Ecamm Recording on 2026-06-30 at 12.01.23
===
[00:00:00] For 10 years, the most valuable thing you could put on an express entry profile was a job offer from a Canadian employer. In 2015, it was worth 600 points out of 1,200, half the maximum score in a single line. A job offer wasn't an advantage, it was almost a guaranteed ticket to Canada, and today, that same job offer is worth exactly zero.
The government switched it off completely. So here's tonight's problem: Why would we spend a whole episode on a factor worth nothing? Because it's coming back. Yeah, it's coming back, but not the way it left. Absolutely. So this is how it's coming back is probably the most important decision in the entire Express Entry reform for more people than any change we've covered so far.
And Alicia, we have to be honest about [00:01:00] why it got switched off, because almost nobody will say this plainly. And I guess technically the government has a little bit. You know, they've hinted at what the issue was, but I don't think really they've exposed the full scope of it. Um, the reality is it wasn't because the job offers didn't work or, you know, the design behind it was flawed.
It was switched off because a black market grew up around them, and, you know, people buying and selling job offers. We've seen newspaper reports. You know, the government, they understand what, what was happening. And, uh, you know, they were using these LMIAs, like, essentially like a commodity. That's not a loophole.
That is fraud. It's illegal. And it got bad enough that it was poisoning the whole system. Absolutely. So here's where we're going for this episode. We're going to say, one, how the most powerful factor, the job offer in Express Entry, went from a guarantee basically to an invitation to apply [00:02:00] to worth nothing, and why fraud drove that process.
Two, we're gonna talk about today what's coming back. So under this new job offer, who is it rewarding? And here's the part that's going to surprise people, and disappoint some people, who this new job offer bonus point might quietly leave out. And then three, the question that's underneath all of this: How does IRCC actually bring back a job offer without letting the fraud back in with it?
So by the end of this episode, you'll know the difference between the kind of job offer that is going to help you towards a future in Canada and the type of false job offer that is going to get people in serious trouble. Yeah. You know, it's interesting, Alicia, when we look back at how this all played out.
Back in 2015, and we've talked about this a little bit in the past, 600 points. So like we talked about, if there's 1,200 maximum points, if you had an [00:03:00] LMIA-based skilled work permit, at the time it was, uh, NOC B or higher, now a tier three and higher, you got 600 points, and it was a slam dunk. You would absolutely get, um, y- you know, you would, you would receive an invitation to apply.
And now after, you know, March twenty-fifth two thousand twenty-five, when they switch it off, now there's absolutely no connection to it. So there's no CRS points being awarded. So going from what I guess we would call a golden ticket to being switched off, you know, it's interesting to see just how it's played out.
And even the weight, Alicia, of, um, these job offer points, like the number of people who received ITAs who had a job offer has slowly been decreasing. And this is another thing that's just so interesting because it wasn't like when they made the decision to turn it off that it was, you know, a large number of individuals who were receiving ITAs that now all of a sudden, you know, it was all built on fraud, and it was disrupting the [00:04:00] whole system.
Um, you know, don't get me wrong, like the fraud was an issue, and we shouldn't tolerate any of it. But in twenty fifteen, there were around seventy-two percent is what the figures tell us, individuals that received ITAs were, uh, had LMIA-based job offers or job offers with a, a company where they'd met the other third prong of that, uh, arranged offer, um, regime, which basically said if you'd been working for in a skilled position on an employer-specific work permit for at least a year for that employer, then you could also claim the points for job offers.
So in twenty fifteen, seventy-two percent. But the problem was, because of age and other factors, the CEOs and executives weren't getting drawn. And who was getting drawn was all the food service supervisors who had NOC B positions and working on LMIAs, and, uh, they're the ones that absorbed many of those initial ITAs.
And theirs was a, it was a slam dunk kinda process. But the executives and senior managers were kinda left out. So then [00:05:00] they made changes and adjustments so that the, that LMIA wasn't worth six hundred points anymore. It was worth just fifty unless you were a senior manager. So in twenty sixteen, I think it was, they, they made that, uh, that modification in November, and they gave two hundred points to senior managers so that they would get that bump up just enough to get their ITAs.
But it was still only about thirty-two percent of people that were in this range where they were getting ITAs. And then flash forward now, of course, to last year, little over a year now, March twenty-fifth two thousand twenty-five, when they basically repealed, uh, Section twenty, twenty-nine one of the ministerial instructions and removed the, the points completely, uh, from the comprehensive ranking system.
And so, and even at that time, Alicia, like you look through the, the figures, by twenty eighteen, they were already down to about ten percent. And when you think about it, how the whole express entry system has evolved, it really became this [00:06:00] pathway for people to come through a temporary status, gain education, work experience, and then that became the dominating factor that was driving the ship.
Um, and those, and there were times, Alicia, through that period where It was just hard to get an LMIA, you know? And I think in leading up to like 2016, 2017, 2018, the Temporary Foreign Worker Program was really, you know, it was really kind of locked down. It wasn't as open as it was during the pandemic days.
And so just by very- its very nature, the total number of, of ITAs that were supported by job o- job offers were, uh, were, were dropping. But, you know, we know that the reason, one of the main reasons, and a significant reason with this most recent cut was, was fraud. So we- Yeah ... we have different views on this, but what, what are your thoughts on it, Alicia?
This fraud that broke it all. Yeah. And so I agree that fraud is the [00:07:00] reason why they took away the job offer points. Um, for sure it was a problem with LMIAs, especially those new LMIAs, just like you referred to, Mark, and one of the things that people are constantly confused about is what counts as a job offer, because IRCC is usu- using very specific language when they talk about job offers.
So yes, we've got job offers, but that's a legal definition. We'll get into that later. So it was fraud. There was fraud that was being perpetrated, especially for those new LMIAs, where they were just manufactured jobs. It was something that people were literally paying for in a fraudulent manner in order to be able to try to show that they should get these extra points under their express entry profile.
So the problem is, is that for an LMIA, ESDC has to sign off and say, "Yes, this employer actually needs somebody. It's a genuine position, and they've actually [00:08:00] tried to canvas the labor market, and there aren't Canadians to fill this role." And that was the key to most, or one of the keys to being able to claim arranged employment points.
So what happened, of course, was that bad actors, people got in and said, "Okay, well, we're just going to run these fake advertisements. We're not going to actually hire any Canadians for this role. We're gonna say we can't find Canadians." We're going to then say, "Oh, well, here's a..." Well, ESDC had to issue a real LMIA in most cases, but once that LMIA was issued, then this intermediary or this unauthorized agent or somebody who is perpetrating the fraud would go to a foreign national, and they would sell it, like completely illegal.
They would sell the ability to have a LMIA-backed, um, job offer, and the person would have to submit their work permit application, and then they could turn around and create their express entry profile and say, "Yep, [00:09:00] everything's fine. I've got everything I need to claim job offer points." And we've heard stories.
People were paying $30,000 for a job offer, an LMIA-supported job offer, and this was 100% fraud. And I think, Alicia, um, the record for me was about 70,000, I remember. I had someone who book a consult with me who had admitted to paying $70,000 for her job offer. In that case, she didn't even need to show up for work.
You know, they basically created the pay slips and pay stubs. They even filed the remittances. You know, they paid her her wage, and then in exchange, she, you know, handed over cash or through over some other means $70,000. And, uh, and so when you look at how this has all played out over the years, you know, that, that's kind of the thing that's been driving it.
And, um, one of the things people ask, "Well, why? Why would someone pay that much money?" If it's just 50 points, and it's not 600 that [00:10:00] guarantees, uh, that you're gonna get an ITA, then why would you pay the money? Well, the reality is things became so competitive that even with the highest human capital a person could have, you know, even if you had a master's degree, you were 29 years old, you had English at a CLB Level 9, right?
And you, excuse me, you had your, your work experience in Canada, your one year of work experience, you were sitting under 500 points. Like, you were at, at... You know, the scores that you had were probably in the 470s, which normally would be very competitive. Um, and, uh, and because the scores were so high because they stopped issuing, uh, so many general j- you know, general ITAs, um, that extra 50 points was a massive game changer, and it pushed people ahead of other people, um, just enough to be able to get their invitations to apply.
So whenever we have a market like we see here in, you know, the gateway was there, then the market, you know, whenever there's an opportunity and [00:11:00] there's desperation from people, then these shady figures crawl out of the woodwork and, and it's not just intermediaries. You know, employers, think about it, Alicia.
If you've got a, a fast food franchise, and I knew some, some even here in Lethbridge, um, the majority of the workers all had paid for their job offers. And, uh, and so you can imagine how well your business is gonna do if you have no labor costs, and it literally creates an economic advantage for the bad employers, and they have the ability to affect the, the employers who are trying to, to run legitimate businesses.
They, they literally run them out of business. And so, yeah, it's a, it's a crime. Yeah. It's so unfortunate. Um, and the real question is, you know, it's, it's not a question of the job offer itself. There's many employers out there who have really wanted to hire foreign workers [00:12:00] who've been working really hard for their company.
They've legitimately recruited, could not find Canadians. They've got niche or very specific needs for the skillset that they require for the position. And those people are the people who are getting punished because now of course we know that all the CRS points are gone. And I will note too that even though the CRS points are gone, take a look, we'll link in the show notes to my article on our website on our blog, but I've written extensively about this, can I claim a job offer in my express entry application?
Because even when they took away the CRS points, that offer of arranged employment is still important for people who are trying to qualify under FSW because it still does give you selection factor pass mark points, and it still does take away the requirement to actually have to prove settlement funds.
So there are still some advantages for people who currently can show that they do have a valid offer of arranged employment. Yeah You know, there is one area, like Alicia and I, we talk at, we talk about this at length. [00:13:00] And, you know, over the years, I've just become so frustrated, so fed up, because the individuals themselves, rarely will they come forward because they're a part of the fraud.
And I do have compassion for people who, you know, for whatever reason, they just, you know, they, they're-- sometimes they're duped, sometimes they're exploited. I totally get that. Um, but anyone who has, you know, is willfully trying to subvert the proper, you know, the proper procedures, they're trying to gain an advantage through dishonesty, I just have no patience for them.
And I've, uh, over the years, I've seen too that when the enforcement and the punishment that are laid down, you know, are, are just nonexistent, where there isn't an, you know, this disincentive because people just aren't afraid to break the law 'cause they know the consequences are not really gonna be a big deal, well, it just emboldens people.
And so I know I've, I've been very outspoken in the past and, and, uh, you know, as far as I'm concerned, if someone is a Canadian [00:14:00] citizen and they're doing, you know, they're, they're, you know, charging fifty thousand dollars and, you know, to workers for job offers, and they're fully engaged in it, I think they should ha- they should see jail time.
Not only should their business be shut down because it's destroying the market, but they should be thrown in jail. And if someone's a permanent resident or a foreign national involved in it, I think they should be removed. They should have PR stripped and deported. You know, and I know that's super harsh, but my view is if the, you know, if these individuals know that these are the consequences that happen and the government comes down hard, I can tell you they're gonna have a second sober thought about whether or not they want to proceed down this path.
And for me, it hasn't been that there was anything wrong with the process. The, the Temporary Foreign Worker Program was designed for employers, you know, who are honest to basically attest to, to what happened. And, you know, when you have a respect for the rule of law and there's, uh, people have a genuine Um, you know, uh, like integrity, I guess is the best way to describe [00:15:00] it, real integrity.
You know, they're gonna answer the questions truthfully, and if there are Canadians that are available to fill the job, well, then they would, you know, then that would end the LMIA process. But over time, things have just changed this market. And so when I look at how are they gonna bring back and what are they gonna do and w- you know, what are these job offers gonna look like?
How are they gonna do things differently? To me, it's not the system that's broken, it's the enforcement that's broken. And yeah, I know it's, you know, my, my, my view is just make the downside of doing it catastroph- catastrophic for people, and they'll have a, a second thought on whether or not they wanna do it.
You know, it's the cost of literally losing your business if you enter into these shady things. So I, I know you've got- Yeah ... different, different views on this, Alicia, a little bit. Well, I mean, I don't disagree that enforcement has been too weak, right? I think that definitely now we have the blacklist. We have ESDC publishing employers who are not able to even participate in the LMIA program, who have to pay substantial fines.
Um, we have [00:16:00] seen some cases where employers are actually being sent, like in a criminal case, sent to jail for schemes involving things like selling LMIAs and fraud. So that is, that needs to be encouraged, and that needs to continue, and that needs to be, um, there needs to be dollars and man-hours, woman-hours that are put towards enforcement, for sure.
Mm-hmm. But by the same token, when we look at the scope and kind of who is the mastermind of this, like the people who are selling hundreds of fake LMIAs, and then the companies that are exploiting that in order to literally not pay their employees. They're getting paid by their employees to have them work really difficult jobs, basically in poor conditions.
Sometimes they actually take these people's passports, and they feel like they have no options. Um, so then we had to have vulnerable worker work permits that come up because of this, and this is the thing, you know, to a certain extent, it's important to [00:17:00] make sure that we distinguish between the vulnerable workers and the people who are running a scheme and getting all the profit from that scheme.
So protect the people who were duped, who were participating in this and didn't understand what was going on. Of course, the law presumes you to understand and to know better. Um, but find some way to be able to have proportionality. So yes, there are definite repercussions and there are fines and there are loss of work permits and things like that, but have some sort of way of still protecting people who are actually victims.
Yeah. And that's fair, Alicia. It is. All right. So we know from understanding that it's coming back, and so the question becomes if these, if and when these job offers return, you know, w- it looks to me like they're going to be more narrow, they're more hardened, you know, redistributed to people who in many cases maybe need it the least.
But [00:18:00] Yeah. Why? Why, why, why do you think IRCC still finds these job offers this magical tool for assessing, um, the success of, of, of individuals to, to settle and, um, just really benefit our economy? Yeah. And this comes down to studies. It comes down to data. It comes down to different ways of analyzing what has happened with landing so far.
And so IRCC has taken a look and they have said, "Okay, well, we're gonna look at the median wages, um, weekly wages in 2021 by the job offer, and we're going to compare that to the percentage difference in the employment earnings by 2022 for people who are temporary residents relative to people who didn't have temporary resident earnings."
And they found, oh, wait a minute, people who had a no job offer, you know, [00:19:00] 1,178 median weekly earnings. But people who had a job offer had significantly or at least appreciably higher, 1,686 per week. But then here's where things really got very stark, where you had a job offer for a senior management position.
So now instead of any old job offer, you now had a senior management job offer, and then the weekly wages jumped to 3,616. And this is also something that immigration lawyers have been telling the government as well. It is very, very difficult for CEOs, for senior level managers to actually get invitations to apply under express entry because the, the age points are absolutely punishing, right?
And there was no separate category until just recently. We now know, of course, that there is a new category. We've had one senior manager draw so far, but that's it. And so IRCC took a look at this and they said, "Well, wait a [00:20:00] minute. We want to rewar- reward strong economic performance. What is an indicator of strong economic performance?
Oh, it's having a job offer, but it's specifically having a job offer in a high-wage occupation." Yeah. And when you look at this, Alicia, like just, just think about it. If you're outside of Canada, and, and often this is really where the rubber hits the road, because if people have jobs, they're already settled, they're working in Canada, regardless of the position, like people make things work.
Like I just had a, uh, I just did he- help this morning with one of our clients who w- who filed his citizenship application. I'd helped him, you know, over three years ago to get his permanent residence. Now he was eligible for citizenship, and he's been scratching and clawing. He had a really good job in tech, and then got, you know, he got laid off, and he's been bouncing around doing food service, doing a bunch of other things, you know, working multiple jobs, you know, to make ends meet.
And, uh, and he's, he's, he struggled, but he's contributing. He's working, right? Um, and [00:21:00] so that's a different kind of equation. But if you look at the foundation for the job offer and the history behind it, often our permanent residents were immigrating from abroad. And when you came and settled in Canada, if you didn't have a job offer, you have to have settlement funds to show that you can support yourself while you're waiting to get jo- a job and get settled.
So it, it makes sense that when people first land, if they don't have a job offer, they're not gonna be earning much because initially they're gonna take, you know, these, uh, they're defined as, um, survival jobs to get on their feet and then work their way into their occupations and their professions. And those who did not have Canadian education were at a disadvantage, which is so ironic with how they're now flipping away from that, like we've had in our previous, um, episodes.
But it's not surprising that someone who has a job offer in a senior management position, that they're gonna earn three times the no-offer group. Like that's- you don't need a study to, to, you know, or, or statistics to [00:22:00] show that. You can just anec- anecdotally, it just makes sense. And so, um, you know, but the question is, how are they gonna do it in a way, Alicia, that, that protects the integrity of this whole system?
How are they gonna do it in a way that doesn't just cause them to basically flip back to where they were before? And so from what I can see, like I talked about before, it looks like it will be more narrowed and hardened. What are your thoughts? Mm-hmm. And this is where, you know, we really don't know yet exactly what IRCC is going to do.
So we're looking at, all right, what are the permutations and combinations of the possibilities? How are they gonna potentially roll this out? What they've said in their presentations so far is that they are for sure bringing in this new high-wage occupation factor. There are two ways or one of two ways or both of these ways that they could roll it out.
So they could say, "Okay, we have Canadian work experience, and we're gonna give [00:23:00] you base points based on how many years. So if you don't have any years of Canadian work experience, it's gonna be zero. But if you have one year, maybe we'll give you, I don't know, 40 points. If you've got two years, you know, 53."
So same like we have under our con- current Canadian high-wage or high-skilled work experience factors. So you have your points for your Canadian high-skilled work. Let's layer on a boost based on whether you have 1.3 times, 1.5 times, or two times the median in terms of a high-wage occupation NOC. Right? So basically, Canadian work experience plus this high-wage occupation NOC code.
So not you are personally getting paid way higher than most people, but in general, that National Occupation Classification code that you're in is 1.3 or 1.5 or two times the median. The other way they've said, so they've said or, so [00:24:00] maybe it's and/or, or maybe it's or. They're only gonna do- Yeah ... one or the other.
We don't know. The other one is a job offer, and for this one they said, okay, it has to be a job offer in a high-wage occupation. So the NOC code itself has to be a high-wage occupation, and then you have to have a job offer. And this is where we just don't know exactly what they're going to- Yeah ... define as a job offer because it gets super complex.
They have said a PR LMIA, and if they mean an LMIA to support permanent residency, that is complete nonsense. Yeah. Anybody who has tried to do an LMIA to support PR, the processing times are like a year at best. It is complete nonsense. But if they mean an LMIA, just like it is under the current, uh, regulations for qualifying offers, so you have a valid LMIA, a new LMIA or an existing LMIA, or they're looking at an exemption to having to have an LMIA.
So we know that under the current rules, just [00:25:00] like you said, Mark, if you're on a closed employer-specific work permit under an IMP and you've worked in that job for a year and you have a forward-facing job offer, then you can claim the points. What IRCC has projected is that they've said PR LMIAs. I hope they don't mean that.
I really hope that was a typo. But let's say LMIAs, and then they said there might be an exemption for LMIA, LMIA exemptions, so, uh, international mobility closed work permits. They're considering if you've been working for the same employer for at least six months, but it has to be qualifying Canadian work experience.
So it has to be high skilled, it cannot be self-employment, and all the strictures of qualifying Canadian work experience still apply. Yeah. And you know, Alicia, like I, I, I get it. The more Um, the more components we can bake into the assessment of what's a genuine job offer, the better. [00:26:00] Like it's, if, if it's just a letter, oh yeah, that's easy to fake.
If y- if all we required was a letter from a, uh, you know, from an employer, then, you know, it would just be begging for people to, you know, to, to submit fraudulent letters. Um, but each little layer that we add on, okay, now you need a labor market impact assessment. Well, theoretically, if a person is, um, is applying and showing and demonstrating there's no Canadians or permanent residents to do the job, they can show their advertisements, they can show the adverti- you know, the responses that they've received.
You know, um, ESDC actually goes to their place of business, vets that it's a real place. You know, they look to see if the company is registered in the corporate registry. Um, and then as you continue to go down, if an individual actually is working for the business, has that track record, they have pay slips, pay stubs, which once again, those can be faked, but they have those.
But they also have their T4s that were issued. Their employment is verified with [00:27:00] CRA. You know, all of those levels of, of checks and, you know, just to, to make sure that, that things are legitimate. They can even do all of those things correctly, Alicia, and in the example of my $80,000, $70,000, um, you know, that fake job, you know, the individual never showed up at work.
They never set foot in the, the, the, the pr- you know, the operation But yet they were issued all of those things that immigration would be looking for, and, uh, on paper to prove that the job really took place. And you think about it, okay, well, you've got a job. You're, you're withholding and remitting taxes to the government for this individual who's not even working in the position, but at the source of it, it's all been paid for by the worker.
Like, in my mind, like it's still there. The only difference is you have an officer who actually leaves their desk, gets in their vehicle, drives over, and talks to the [00:28:00] individual while they're at work with an unscheduled site visit. You know? That- in my mind, that's a step that, that if you're gonna go back down that path, you almost have to do it if you truly want to assure or give enough of a incentive that people know it could happen at any time to dissuade these kinds of fake scenarios.
So it's, it's, uh, like the government just has to- if they wanna play in this game, if they wanna go down this path, if they wanna use this as a factor, then 100% they have to do site visits. I don't know how else they would be able to verify unless they're actually there and they can see with their own eyes, because so much can be manipulated.
I, I think, Alicia, even with the LMIAs themselves, and this is a different path, for years, I would have individuals come to me and tell me that their employers weren't paying them what the LMIA said that they were supposed to pay them, and they'd show me pay slips with this penciled-in number that was the amount of money that [00:29:00] individual had to pay back the employer because they'd only agreed to pay them $10 an hour versus the minimum wage of 15.
And, uh, obviously the payroll records, everything shows that the money was paid to the individual, but there's no record of cash being returned back to the employer through some side corrupt deal. And so wherever there's an incentive, wherever people are so just-
Like, they, they, they're so desperate to obtain Canadian permanent resident status, there's gonna be those that are looking to exploit them, and that's once again where I come down on just this incentive of, you know, going after those bad actors hard. And I'm all over going after employers as much as anything, 'cause if you have an employer who's willing to do it and you literally shut their business down, and you say, "No, you can't get a business license in our community anymore because you've broken this law," and you don't accept, "Oh, I didn't know," blah, blah, blah, and there's a history, like in my mind, I think that would have a huge, a, a huge positive infect on, uh, impact on bringing integrity back to the system.
So [00:30:00] And, and here's where it's a double-edged sword, Mark, because when they're redesigning these new job offers, they are only going to do it for high-wage occupations. And this is now the benefit because it should hopefully weed out some fraud. It is harder to fake high-wage occupations. It is harder to pretend to pay somebody $50 an hour and then do all sorts of backroom accounting on it.
Um, and it's the occupation itself, some of them are regulated occupations. A lot of them are professional engineers or doctors or certain occupations that require licensing. And so because they are now requiring this high-wage occupation factor, it is hopefully going to cut down on the fraud. But let's take a look at who this is going to affect.
So we can go back and take a look at our four pretend profiles, our four people- Yeah ... that we've been going through, and these are actually literally from IRCC's [00:31:00] slides as example profiles. So we've got Eric, we've got Charlotte, we've got Amal, and we've got Ken. And this is where the problem comes to light.
So Eric, in IRCC's scenario, is actually going to win under the new system. So under- Yeah ... express entry reforms, Eric's got a job offer. He's got a high-wage occupation NOC, and even though he doesn't have Canadian experience. So this is really interesting to me because it means- Yeah ... that- If they're using this example, they're not just gonna use the Canadian work experience with the high-wage occupation factor.
It means they would use a job offer as an alternative way of getting these high-wage occupation factor points. Yeah. Just, I don't know. Like Alicia, I, I think about the whole world of startup visas, okay? People have a lot of money overseas that are willing to drop whatever hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to have a pathway to permanent residence in Canada.
We've seen it through the startup [00:32:00] visa program, where the investments and things that are held out are, are hundreds of thousands of dollars. And, and then you have individuals that are coming in and they're accepting positions as senior managerial or executive level positions, whatever it might be that gets into that top range for the high-wage job offers.
Um, you know, are they gonna be willing to pay $200,000 now instead of the, the 30 or 40 that the food service supervisors pay? I think they would be, Alicia. So if we're going to an LMIA that's just a permanent LMIA, which you and I, regardless of the one-year processing times, they can, they can figure that out in a second by assigning 10 more officers to process.
It's how do you verify? How do you verify that that person is not just buying their way into Canada and never has any intention of working? You'll remember- Yeah ... before Alicia, the entrepreneur program, the federal entrepreneur required that the person actually come work in the business, and they didn't...
Their, their permanent residence wasn't actually crystallized until there was kind of a, a [00:33:00] vetting process to see what they actually did when they came. But then the government just said, "Oh, this is just a nightmare to try to manage it, and we just... It's just a headache." Man, I wish if people weren't- were coming through this process like the entrepreneur program, well, then charge them $500,000 as the application fee.
Like you can hire a, a team of people to, to verify, but You know, I'm not the one making these decisions, Alicia, so. So coming back, coming back to Eric, coming back to Amal, coming back to Charlotte and Ken. What we don't know is, okay, if Eric's eligible for these new high-wage occupation factor and has never worked in Canada, then they must be using some sort of job offer.
The next person is Amal, and Amal is our doctor, and she is set. She has got everything going for her. She's in a National Occupation Classification code where we know there's targeted healthcare draws. We just had a targeted healthcare draw. Um, we know that she's going to get a massive boost because of the high-wage occupation factor, and she [00:34:00] already has Canadian work experience, so she's in like Flynn.
She's good. Ken, the interesting thing is that job offers, depending on the NOC, would even work for the trades. So theoretically it could work, but that job offer has to be in some sort of NOC that is going to qualify for that high-wage occupation factor boost, the 1.3, the 1.5, or the, or the 2.0. So it really depends.
Um, in that scenario, it, it's not really going to help Ken. But again, who is most affected by this? Who is quietly losing out? Who are we not going to have in Canada through these legitimate job offers? And that is Charlotte, and that it's anybody like Charlotte, and it's going to miss out on many of the helping occupations and vocations where society does not reward people with high wages.
And so if we take a look at some of the LPNs, if we take a [00:35:00] look at personal support workers, if we are looking at all those occupations that have proved to be a necessity when things go sideways, it is these people who are not gonna benefit at all from a high-wage occupation factor lift. And if IRCC is saying that the points lift will be significant, then it's really going to change the game.
Yeah. So the old offer rewarded almost anyone, I guess, who could get one. The new one rewards the people who already really are already highly paid. So it's almost- Yeah ... kind of the mirror image, right? And I guess that's exactly where we, where we push back. Exactly. And so I think you and I both agree, Mark, we've got to stop fraud.
A real offer is the only offer of employment that should count under the old system or under the new system. But here's the problem, the high wage filter is probably not the right [00:36:00] tool because it's not gonna result in higher employment for the groups of people, the sectors of people that Canada needs with our aging population and with basically a zero birth rate or a, a net birth rate that is not increasing.
So we've taken a look at what's happened with population figures in Canada, and it's very interesting. We've gotten what we wished for, but is that actually what is going to serve us going forward for the future? So healthcare workers, trades, early childhood education, those are all sectors that we are short on, we know that we're short on, and those people specifically are going to suffer because of this disproportionate lift on a high wage occupation factor boost.
Yep. So we would really want to fix the scrutiny, but we would want to make sure that if they are going to bring back job offers, that they do it for legitimate job offers for all the sectors where we face chronic, [00:37:00] chronic shortages in labor. Yeah, I agree, Alicia. And there's a whole reason we have occupations in demand.
You know, there's a whole reason why we have the category-based draws. So use it as a factor, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, like I usually say. All right. Let's talk about something that I guess is also very much real and we've alluded to throughout all of our previous episodes. When is this actually going to land?
Now, there's a lot of indication that it could happen very quickly, but that's not necessarily how this plays out. There's a lot of factors that are determined, you know, the timing of these changes. And, you know, the changes are, it's a big deal for people because like we've talked about before, there's two layers, and they're kind of moving at different speeds.
We have, you know, we used the clock example in the past with the ministerial instruction changes with the, the actual comprehensive ranking criteria. They could... You know, that's kind of the fast hand on, on the clock. It can move a lot [00:38:00] faster. But if there's regulatory changes that need to happen, then, then these are things that are gonna just take more time.
There's no, there's no doubt about it. Um, in fact, the qualifying, you know, offer of arranged employment, it still exists in the ministerial instructions. What they, like we alluded to, what they stripped away was the Section 29 Sub 1 that awarded points for it. So if they wanted to revert back and figure, you know, that they figure they've now got systems in place to protect fraud, all they'd need to do is just put back sub- subsection one there and, you know, and then they'd be off and running.
Um, and then ultimately make a decision on how the points within the CRS criteria, they could create things that way. So in that s- in those circumstances, that could be a fast, you know, a fast process. Um, but like you've talked about a lot over the, over the last few episodes, um, there's also the slower, you know, the slower process if they have to make regulatory changes, right?
Mm-hmm. [00:39:00] And again, go take a look at my article because this is super complex. So we have the ministerial instructions. We've got, just like you said, Mark, 29 sub one that gives the points, 21-29 sub two that actually talks about a qualifying offer of arranged employment. That is a defined term. What they do in that defined term in the ministerial instructions is they refer back to the regulations, and this is where they are looking at Regulation 82 when we're talking about federal skilled workers, um, and also we're looking at federal skilled trades under 87.2 sub 3 sub D.
And then we also have this definition being referred to because it's referred to in the MIs. And so basically they say, "Okay, well, if we are going to have to change the regulations, that will for sure require publication." And so it really depends on how they couple or, or decouple or, or not choose to link the definition of arranged [00:40:00] employment.
So qualifying offer of arranged employments in the MIs, easily changed. Arranged employment is in the regs, not easily changed. That's where you have the three ways. You've got the LMIA, new LMIA, existing LMIA, or an LMIA exemption, closed work permit, have worked for a year plus have a forward-facing job offer.
If they change that, then that definitely is going to take time. But it's possible that they could say, "Well, until we can change that in the short term, maybe we will just use Canadian work experience plus this high-wage occupation factor for like a short-term stopgap measure, and then maybe we'll implement the other section with a job offer later."
Yeah. All right, as we wrap up this episode, let's do as we always do. Let's talk about the right moves that people can make right now. Um, obviously, each of these is circumstance-dependent, and, uh, this is just for general awareness. If you are looking for more spec- [00:41:00] specific strategic advice, don't hesitate to reach out to us.
But these are kind of five steps that we've identified that you can start at least pretty much every one of these before any instruction or draft regulation actually lands. And the first is being sold a job offer or LMIA. Now, for most of you, it's been over a year, so I don't know anyone in their right mind that would pay for one.
But once again, when there's this hint that it's coming, right? And if they say you need a year of work experience plus a job offer supported by an LMIA, I could see people going out there and trying to now peddle these once again. "Hey, this is a high-wage occupation. We've been listening to Mark and Alicia's podcast.
We're gonna offer you this position at $50 an hour. Start working. It'll only cost you $150,000 now because, well, you know, these are more precious." And, uh, so our response to that, you guys, is stop, okay? It scores zero now, but a fake offer [00:42:00] in this type of a position is complete misrepresentation, and it can land you...
Like, usually it hits the workers way harder than any other intermediary or any employer that's involved in these scams. You can be banned from Canada for years, you know, five years at a minimum. But that's just, like, often if you're subject to these things, they'll never issue you, and they'll never approve another visa to come back.
So number one, if, if there's a job offer, you're being sold one or you paid for yours, just stop. It is not worth it. Yeah. Run the other direction. This is not okay. If you're already working in Canada, then make sure that you understand your NOC, right? Make sure you are not trying to artificially shoehorn your way into what you think is going to be a high-wage occupation NOC.
Make sure that it's legitimate, that you are matching your lead statement and the majority or the substantial number of your job duties on the bullet points, and that you and your employer are in agreement that this is actually your position [00:43:00] because they have a robust HR process. There's many other people who work in that position.
There's a hierarchy. We've got org charts. Make sure that you have your T4s, your notices of assessment. You've got, uh, a letter from your employer that confirms what your job duties are. Make sure that you have a contract. Um, this is another big thing, is that sometimes many companies don't have a very solid contract, right?
People are just working on verbal terms. So make sure that you have a solid employment contract, that you have your history of your- what your work permits have been to show that you've f- got valid status for all of the work that you've claimed, and everything has to be legitimate. It has to be real. It has to be genuine.
Yeah. And with all of this push, everyone, are you in a high-wage occupation? Like you've-- have you gone through, looked at the median wage tiers on the job bank? Just you can go back and you can follow our, our previous episodes if you haven't list- listened to them and you just jumped in on this one. But you can go [00:44:00] back and see somewhat speculatively where the thresholds are, at least from what we have been able to decipher from what IRCC has released.
And so if you're not in one of those high-wage positions, but you have an opportunity, um, obviously you need to be very careful with the decisions that you're making. Everything can't just be about a high-wage occupation. It has to be in line with your career path and, you know, and what you want to do. Um, you have to, like Alicia pointed out previously, be able to prove everything.
But in some cases, if opportunities arise, then you may want to reposition yourself. If there's a good employer who's offering you a, you know, a better paying job, well, I think under most circumstances, people would be considered, you know, considering making that move. But the key is that these high wages are going to be a big, big lever going forward, and you just have to be able to document it.
That's the challenge. So confirm your NOC against the median wage tiers on the job bank, and, uh, if there's-- if you find yourself in a lower kind of [00:45:00] threshold, then you may want to consider a change Mm-hmm. And then fourth, go ahead, watch the Gazette, right? So if there is going to be a new definition of arranged employment, it has to be published in the regulations.
So that's something that would probably come out not until 2027. And just like you said, Mark, for people who are in Charlotte's position, right? For people who maybe need to make a change, don't bank on the job offer. And this is maybe where we can give some helpful, um, information, legal information to many, many people.
But if you are in a food supervisor job or something within, um, the hospitality sector and somebody's trying to sell you a job offer, run the other way. Understand that that is A, fraud, and B, never gonna get you points under this new scheme because it is never gonna be a high-wage occupation. So don't ever bank on those jo- [00:46:00] types of job offers getting you these new high-wage occupation factor points.
Focus on what you can do. And so take a look at are you maximizing your language scores? Can you possibly learn French? Because that's probably still an option- Still there ... under category-based. Is there a different category-based occupation that you can work your way towards? Can you go back to school and get some education so that you are working in one of the healthcare sectors that maybe probably requires a license or certification?
So take a look at what you can do. Don't count on job offers as they used to be coming back. Yeah. And remember, once you've burned up your post-grad work permit, everyone, you're not getting another one. So going back and, and getting more education may be a possibility for you, but then any employer that you wish to work for after you graduate would then need to have an LMIA or you'd need to be eligible through a, a different, uh, work permit under the International Mobility Program.
So be aware of that. [00:47:00] Okay. Um- We're basically at the end, Alicia. You know, people have to ask themselves, does your job offer help you under the, you know, these proposed rules? Obviously right now, job offer doesn't do anything for anyone. But under these new proposed rules, what we've laid out today, does it help you?
Does it do nothing or does it put you at risk? And, uh, in the next, as we go forward here, you know, we're, we're here to help and provide more spec- specific strategic advice to individuals who are just trying to sort this out. Um, but it pays for you to think about these things now before the rules change, before there's that move.
And, um, you know, getting a, you know, clear on the type of offer that you may have available to you before this board shifts is gonna mean, is gonna mean everything. Um, if you are looking for a little bit of extra direction, don't hesitate to reach out to us. You can see, uh, on the, the slide deck here, [00:48:00] holthelaw.com/consultation is how you can connect with myself, Igor, Alicia, or Nayeab.
And, uh, and then remember in our upcoming episode, episode nine, it's all about the spousal grid. Oh boy, this is one that, uh, I love to talk about. I hate this thing with a passion more than you could ever imagine. This, the spousal factor as we call it. So stay tuned and you'll hear more about me venting and the positive light that's now at the end of the tunnel.
All right, Alicia, thanks so much for joining today. This was a, a great episode. And any final concluding words for the audience before we, before we drift off? Yeah. Just make sure that you understand what the current rules are on job offers. Make sure that if you are looking at that in the future, that you are careful about structuring something that's legitimate with a solid employer.
All right, everyone. Take care.
