On This Page You Will Find
- Why RBC says Canada’s immigration strategy needs a reset
- How rapid immigration growth created new pressures
- Why frequent policy changes have damaged predictability
- RBC’s concerns about Express Entry category-based selection
- The case for putting greater emphasis on CRS scores and human capital
- Why provinces could play a larger role in targeting labour shortages
- What the debate means for Canada’s economic competitiveness
- How Ottawa could build a smarter long-term immigration strategy
Canada needs to rethink how it selects immigrants if it wants to remain competitive in the global race for talent, according to a major new report from Royal Bank of Canada.
The report argues that Canada’s immigration system has moved through a damaging cycle of rapid expansion followed by equally rapid restrictions. The result has been greater uncertainty for prospective immigrants, international students, employers and educational institutions.
But one of RBC’s most important arguments concerns who Canada selects for permanent residence.
The bank questions the federal government’s increasing use of occupation-based selection through Express Entry. Instead, it argues Canada should put greater emphasis on candidates with strong overall human capital – including education, language ability, work experience and other characteristics associated with long-term economic success.
Under this approach, provincial immigration programs would take greater responsibility for filling specific local and regional labour shortages.
The argument goes to the heart of a major question facing Canada’s immigration system: should Ottawa use Express Entry to select workers for jobs that are in demand today, or prioritize highly adaptable candidates who are more likely to succeed throughout their careers?
Canada Went From Rapid Immigration Growth To Rapid Restrictions
Canada emerged from the COVID-19 pandemic with an aggressive immigration strategy designed to address labour shortages, support economic growth and increase the country’s working-age population.
According to RBC, Canada added approximately three million migrants in the three years after pandemic restrictions ended.
Temporary immigration grew particularly quickly. Temporary residents accounted for less than three per cent of Canada’s population before the pandemic but reached 7.6 per cent in 2024.
That growth contributed to the labour supply and helped employers struggling to recruit workers. But it also coincided with intense pressure on housing, infrastructure and public services.
Ottawa responded by tightening several immigration programs and attempting to reduce the temporary resident population.
The speed of that reversal is central to RBC’s criticism.
Canada needs an immigration system capable of responding to changing economic conditions. But businesses, educational institutions and prospective immigrants also need enough predictability to make long-term decisions.
Constant policy changes risk undermining that confidence.
International Students Have Faced More Than 25 Policy Changes
International education provides one of the clearest examples of Canada’s changing immigration environment.
RBC says international students have experienced more than 25 policy changes in roughly two years.
Ottawa introduced a study permit cap and tightened eligibility for post-graduation work permits, while also making other changes affecting international students and their families.
The policies were intended to restore control over a system that had expanded rapidly.
But the consequences have extended beyond immigration numbers.
RBC says the post-secondary education sector has lost more than 20,000 jobs as international enrolment has fallen.
The experience illustrates the risks of allowing immigration numbers to expand too quickly and then imposing major restrictions over a relatively short period.
Canada needs to avoid repeating that cycle.
Has Canada Weakened Express Entry?
RBC’s analysis raises an even more fundamental question about Express Entry.
Canada introduced Express Entry in 2015 as a system for identifying economic immigration candidates most likely to succeed.
Candidates receive Comprehensive Ranking System scores based on factors including age, education, language ability and work experience.
Historically, candidates with the highest CRS scores stood the strongest chance of receiving Invitations to Apply for permanent residence.
But Ottawa has increasingly used Express Entry to pursue specific labour market and demographic objectives.
Category-based selection allows Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to prioritize candidates with particular characteristics or occupational backgrounds instead of relying predominantly on overall CRS rankings.
That represents a significant shift in immigration philosophy.
Rather than simply asking which candidates have the strongest overall economic profiles, the federal government is increasingly asking which workers Canada needs at a particular moment.
RBC questions whether that is the right approach.
The Case For Selecting The Highest-Scoring Candidates
There is a strong economic argument for prioritizing human capital.
Canada cannot know with certainty which occupations will face shortages five, 10 or 20 years from now.
Technology, automation, artificial intelligence, demographic change and economic shocks can transform labour markets rapidly.
A candidate selected because their occupation faces a shortage today could enter a very different labour market several years later.
Candidates with strong language skills, education and transferable professional experience may be better positioned to adjust.
This is one of the major strengths of a points-based immigration system.
Instead of trying to predict precisely which jobs an economy will need in the future, Canada can select people with characteristics that give them a strong chance of adapting to whatever the economy demands.
That does not mean occupation should play no role in immigration selection.
It means Canada must decide how much weight it should give short-term labour shortages compared with long-term economic potential.
There Is Also A Strong Case For Targeted Express Entry Draws
Ottawa’s approach has advantages too.
Employers across Canada continue to report difficulties recruiting workers in strategically important sectors.
Canada also faces structural challenges associated with an ageing population and shortages in areas such as health care and skilled trades.
Category-based Express Entry selection gives the federal government a tool to direct permanent residence opportunities towards candidates who can potentially address those needs.
The government can also use categories to pursue broader national objectives, including increasing French-speaking immigration outside Quebec.
Targeted selection therefore gives Ottawa greater control over the composition of economic immigration.
The challenge is ensuring that targeting does not come at the expense of overall candidate quality or make Express Entry excessively complicated and unpredictable.
Provinces May Be Better Placed To Identify Labour Shortages
RBC’s alternative would give Canada’s provinces and territories a larger role in occupation-specific immigration.
There is logic behind that argument.
Labour shortages are rarely uniform across Canada.
A worker in high demand in Saskatchewan may face a completely different employment market in Ontario, British Columbia or Nova Scotia.
Provincial nominee programs allow governments closer to local employers and labour markets to identify their own economic priorities.
Under a clearer division of responsibilities, Express Entry could focus more heavily on selecting candidates with the strongest overall human capital, while PNPs could target workers needed in particular occupations and regions.
Such an approach could make the purpose of each immigration program easier to understand.
It could also reduce the federal government’s need to predict occupational shortages across an enormous and economically diverse country.
Express Entry Is At A Crossroads
The debate comes at an important time.
Federal consultations on Canada’s 2027 Express Entry categories closed on September 1.
The government sought views on future selection priorities, including potential approaches involving H-1B visa holders, artificial intelligence workers and researchers.
These discussions show how far Express Entry has evolved from a largely points-driven selection system.
Ottawa increasingly sees Express Entry as a tool that can respond directly to economic priorities.
But every additional category creates another policy choice about which workers Canada needs and which candidates should receive priority.
The danger is that Express Entry gradually becomes a collection of occupational and policy streams rather than a system designed primarily to identify immigrants with the strongest potential for long-term economic success.
Canada Must Compete For The World’s Best Talent
This debate matters because Canada does not operate its immigration system in isolation.
Highly skilled immigrants have choices.
Canada competes with the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and other countries for entrepreneurs, engineers, researchers, health professionals and other highly skilled workers.
Predictability is therefore an economic advantage.
A potential immigrant deciding where to build a career needs confidence that immigration pathways will not change dramatically while they are preparing an application.
Employers making recruitment decisions need similar certainty.
Canada has traditionally benefited from offering highly skilled foreign nationals a relatively clear pathway to permanent residence and eventually citizenship.
If that advantage weakens, talented candidates may simply choose another country.
Canada Needs Stability As Well As Lower Immigration Numbers
Canada has already moved towards lower immigration levels following the rapid growth of the post-pandemic period.
But reducing numbers alone will not solve the weaknesses identified by RBC.
The next stage should focus on improving the quality, predictability and economic effectiveness of Canada’s immigration system.
That means Ottawa should avoid dramatic policy swings wherever possible.
It should establish sustainable immigration levels that take account of Canada’s labour needs as well as housing, infrastructure and public-service capacity.
It should also provide international students, employers and prospective immigrants with clearer long-term rules.
Most importantly, Canada needs to decide what economic immigration is fundamentally designed to achieve.
A Smarter Division Between Express Entry And PNPs
One option would be to create a clearer distinction between federal and provincial economic immigration.
Express Entry could return to putting greater emphasis on CRS scores and the broad human-capital characteristics associated with long-term economic success.
Provincial nominee programs could take greater responsibility for addressing occupation-specific and regional shortages.
Ottawa could still retain limited categories where there is a compelling national interest, such as promoting French-speaking immigration outside Quebec or responding to an exceptional national workforce requirement.
But occupation-specific selection would become the exception rather than the central direction of federal economic immigration.
Such a system could combine Canada’s traditional strength in selecting adaptable skilled immigrants with the provinces’ ability to respond to local labour markets.
Canada Cannot Afford Another Immigration Policy Cycle
The central lesson from Canada’s recent immigration experience is not simply that immigration grew too quickly.
It is that immigration policy needs to be sustainable.
Rapid expansion followed by rapid contraction creates disruption for newcomers, businesses, colleges and universities, provinces and communities.
It can also damage Canada’s reputation among the very people it hopes to attract.
The federal government now has an opportunity to build a more stable system.
Canada should continue using immigration to strengthen its economy, address demographic pressures and attract global talent. But it should do so through a strategy that rewards strong human capital, recognizes regional labour needs and provides greater certainty.
The debate over Express Entry captures that choice.
Canada can increasingly try to predict exactly which occupations it will need and select immigrants accordingly.
Or it can place greater faith in selecting highly skilled, adaptable people and allow provinces to address more immediate local shortages.
The strongest system may combine elements of both.
What Canada cannot afford is another period of rapid expansion, constant rule changes and abrupt corrections.
If the country wants to reclaim its economic edge, immigration policy must become more predictable, more focused and better aligned with Canada’s long-term economic interests.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why does RBC say Canada needs a new immigration strategy?
RBC argues that Canada moved too quickly from rapid immigration expansion to significant restrictions. It says the resulting policy changes have reduced predictability for immigrants, international students, businesses and educational institutions. A more stable strategy would align immigration with Canada’s long-term economic and demographic needs.
What is RBC’s concern about Express Entry category-based selection?
RBC questions whether Ottawa should use Express Entry extensively to select candidates according to specific occupations. It argues that Canada risks placing too much emphasis on immediate labour shortages and too little on the broader human-capital characteristics that can help immigrants succeed over their careers.
Would RBC’s approach mean abandoning targeted immigration?
Not necessarily. A different model could give provincial nominee programs greater responsibility for occupation-specific recruitment because provinces are better positioned to identify local labour shortages. Federal Express Entry selection could then put greater emphasis on CRS scores, human capital and candidates with strong long-term economic potential.
Why is human capital important to Canada’s immigration strategy?
Labour markets change, meaning occupations that face shortages today may not necessarily experience the same demand in future. Selecting immigrants with strong education, language ability, experience and transferable skills can give Canada a workforce better equipped to adapt to technological change and changing economic conditions.
What could change with Express Entry in 2027?
Canada has consulted on its 2027 Express Entry categories, including potential approaches involving H-1B visa holders, artificial intelligence workers and researchers. The decisions will help show whether Ottawa intends to continue expanding targeted selection or place greater emphasis on candidates’ overall CRS scores and human capital.