.
And each year, I know we have opportunities to provide input on what we think the category-based, if they're right, if things need to be changed. It's interesting, when they announced, I think it was two years ago, the STEM, and then they included insurance brokers and adjusters on that list, I was like, "Oh my [00:16:00] goodness."
And I think Minister Miller was the minister at the time, and I was thinking to myself, "What is going on here? Who lobbied the minister to get on that list?" But then, Alicia, we haven't even seen a draw, a STEM draw since that time. As I look at to it now, tech has only cybersecurity specialists, which- Yeah
absolutely, that is something with AI and everything that's been happening, cyber attacks have become more and more sophisticated and a real challenge for companies, so it makes no dou- no surprise whatsoever that globally every country is looking for people who have expertise in that region. But are they gonna add in something for AI development, which is every bit as important as on the cyber side?
But next spring, hopefully, we'll- there'll be another opportunity for us to engage and provide comment, or I should say maybe the end of this year. I can't remember when they actually open up those, those opportunities for us to consult. But that basically there is some acknowledgement and, and a requirement to, to [00:17:00] report on what's happened as opposed to the ministerial instructions, which will continue to drive this.
And this is the challenge that we're dealing with right now, is that it's so unpredictable. It could, changes could be imminent or not. Changes could happen tomorrow or maybe not till the end of the year. But the impact on people makes it virtually impossible for people to really plan effectively and know with 100% certainty that they have a pathway to permanent residence.
So that's why within our firm, we're constantly looking to expand possibilities for our clients, to be able to advise them in ways that keep as many options open as possible. But yeah, as the CRS strips those points, those bonus points away, the category-based track matters more and more, not less. So we'll come back to this at the end for sure.
Okay, let's jump here just to this kinda oversight inversion. And this is an interesting one here, this slide, because this kinda talks about the impact of these changes on [00:18:00] you and your odds of, of qualifying, and then the degree to which there's actually public input in it. And this just is another visual representation of what we've, what we've been saying before.
But it's just crazy, Alicia, to look at this chart and see how great an impact CRS has with the overhaul of those points with very, very little opportunity for public oversight. And what- if you had a choice, Alicia, or what would you do? Years ago, they instituted ministerial instructions for efficiency so they wouldn't have to go through the formal regulatory process.
But if you could tweak it just a touch, 'cause I know sometimes IRCC listens to what we're saying here, what would you do? How would you modify it or change it? Yeah. So if it were me, I would tweak it towards human capital and some more predictability because honestly, I think those category draws, just like you said, Mark, when we've been around and you said old earlier, and I don't like the word old-
but older maybe [00:19:00] relatively. People who've been around in the immigration law world for a while- Yeah ... you know that it's really hard to predict winners and losers. And IRCC said, like, "We know that doesn't really work, and so we're going to try to have a system that's nimble. We're gonna try to be making sure that we have an emphasis on high human capital factors."
That's great, but if you've now put most of your eggs in the category draws, so this is really where those French category draws are driving the ship, right? We've got over 42% of the ITAs under French category, and we have quite a few of the program-specific draws or the category-specific for certain occupations.
You're moving away from high human capital. So when we look at how much oversight does the public have or input does the public have, it makes sense that when they are looking at a CRS overhaul, they are hopefully doing this based on data, and that's what they've said. We're looking at long-range longitudinal studies on what drives [00:20:00] economic success for immigrants, and they have a number of reports that they are relying on.
Some of those reports are getting a little bit old, and they're pre-pandemic, and arguably the world has changed quite a bit since then. And so hopefully, if it were me, I would look a little bit more to emphasize those high human capital, and maybe take a look at those age points, because that's something that does disadvantage certain groups of people.
When we're looking at that program merger, when we're looking at the minimum eligibility score- Mm-hmm ... that is where the express entry reforms are coming. That's where the consultation's coming. But again, those category draws are huge in terms of who gets an ITA right now. You bet. All right, let's just carefully examine this eligibility merger.
This is real, but it's not an emergency like we've talked about. It's the track that everyone has been consulted on, and we'll just basically tell you why it can wait. So if you break it down, there's kind of one eligibility floor as opposed to all of the varying levels that people had to [00:21:00] sort through.
There was like many pathways to enter the pool, and it became quite complicated like we've talked about in previous episodes. But now it's basically just broken down, at least if it r- plays out this way, it's broken down into some pretty simple pillars: education, language, and work. So education, the thresholds are actually low.
So the... If you think about the funnel effect, at the top of the funnel, they're scooping, they're ex- allowing maybe arguably more people in some instances could possibly get into the pool than before. Maybe it still casts the net really broad. And so the number of people, it's not super hard to get in.
High school credential or foreign equivalent For education, that's a pretty low bar. Language, a CLB 6 across reading, writing, speaking, and listening. Work experience, one year with- before there was that kinda tortured discussion over what was foreign work experience and what is Canadian work experience, and right now even in real life where the [00:22:00] IRCC is grappling with this and are making some really brutal decisions we've seen with some of our colleagues in what constitutes Canadian work experience and what's being disallowed.
And so hopefully the new world as they shift to this one eligibility floor, that work, one year of skilled experience in Canada or abroad in the past three years is at least from that standpoint, it's going- they won't have this tortured distinction between what's Canadian and what's foreign. But Alicia, I know you've talked about this in the past, but a three-year window versus 10 Yeah, and this is my main concern because I think this will disproportionately affect Canadian foreign students who are studying in Canada, who instead of being able to pull from a 10-year eligibility window, only have three years.
And if you're doing a four-year bachelor's degree or a two years ma- two-year master's or a longer PhD, you don't have a lot of time to use as work [00:23:00] experience, especially because it seems like they're still going to exempt or not include Canadian study. So if you are on a full-time Canadian study permit, they don't allow you to use that work experience towards your eligibility criteria, and that is arguably unfair to Canadian foreign students or foreign students who are studying in Canada because foreign students outside Canada in the past have been able to claim work where- while they're a full-time student.
The other area where it will probably negatively affect people are there were some categories, like under federal skilled trades, where you didn't technically have to have education, and now you do. And so for people who never actually got their high school diploma, this is gonna be a problem. If you don't have that minimum high school diploma, it's an issue.
The other area where it's an issue is the slightly lower language bar that we had under FST. So [00:24:00] it was sometimes you could do a CLB four or five, but now it's gonna be heightened to that CLB six. So these are the people that really need to be careful in terms of what changes are coming. But by and large, if you qualified under the previous program, most people hopefully will qualify under the new program, except for these groups that we've just talked about.
Yeah. And that's exactly it. So ultimately, if you're able to get into the pool now, you're probably going to be able to get into the pool after the regulatory changes. So that's why we're not really stressing too much about this, even though it's gotten a lot of the fanfare. It really comes down to the CRS adjustments.
So let's talk about this overhaul, and absolutely this is the part that moves your score and the one ironically with the least public oversight. So if we look at this, their own rankings of every CRS factor, we've talked about this in the past, and just to go through them, they've ranked them strongest, moderate, or weaker.[00:25:00]
And strong, once again, English or French, although if there's Francophone draws, I would probably put it stronger French. That ultimate factor is still going to be a main driver, but you can't discount that clearly an ability to speak English or French Is a crucial predictor of success when you're living in Canada.
The issue is if I don't speak French and I want to live in Quebec, even though remember this is all outside of Quebec, Quebec has their own program, but if I wanted to live and get a good job in, say, Montreal or Quebec City, without a doubt, the ability to speak French is going to be a significant contributor in that.
Now there's obviously Montreal is very cosmopolitan, and there's probably lots of jobs that you can take working and speaking English. But if you were to come, say, to Alberta and want a job in Nant in Alberta or even in Calgary for that matter, and you don't speak any English and you just speak French fluently, you're gonna [00:26:00] have a hard time.
And so that's always been the troublesome spot that we've struggled with a little bit because remember, Express Entry is a federal program, not Quebec, and anyone who goes through this has to demonstrate an intention not to ultimately go settle in Quebec, but to actually reside and live outside of Quebec.
And it's, there are lots of factors like Alicia's talked about in previous episodes, but, but that's a big one, so language. And then the other one, of course, is the high earnings as a temporary resident, which we've talked about a lot. Then the moderate predictors. Alicia, what do we got for their perceived moderate predictors?
Mm-hmm. And so this is the Canadian work experience. And when we look at the consultation document on the express entry reforms, it seems like they are also going to be tweaking, reviewing options to further define qualifying Canadian work experience. And so they've said in their consultation document that work performed in Canada as a temporary resident in the Canadian [00:27:00] labor market and paid by wages or commission.
And so what they are saying in that consultation document is that the exclusions are gonna be self-employment except for physicians, work while studying full-time, so maybe that'll be for Canadian, maybe it'll be across the board. They'll just wipe it out across the board that you can't be studying full-time while working.
Unauthorized work obtained pending the outcome of an asylum claim, so those are currently how things are. Work paid by foreign sources or while employed by a foreign government organization or business, that's new. And so I think they're getting a whole bunch of variations on remote work that are causing problems in their integrity, and then also work in a multilateral international organization.
Those last two are new, so work by a foreign source or while employed by a foreign business or multilateral international organization. So maybe they've found that's a moderate predictor because we've cast the net of Canadian work experience a little bit too broadly, and they need to now narrow this down, and [00:28:00] it is still a positive factor in terms of who's gonna have higher levels of economic success in Canada.
Moderate predictors are also the job offer. They've lost some data, of course, because they've not allowed job offer points since mid-2025. And then university education, so something that is higher than a one or two-year diploma. And then of course, the system rewards those who are under age 29. Yeah.
Basically our age, Alicia. And then of course, we have the weaker predictions and- or the weaker predictors I should say, and surprise, those are the ones that are proposed for removal. Spousal points, siblings in Canada, French bonus, education in Canada, and technically for removal we have the PNP on the list, but that's a program in and of itself, and so that's not gonna have any role really because of those draws that are gonna run separately.
Yeah, and so there's the logic in the ranking. [00:29:00] Now, if we take an adjustment here, let's touch on this marquee addition. And I wish that we could say with 100% degree of certainty that we know everything there is to know about that, but there is some things that I wanted to share. We know that the new points would go to candidates with Canadian work experience or a job offer in a high-wage occupation, so one whose median wage is above the median for all Canadians, and they've said using Statistics Canada and Job Bank data by NOC.
So you can dig through this, and we can try to figure out what they mean by that. But in the consultation documents, they say we could potentially, which is somewhat helpful, do this by establishing a list of high-wage jobs that meet certain thresholds above the national median wage. Once again, how is that national median wage calculated?
This list would be created based on data available through Employment and Social Development Canada's Job Bank and Statistics Canada's Labor Market Survey and Census. So you guys can go and [00:30:00] dig all you want. Alicia had spent some time digging into it to try to sort it out. As we discussed in our last episode- It's not so easy to figure out the, the example scenarios that IRCC was sharing with us, at least at a national conference, matching up to the data that we were looking in front of us, but that's okay.
But, but these changes, it also reintroduces job offer points, like we talked about, which were suspended in March of 2025, but only for high-wage occupations. Once again, what does that mean? So the official list of qualifying occupations has obviously not yet been published, but if they do go through that route, it's probably gonna make it easier for people because, once again, it's like a NOC list if it goes down that path.
And you can see from the table here that we don't know the weighting that is going to be applied. So if you have a wage that's 1.3 times the national median, then how many points is that? Is that 10 points? And if it's 1.5%, is that [00:31:00] 25 points? Or better yet, if it's two times, is that the slam dunk and you get 50 or even 100 points?
Because if you remember from episode three, we talked about Charlotte, who was the food service supervisor, who in our current world would have been really competitive, but in the new world may not get an ITA. And so if that's the case, notwithstanding all of these strong point factors, age in particular, to have someone who is older but works in a position that is making those high wages at a two times level, they're gonna need a lot of points to compensate for those 120 points of age.
So I think we're gonna see a shuffling of a lot of those points factors, but we just don't know the actual weighting. And Alicia, do you think, and this is something that we've mused ourselves, do you think that all of this could land by ministerial instruction, or based on what we know about job offers and arranged offers of [00:32:00] employment that are baked into the legislation, or, or would they need to do it by way of the regulatory process?
Mm-hmm. So that's my big question, because when we look at the initial presentation of the reforms from IRCC, when they've talked about that high-wage occupation factor, they've broken it down. So they said it's either going to be, or they said or. So they said maybe it'll be years of Canadian work experience plus your multiplying factor based on your high-wage occupation, or it'll be do you have a high-wage occupation plus a job offer?
But then in the job offer, they had a little bit of uncertainty about whether it's going to be an LMIA-based job offer and what kind of LMIA, or will it be a job offer and maybe they're using the arranged employment definition that exists currently under the current regulations and the act. And if that's the case, then you could potentially have an IMP closed work permit.
So [00:33:00] if they use that current definition of arranged employment, then they wouldn't need to change the act or the regs. They would just weight it based on including this high-wage occupation multiplication factor, and then they could do it by ministerial instruction. If they are going to completely change the landscape on what they mean by a qualifying job offer, so if they change arranged employment definitions, that would require a regulatory change.
So it really depends which way they go. Is this an either/or kind of thing where you could qualify for years of experience plus your high wage? Or you could have a job offer plus high wage, or are they only gonna pick one? And so that's what we don't know. So theoretically, they could do it by ministerial instructions if they don't change, if they keep that arranged employment, or if they don't go with job offers whatsoever and they just go with years of Canadian work experience, they could do that by MI.
Yeah. All right. So where do we land, Alicia? Our position on these reforms. I guess let's just [00:34:00] address those very quickly before we jump to a little bit more detailed examination of the category-based draws. I think for, we could probably speak for a lot of our colleagues, the single pathway does drop the confusion, right?
Especially that exists with the Federal Skilled Worker Program and the 67-point threshold. So that grid is really a confusing kind of thing for most people, and in fact, many don't even know it exists. When they're submitting their express entry profile, they're completing the eligibility threshold, and then sometimes the only time it becomes an issue when it says, "You're not eligible."
And they're like, "What are you talking about? My CRS score is so high. How could I not be eligible?" There are factors like age or even the settlement funds sometimes when people are getting through the Federal Skilled Worker Program. If they don't have enough settlement funds that they're showing, then that can make them ineligible.
But that's a positive thing to wash that away. Of course, removing, if we're looking at the CRS, removing that spousal factors, man, that's just, yeah, a weak predictor that skews family decisions, [00:35:00] makes people have to do crazy things. I'm so glad that they're getting rid of that. That can't go fast enough as far as I'm concerned.
And then the direction on the removal of additional points, I can't really complain too much about it. High human capital and category draws, I think, although I'm up in the air on category draws because they're so influenced by whoever's lobbying the hardest. They're probably maybe a better predictor than someone who has a sibling in Canada.
So we'll see how those play out, and clearly it's, it is simpler. Now we'll see in terms of more evidence-based overall. Yeah, it's hard when they're relying on data that's so old to make decisions right now. I would have liked to have seen reliance on more current information because like we talked about in previous episodes, the world has shifted.
The world is so much different after the pandemic than relying on any data pre-pandemic. And the cohort of people that are here in Canada, and we talked about so many things in the previous episodes. Even the data that they show people in lower wages are making [00:36:00] even worse wages after they get PR. It's so influenced by do they go to school or do they have other...
They're trying to upgrade their education. So there's a number of factors which are just not captured in the data. So I think fair enough, we can say that's, those some areas generally where we support it. But where would we push back, Leisha? I love asking you those questions. Yeah. So this is where I have concerns, and if we are going to really drift away from the core human capital points in favor of kind of The next newest thing, and this is where IRCC says we're not just looking at short-term trends, we're looking at long-term trends for chronically occupations that are in shortage in Canada and we just don't have the people.
But there's still- you're still picking winners and losers. And so if we now skew the system even further towards relying on that high-wage occupation factor, it's going to [00:37:00] skew away from some of those essential roles. Personal support workers, right? Those are people that are constantly on there and they are not earning the highest wages.
So some of those healthcare occupations, early childhood educators, social workers, construction workers, those people are probably not going to get as much of a points boost as people who are in high-wage occupations. The floor, so we talked about that, having to have a high school education credential assessment minimum.
Having that CLB 6 is going to-- it will hurt some of the tradespeople, the apprentices, because they will have to go back and get re-educated to get their high school equivalency, and they might have to really work on their English. Self-employment, this is the big one for students. Study periods, I would hope that they would count that if you're a Canadian student for an international, but they probably won't and they're probably going to further restrict this category.
And because they're also collapsing the window, it's gonna have a [00:38:00] negative disproportionate effect on Canadian students, so be careful with that. Job offer integrity, and this is why they arguably took down job offer points in the first place. People were abusing, I think really it was one category. So I've done a whole blog.
I've had a number of talking points about what is arranged employment, when can you qualify for a job offer, and it's one of three scenarios. It's either a new LMIA, it's an old LMIA and you've worked there for one year under a closed work permit, or it's an IMP, so International Mobility Program work permit that you've worked on for one year.
And I think by and large, the fraud was coming under those new LMIAs. So I would really hope that if they do implement those job offer points, and I think it's a good idea again, make sure that you tie that to some sort of previous period of Canadian work experience, at least six months that they can back up.
And Mark, it's interesting because we know that they did pass legislation giving different [00:39:00] departments within Canada greater information sharing abilities. And what I have noticed is that CRA and ESDC and IRCC are sharing more information. So this is one of the leakers. They're chatting a whole lot more now Absolutely.
This is one of the ways that they have of checking up on employers and employees, and they're looking at records of employment. They're looking at tax documentation. They're looking at ESDC, who is declaring income and what that income is. So they do have ways to double-check as long as that job offer point is going to be backed up with some sort of Canadian work experience.
And then the last thing, Mark, you and I have been asking for years, maybe it won't matter if they take the CRS down far enough- Maybe, yeah ... we don't need to have the data. That's true. Yeah. If now people are still gonna have CRS scores above 500 by and large, and for the last few years, if you don't have a CRS above 500 for a CEC, you really didn't have a chance.
So if now the changes in CRS are going to really knock down [00:40:00] scores across the board 'cause they take away all those bonus points, maybe everybody will be in the 400s and we won't need this. But if it does stay above 500, really please provide transparency with respect to the brackets that are above 500, 501 to 509, 510, et cetera.
Yeah. All right. So we've had an opportunity now to break down. It really is a two-track reform, like we talked about. So first track is the CRS changes that are coming. Second track is the regulatory changes that are gonna come next year and possibly into the beginning of 2028 before they're finalized.
But the category-based draws really are on a separate clock, and so like we say, they circle through every year, and there is opportunities for some feedback on these, which is great, and they are going to slowly become more and more important as we go forward. As you can see here, this as far as the one track, at least the law gives g- gives us somewhat of a voice, although I don't know.
Just because they have a consultation doesn't mean they're doing [00:41:00] anything more than giving lip service to my thoughts on which categories and where the priorities should be. But parties wanna stay in power, and lobbying and industries that are organized and that can make the pitch and have the data to, to prove that they really should be prioritized as categories that are in demand, they're gonna love the category-based system and this expansion of this system.
So public consultations, you can see, are a requirement, and we've got... If you look at the little slide deck that we've included, they're required before a category is set. And the provinces, theoretically industries, unions, employers, worker settlement organizations, even us to some extent, they open it up for public consultation.
And then the minister, step two, establishes those categories, and with the economic goal u- usually behind the category must be set out in the instructions. So we can see that in past cate- the creation of past category-based draws. And then finally, the [00:42:00] annual report that is sent to Parliament. Each year, that minister, the minister must table the report and lists the categories established, the selection criterion process, the economic goal behind each, and the number of invitations issued per category, and it's genuinely an accountability loop.
And it's public, so that's great. But how they establish the CRS scores and things like that, whew, that's a different, that's a different beast. And yeah, so basically the punchline is that the points are set with the least oversight, the categories, which is the rising selection lever with the most. And so I guess we'll just see how it plays out, and take your opportunities.
When the consultation period comes around, make your pitch. I think they do look at these things, and if you make a good pitch why your industry, if you're an employer, is one that's being overlooked, like, you have to be proactive. So industries and businesses have to be that way, or they're just not gonna have- they're just gonna be left in the dark.
Okay, Alicia, maybe we can just chat a little bit [00:43:00] about where people need to put their energy, and we can focus from there. So I think you're right, Mark, in terms of where can industries and nonprofit organizations and professional associations have some sort of meaningful input. I think you're right, it is on the category-based selection draws that happen on a yearly basis.
So that is something where if you care and you want to make sure that Canada is picking the right winners and losers in terms of National Occupation Classification codes, then get involved, just like Mark said, on those category-based consultations. They happen every year. You can go to IRCC's website, you can get on their list, they'll send you emails, and you have a deadline within which to submit your feedback.
So that's important. In terms of one of the things to think about if you are really confused about what's going on in express entry, remember that you cannot be eligible for a category-based draw unless you meet the basic eligibility under either the existing [00:44:00] system or the new system. So that's where if you are really concerned about what's happening with the merger of the programs, then they did have feedback.
It's closed now, so you'll have to see what happens in terms of how they implement these regulatory changes. What you really can't give a lot of input on are the CRS changes, and those you're just gonna have to prepare for so that you've got contingency plans and you can say, "All right, here are the ways that I can pivot and I can be prepared in case any of these scenarios happen with CRS."
All right, so everyone, the question, which track does my future actually ride on? This lower-the merger one or the CRS changes that could land tomorrow? Or maybe your focus is entirely on the categories, and basically those are... that's a decision you're gonna have to make. If you're not sure, that's what we deal with our [00:45:00] clients all the time.
Before any of these fast tracks start to move and before the categories start to adjust each year, we always have detailed discussions with our clients regarding how to best prepare. And let's face it, Alicia, sometimes when you think you've got a plan in place and you're waiting on something that's a year out or two years out, even the best laid plans can maybe not work out for you.
So one of the best strategies that we give our clients is just to try to make decisions that keep as many doors open as possible. If you know that you're working in a low-wage position now at a fast food franchise, understand, if you're not getting an ITA right now with where you're at, it is most definitely not gonna be more advantageous for you when these changes roll out.
So you may have to make some tough decisions. Look for jobs that are in better areas. But ultimately, it's going to be a high-wage occupation winner that is-- that's who's gonna be the [00:46:00] new, the new young graduate from Canadian institution with a year of skilled work experience. So we'll see how it works out.
With any of these episodes, yeah, don't hesitate to slide over to our website holthelaw.com/consultation is where, uh, where you can find that information. Coming up next, everybody, episode five is inside the consultation. Now, we've really done a lot to try to share and provide insight, but episode five is we're gonna, we're gonna go into detail about what I covered in that presentation with Jonathan Josipov.
We're gonna pull back a few more little things that maybe we hadn't talked about before. It's more first-hand intelligence, I guess you could say. And so stay tuned for episode five, inside the consultation, and it could be really described as being inside the CBA national presentation as well, although there's lots of overlap with it.
Any final words, Alicia? I think the last thing I'd like to say is be strategic. It's no longer a landscape where you can just [00:47:00] float along or pick any path and hope that you'll end up with PR. It's really a matter of being really thoughtful about what you're doing, why you're doing it, and where you want it to take you.
So make sure to stay tuned. Do the homework. I know a lot of you are working so hard, especially with language and teaching yourself French, among other things, and managing multiple jobs and kids and families. But people who are doing the work and putting in the time are getting those results. Yeah. No longer can you just submit a profile, sit back, and wait for your turn.
The reality is your turn may never come, and those who are strategic, those who plan, are going to be the ones that get the ITAs. All right, everyone. Thanks for tuning in. See you next, I guess it would be next episode five. Take care.
Thank you for listening to the Canadian Immigration Podcast, your trusted source for information on Canadian immigration law, policy, and practice. If you would like to [00:48:00] book a legal consultation, please visit www.holthelaw.com. You can also find lots more helpful information on our Canadian Immigration Institute YouTube channel, where you can join Mark on one of his many Canadian Immigration live Q&As.
See you soon, and all the best as you navigate this crazy world we call Canadian immigration.
