By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On June 26, Canada amended its Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP) eligibility, removing 178 non-degree programs while adding 119 new fields of study aligned with sectors facing labor shortages. This update brings the total eligible fields of study for PGWPs to 920. The government has also stated that graduates who applied for a study permit before June 25, 2025, will still be eligible for a PGWP if their field of study was on the list when they applied. This is the latest in a series of changes, as last year the IRCC updated the eligibility criteria for PGWPs, and also announced the new 2025 Express Entry categories.
Read the original article here
Canada changes work permit eligibility for international students, and where does that leave us? Well, it seems like there’s a lot of mixed feelings about this, which is understandable given the complexities of the issue. Let’s break down what’s happening and what people are saying about it.
It appears the main focus of the changes involves which fields of study qualify for a Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP). The core of the discussion circles around whether the eligible fields align with genuine labor shortages or if the system has been exploited. Many people are concerned that the changes don’t go far enough and are more about show than substance. The feeling seems to be that the government’s actions haven’t significantly altered the reality on the ground, and that the underlying issues remain. It’s like they’re trying to fix a leak in a dam with a tiny patch.
The concerns are pretty straightforward. Some question the validity of certain programs and if these programs are truly preparing international students for meaningful careers. There’s a sentiment that some institutions may be offering courses specifically to take advantage of the PGWP program, rather than for genuine academic pursuit. The fact that some fields are being removed but others are being added causes skepticism. It doesn’t seem like much is truly changing. It appears the changes might have a minimal impact.
A major concern is the potential impact on Canadian workers, especially young people. Several people mention that the labor market is flooded, and that this has made it difficult for Canadians to find employment. There’s a sense of frustration that the government is seemingly prioritizing international students over citizens. The impact on youth unemployment rates is a recurring theme and is not being addressed. Some are worried about the replacement of Canadian workers with international students, particularly in lower-skilled positions.
The conversation also touches upon the roles of employers. It seems that some companies are prioritizing applicants who already possess specific skills or use particular software, rather than training new hires. This, combined with a reluctance to take on co-op students, leads to a limited talent pool. The implication here is that the lack of training opportunities and the constant search for ready-made candidates contribute to the problem. Some businesses don’t want to pay for the full cost of their employees.
There’s also a bit of a discussion about the amount of money international students are required to have. The idea is that students are expected to come to Canada with a substantial amount of money. This, combined with the high tuition fees, suggests a system where education is a costly investment, and obtaining a work permit is a crucial part of the process. The financial burden on international students and the pressure they face to secure a PGWP are evident.
One interesting aspect of the discussion is the sentiment that certain industries or roles are almost designed for international students. There are references to “Tim Horton’s degrees,” “Amazon Academies,” and so on. These comments highlight the concern that some fields of study lead to jobs that are often filled by international students. This, in turn, can create a perception that these jobs are somehow “less desirable” for Canadian citizens.
There’s a sense that nothing fundamental has changed. The number of fields has been adjusted, but the core issues remain unresolved. The focus on “smoke and mirrors” and the feeling that the government’s actions are not making a real difference. The overall impression is that these changes might not truly address the issues.
There’s also a general concern about the future. There are worries about potential loopholes, how employers might adapt to the new rules, and the possibility that the underlying problems of exploitation and labor market imbalances will continue.
Ultimately, the discussion reflects a lot of different perspectives on a complex issue. The changes to work permit eligibility appear to be perceived as a half-measure, and many feel the situation has not greatly changed.