Law360 Canada (October 7, 2026, 10:34 AM EDT) --
 |
| Sergio R. Karas |
Canada does not lack immigration programs. It lacks a coherent method for deciding which economic immigrants are most likely to meet the country’s long-term needs.
That distinction matters. The 2026-2028 Immigration Levels Plan stabilizes permanent resident admissions at 380,000 annually, with the economic class rising to 64 per cent of admissions by 2027. Yet Canada still faces a projected annual housing-supply gap of 187,000 to 238,000 homes over the next decade, while governments continue to confront pressure on health care, infrastructure and other public services. Admission volumes and selection quality therefore cannot be treated as separate policy exercises. Canada must decide not only how many people to admit, but which applicants are most likely to contribute productively, integrate quickly and succeed over time.
The problem is not that Express Entry has failed. On the contrary, recent Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) research shows that Express Entry principal applicants generally outperform other economic immigrants in employment, income, weekly wages and occupational retention. Language proficiency, education and Canadian work experience remain reliable predictors of success.
The deeper problem is that Canada does not consistently allow that evidence to govern selection. Express Entry now sits inside a fragmented architecture of general draws, program-specific draws, ministerial categories, provincial nominations, temporary-to-permanent initiatives and changing policy priorities. The result is an increasingly complicated system in which a candidate’s prospects may depend as much on the draw Ottawa chooses to hold as on the candidate’s underlying economic potential.
Selection has become less coherent
The Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) was designed to rank candidates using factors associated with long-term economic success: age, education, official-language ability and skilled work experience. That model is not perfect, but it has produced strong results. IRCC reports that Express Entry federal high-skilled principal applicants admitted between 2015 and 2022 had employment rates above 94 per cent and median earnings of approximately $58,000 to $80,000 one to five years after admission.
Category-based selection, introduced in 2023, altered the comparison group. Instead of competing against the entire pool, candidates compete within categories established to advance economic or linguistic objectives. In 2024, category-based rounds accounted for 42,475 invitations — 43 per cent of all Express Entry invitations — with average cutoffs ranging from 409 for French-language proficiency to 491 for science, technology, engineering and mathematics occupations. The average cutoff for general rounds was 536.
Lower cutoffs are not, by themselves, proof of poor selection. A nurse, plumber or bilingual professional may fill a vital need despite having fewer CRS points than a general-round candidate. But category selection carries a governance risk: it permits periodically changing priorities to displace the comparative discipline of the broader ranking system before there is a mature, category-specific record of long-term outcomes.
That risk has grown as categories have proliferated. The 2026 framework includes French-language proficiency, health care and social services, STEM, trades, education and transport, as well as categories for physicians, researchers and senior managers with Canadian experience and certain skilled military recruits. Each may have a defensible policy rationale. Collectively, however, they risk turning Express Entry into a series of preferred corridors rather than a unified competition for durable economic value. They have made the system unpredictable.
Experience matters, but its quality matters more
The strongest recent evidence points toward a more refined selection model. IRCC’s September 2026 research found that pre-admission Canadian earnings are among the most powerful predictors of post-admission employment, wages and occupational retention. Significantly, candidates with very low pre-admission earnings sometimes had poorer outcomes than those with no pre-admission earnings at all. Simply having been in Canada is therefore not enough; the quality of that experience matters.
Statistics Canada reached a related conclusion when examining recent fluctuations in immigrant entry earnings. Changes in the proportion of immigrants with pre-admission Canadian earnings explained most of the sharp decline in entry earnings for the 2022 admission cohort. The evidence supports two-step immigration, but not an indiscriminate preference for anyone holding temporary status. Selection should reward demonstrated economic establishment, not mere physical presence in Canada.
The current CRS only partly reflects that distinction. It provides up to 80 points for Canadian work experience based largely on duration, while job-offer points were removed in March 2025 because of fraud concerns. Yet IRCC’s own review recognizes that high pre-admission earnings and credible job offers can contain valuable information that the current system does not adequately capture. The department is considering points for Canadian employment or job offers in high-wage occupations, while maintaining core points for language, education, age and Canadian experience.
That is the correct direction, provided wages are treated carefully. Individual earnings can reflect geography, hours worked, licensing barriers and other factors unrelated to productivity. Occupational wage benchmarks, verified employment histories and sector-specific medians would be more defensible than a blunt income test.
Provincial selection requires stronger accountability
Provincial Nominee Programs are indispensable to regional economic development, but their performance is uneven. Statistics Canada found that enhanced provincial nominees screened through Express Entry had materially higher earnings than nominees selected through base streams. Enhanced nominees from the 2020-2022 admission cohorts earned an average of $71,300 one year after admission, compared with $53,400 among base nominees. The earnings advantage remained statistically significant after controlling for observable differences.
The lesson is not that provinces should lose their role. It is that provincial responsiveness works best when combined with rigorous human-capital screening.
Ontario’s experience illustrates the problem. The auditor general found that nominees did not always match occupations and skills identified as being in highest demand, that program outcomes were not effectively measured, and that nursing occupations with substantial vacancies represented only a small fraction of nominations. The audit also found that selection had sometimes been driven by ease of processing rather than demonstrated economic impact.
Provincial discretion without common outcome measures produces fragmentation. Federal selection without detailed regional data produces centralization detached from local labour markets. Canada needs a formal federal-provincial framework that combines national human-capital standards with occupation-specific and regional evidence.
Selection cannot end at the invitation
Occupational targeting is also of limited value if selected applicants cannot practise in the occupations for which they were chosen. An educational credential assessment used for immigration purposes does not establish eligibility for professional licensing. Regulated professions remain primarily provincial responsibilities, often exercised through independent regulatory bodies.
The federal government’s 2025 evaluation of the Foreign Credential Recognition Program confirms that jurisdictional differences, varying licensure processes and complex regulatory requirements continue to impede labour-market integration. Among surveyed skilled newcomers, 39 per cent were not employed in work corresponding to their foreign professional credentials. The evaluation called for stronger federal-provincial governance, expanded pre-arrival assistance and accelerated or provisional licensing pathways. However, it may be preferable to require applicants to clear professional licensing hurdles before being able to apply for residency, and even a work permit in some instances.
Selecting a physician, nurse, engineer or tradesperson because the occupation is in demand, without determining whether that person is licensed or realistically licensable, confuses occupational intention with productive capacity. Immigration selection and credential recognition must be linked before admission, not repaired afterward.
A more disciplined model
Canada should pursue five practical reforms.
First, Ottawa should preserve the CRS core — particularly language proficiency, education and high-quality Canadian experience — while reducing or eliminating bonus factors that have weak predictive value. IRCC’s own research found limited associations between short- to medium-term labour-market outcomes and factors such as siblings in Canada, Canadian-study bonuses, French-language bonuses and some spousal characteristics. Some of those factors have resulted in students coming to Canada to pursue easy courses leading to diplomas just to obtain the bonus points for their residency applications.
Second, pre-admission earnings and credible employer demand should be incorporated through verified, occupation-adjusted measures. High-wage employment, sustained work with a compliant employer, and employment in a demonstrably scarce occupation should carry more weight than temporary status alone. Applicants who hold jobs in poorly paid occupations or sectors that have little demand should be eliminated from the Express Entry system.
Third, category-based selection should be subject to published evidence, defined performance indicators, scheduled outcome reviews and sunset dates. Categories should continue only where data demonstrate improved occupational matching, earnings, retention or another clearly stated statutory objective.
Fourth, federal and provincial governments should adopt common performance standards for Provincial Nominee Programs. Allocation decisions should consider employment, earnings, occupational match, regional retention and program integrity — not simply whether a province issued its allotted nominations.
Finally, applicants selected for regulated occupations should receive additional weight for Canadian licensure, provisional eligibility or substantial completion of the licensing process. Where pre-arrival licensing is impossible, selection should be tied to a documented pathway agreed upon with the relevant province or regulator. Also, there should be a list of licensed occupations that are not in demand.
Canada’s immigration system must pursue economic objectives as its fundamental goal. It should not be reduced to an earnings algorithm. But within the economic class, selection must be more than an accumulation of programs and periodically changing priorities. Canada already has evidence showing which factors predict success. The next step is to build a system disciplined enough to use it consistently, to combat fraud and to reduce the incentives to game the system with easy pathways to residency that will not lead to a positive economic outcome for the country.
Sergio R. Karas, principal of Karas Immigration Law Professional Corporation, is a certified specialist in Canadian Citizenship and Immigration Law by the Law Society of Ontario, division chair of the ABA International Law Section, past chair of the Ontario Bar Association Citizenship and Immigration Section, past chair of the International Bar Association Immigration and Nationality Committee, and a fellow of the American Bar Foundation.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, LexisNexis Canada, Law360 Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Richard Skinulis at Richard.Skinulis@lexisnexis.ca or call 437-828-6772.