Aftab Ahmed: I speak English. Stop asking.
Language proficiency tests for international students are a rip off and a layer of red tape we should get rid of at once.
By: Aftab Ahmed
Canada’s immigration system imposes a cumbersome burden on those who have already proven their language proficiency. International students, after demonstrating their language skills to obtain a study permit, complete years of education at globally renowned institutions like the University of Toronto and McGill University. The vast majority of those who decide to stay under work permits contribute to the Canadian economy as taxpayers, not freeloaders.
When they eventually apply for permanent residency, they are again asked to take another language proficiency test. The rationale behind this additional hurdle is unclear and raises questions about the value and necessity of this requirement by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. In plain English, it is an entirely nonsensical requirement.
Language proficiency tests, such as the Canadian English Language Proficiency Index Program (CELPIP) and the International English Language Testing System (IELTS), are mandatory for most study permit and permanent residency applicants. These tests cost approximately $250, and their results are valid for only two years.
For those who have lived, studied, and worked in Canada, the need to retake the test due to its short validity period adds another layer of complexity to an already expensive process. If the system assumes someone could forget English after four years of studying in Canadian classrooms — or even two years after passing a proficiency test — then it is high time to rethink this requirement.
The application fee for permanent residency is $1,525, and when combined with the cost of multiple language tests, the total expense becomes even more burdensome. However, from speaking with permanent residency applicants in recent years, the issue is more than just about money: it is insulting to be asked to prove their language proficiency time and time again.
Take the case of Ukwori Ejibe, who moved to Canada from Nigeria, where English is the official language. Even though she holds multiple degrees, including an undergraduate degree from the United States and master’s degrees from France and Singapore, Ejibe had to take the IELTS test twice before her scores were high enough to gain permanent residency. After settling in Canada and seeking further education, she was required to take the test a third time to gain admission to a university program in British Columbia.
This issue extends beyond international students to include professionals in various fields. Nurses in Manitoba, for instance, must pass language proficiency tests to register with the College of Licensed Practical Nurses, the College of Registered Nurses, and the College of Registered Psychiatric Nurses. Many nurses, including those born and raised in Canada, have struggled to pass these tests, which often feel more like a cash grab than a meaningful assessment of their ability to work in Canada.
Critics argue that the tests use outdated, overly formal language — almost like grammar school English — that does not reflect contemporary usage, creating barriers for professionals who are otherwise fully qualified to work in the health-care system. This is particularly troubling given the labour shortages across Canadian health-care systems, where every qualified nurse is needed.
There is also an obvious inconsistency in how language proficiency is treated for permanent residency versus citizenship. Those seeking citizenship are not required to retake the language test if they have passed it once, even if their test results have expired. Permanent residency applicants, however, must retake the test if their results are no longer valid, despite having lived and worked in Canada. This variation further weakens the logic of the current system.
There are simple solutions to this issue: First, remove the two-year validity rule. Second, remove the language proficiency requirement for those who have studied or worked in Canada for a reasonable period. Define that period. Third, for those arriving on a work permit without a certified letter from a recognized international post-secondary institution that provides education in English or French, language testing would be necessary.
Some argue that a steady flow of international students is vital for economic growth, given the billions they contribute to the higher education sector and the labour force. Others claim the influx worsens the housing crisis. Whatever the federal government's target for permanent residents from this pool may be in the coming years, it is absurd to think someone could study in Canada without knowing one of the official languages. The same principle should apply if they have studied and then worked here. The current system is poor policy.
In the bigger picture, the issue of language proficiency testing is just the tip of the iceberg. The immigration system is fractured, to say the least, and is in desperate need of a facelift to align with global immigration trends and Canada’s own realities. The federal government has a golden opportunity to address what are very much fixable problems.
Canada has historically brought in immigrants through a system that was top-notch in its day — driven by economic interests, not merely the goodness of its heart, which is entirely appropriate. However, the country has been coasting, failing to update that system to align with the demands of modern-day Canada. Consider the countless immigrants with impressive degrees and years of work experience in difficult economic and political climates who end up driving Ubers or taxis due to outdated requirements for practicing their professions here. The country must ask whether it is bringing in doctors, nurses, lawyers, and engineers to perform low-skilled labour or to utilize their expertise.
Canada urgently needs a federal policy on accrediting newcomers, whether they arrive as refugees, international students, asylum seekers, or through other channels. These individuals must be integrated into the economy swiftly — not just through social services, but with expedited accreditation programs for skilled professionals like health-care workers.
A focus on accreditation is one of the most powerful tools that can unlock the doors for industries struggling with labour shortages. If immigrants are to be the lifeline that fills these gaps, the federal government must steer the ship to get them into the workforce quickly. Currently, too many skilled professionals find themselves stranded, unable to navigate their careers without retracing every step of their education. Leaning solely on provincial efforts will not cut it.
And in the meantime, please stop asking me if I can speak English. And when you hear me speak it well, kindly do not act surprised.
Aftab Ahmed completed his master of public policy degree from McGill University's Max Bell School of Public Policy and is a policy development officer with the City of Toronto. With more than 100 published articles, he serves as a regular columnist for Canadian and Bangladeshi media outlets and policy publications. He can be reached at mir.ahmed@mail.mcgill.ca. The views expressed in this article are his personal opinions and do not reflect those of any organization, institution, or entity with which the author is associated. The author had to take the CELPIP exam to prove his English proficiency to the Canadian government, even after spending four years earning an Honors Bachelor of Arts in Economics and International Relations from the University of Toronto and working for two years at Toronto Dominion Bank as a frontline banking professional.
The Line is entirely reader and advertiser funded — no federal subsidy for us! If you value our work, have already subscribed, and still worry about what will happen when the conventional media finishes collapsing, please make a donation today.
The Line is Canada’s last, best hope for irreverent commentary. We reject bullshit. We love lively writing. Please consider supporting us by subscribing. Follow us on Twitter @the_lineca. Fight with us on Facebook. Pitch us something: lineeditor@protonmail.com
I have to admit, I think I just fundamentally don’t mind if international students have to jump through a few hoops (if nothing else, it prepares them for the reality of Canada well ;). Jokes aside, the willingness to go through these steps helps confirm that people are serious about their future in this country. Yes, the costs of these tests add up, but they also help fund immigration services that keep the system running. Plus, these requirements protect opportunities for existing Canadian residents - if someone is willing to go through the extra steps, it shows they’re prepared to contribute meaningfully to our society.
Maybe it's just a tone thing that irked me, but one thing that bugged me in the article was the complaint about the inconsistency between language requirements for permanent residency versus citizenship. Of course, people eligible for citizenship should have more privileges - they’ve already proven a deeper commitment to Canada. And honestly, there’s just this feeling of entitlement that doesn’t sit right with me. It’s the same feeling with things like international students protesting failed grades. We need immigrants, but we already have enough entitled Canadians as it is. Honestly, I’d rather screen for more go-getters and fewer whiners to help shift the zeitgeist writ large.
Plenty of college students studying with primarily other international students (understandably) do not seem to spend much time practicing conversational English. The experience of university students is the exception, not the norm, and even then there are plenty of technical programs where many graduate with sub-standard language proficiency.
We also don't need to lower standards. If professionals, even needed ones, cannot pass tests most native speakers could pass then we should be reconsidering whether immigration is a good alternative to increasing training opportunities for young people already in Canada. Ultimately, the inconvenience of taking an extra test (to people who benefit greatly from how liberal Canada is with PR numbers) is a small price to pay for ensuring people who are admitted can not just muddle by in their job but participate as full citizens without extra supports. If there is a test that better fits with modern language use--for both jobs and full participation in society--fine, use it. But don't redefine competence as just being able to get by.