Who Is Responsible When Graduates Do Not Receive a Post-Graduate Work Permit?

Reflections on the Calgary International Student Hunger Strike

In July 2026, a dispute involving applications for Post-Graduate Work Permits (PGWPs) escalated into a hunger strike by international graduates in Calgary, Alberta.

Dozens of students set up tents and held ongoing demonstrations in the city. Several later began a hunger strike, calling on the federal government to reconsider their refused PGWP applications. As media coverage increased, the dispute quickly became a matter of broader public concern.

At first glance, the issue appears straightforward: students completed their studies in Canada, applied for Post-Graduate work permits, and were refused.

The circumstances, however, are far more complicated.

How Did the Dispute Begin?

Most of the affected students reportedly completed Portage College Continuing Education Diploma programs. Although the credentials were associated with Portage College, the students did not attend classes on the college’s main campus.

Their programs were delivered through partner institutions, including the Canadian Institute of Osteopathic Therapy (CIOT) in Calgary and Campbell College in Edmonton.

After completing their programs, the graduates submitted PGWP applications to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). Many were subsequently refused.

Media reports suggest that approximately 480 graduates in Calgary may have been affected.

IRCC’s position appears to be that the students completed non-credit programs, which do not meet the eligibility requirements for a PGWP.

For many of the students, the refusals came as a shock. They had paid substantial international tuition fees, completed their programs and, in some cases, already found employment.

They say they did not realize until after graduation that IRCC would consider their programs ineligible for a Post-Graduate work permit.

As more refusals were issued, the demonstrations intensified and eventually developed into a hunger strike.

The Students’ Position: We Came to Canada Based on a Particular Expectation

The students argue that, when they selected their programs, they believed they would be eligible to apply for a PGWP after graduation.

Had they known otherwise, they say they would not have paid international tuition or chosen to study in Canada.

For many international students, studying in Canada has never been solely about obtaining an academic credential.

For years, Canada has been associated with a familiar progression:

Many students therefore made significant financial and personal decisions based on the expectation that their education would lead to an opportunity to work in Canada after graduation.

Discovering only after completing their programs that they were not eligible for a PGWP was, understandably, a serious setback.

What Has the College Said?

Portage College has stated that it has been communicating with IRCC and remains in contact with student representatives.

At the same time, the college has emphasized that PGWP eligibility is determined independently by IRCC.

An educational institution cannot guarantee that a graduate will receive a Post-Graduate work permit.

The college has also encouraged affected students to obtain legal or immigration advice.

In other words, the institution’s position is that the final decision on PGWP eligibility rests with the federal government, not with the school.

What Is IRCC’s Position?

IRCC has not changed its position in response to the protest.

Based on the information currently available, the department appears to maintain that the issue is not a sudden change in policy.

Rather, it considers the programs themselves to have been ineligible because they were non-credit programs.

From IRCC’s perspective, the refusals were therefore made under existing law and policy.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith later stated publicly that international students who no longer hold valid temporary status, and who have not obtained another work permit or permanent residence, are expected to leave Canada in accordance with immigration law.

The government’s message has been clear: the students’ circumstances may attract sympathy, but immigration requirements still apply.

So, Who Is Responsible?

At this stage, the available media reports and public statements do not answer several of the most important questions.

When did the students begin their programs?

If the students enrolled at a time when publicly available information reasonably suggested that their programs would lead to PGWP eligibility, and the policy or interpretation later changed, their frustration is understandable.

If, however, the programs were never eligible, the issue may involve inaccurate recruitment information, unclear institutional communication or a misunderstanding by the applicants.

How was PGWP eligibility presented when the students enrolled?

Did the school or its recruitment partners explicitly state that the programs were PGWP-eligible?

Were students given inaccurate or incomplete information? Did they have a realistic opportunity to verify the immigration consequences of the program before paying tuition and beginning their studies?

These questions require closer examination.

Did IRCC change the policy, or did it begin enforcing an existing rule more strictly?

If IRCC is simply applying a long-standing rule more rigorously, the dispute may be about enforcement rather than a policy change.

If the department changed how it classified the programs, a separate question arises: should students who enrolled under an earlier understanding have received transitional protection?

At present, the students have presented their version of events, the college has issued statements, and IRCC has maintained its own interpretation.

But the most important facts remain unclear:

• what rules applied when the students enrolled;
• what information they received from the school or recruiters; and
• whether IRCC changed the policy or changed its interpretation of the programs.

Without those facts, it is difficult to assign responsibility conclusively.

The Broader Issue: Canada’s International Student System Has Changed

This dispute did not emerge in isolation.

For nearly two decades, the PGWP has been one of the most important features of Canada’s international student system.

The program was originally intended to allow eligible international graduates to remain in Canada, gain work experience and contribute to the labour market.

Over time, however, international enrolment expanded rapidly. Educational institutions increased recruitment, and many schools and agents began promoting the sequence of study, work and immigration as a central selling point.

At the same time, the system also created opportunities for misuse.

I once encountered an international student who held both a study permit and a co-op work permit.

After arriving in Canada, the student attended almost no classes and worked continuously instead.

That example does not represent international students generally. It does, however, illustrate how a system intended primarily for education could sometimes be used as an indirect pathway into the labour market.

As international student numbers grew, Canada began reconsidering the purpose of the PGWP.

Should it be widely available to graduates, or should it be more closely targeted toward individuals whose education and skills align with Canada’s labour market needs?

Since 2024, the government has introduced several major reforms:

• ending PGWP eligibility for certain public-private partnership programs;
• introducing language requirements;
• imposing field-of-study restrictions on many non-degree programs; and
• adjusting eligible fields according to labour market priorities.

The PGWP is therefore no longer simply an open work permit associated with graduation.

It is increasingly being used as part of Canada’s broader labour market and immigration strategy.

What Should Future Students Learn from This Case?

Regardless of how the hunger strike is ultimately resolved, the case highlights a new reality.

Planning to study in Canada now requires much more than confirming that a school is willing to issue an admission letter.

Prospective students should ask:

• Is the specific program PGWP-eligible?
• Is it a credit-bearing program?
• Will language requirements apply?
• Is the field of study eligible under the rules that apply to the student?
• Could policy changes affect the program during the period of study?
• Even if a PGWP is issued, does the program lead to realistic employment and immigration opportunities?

These questions should be considered before tuition is paid, not after graduation.

Final Thoughts

Who is responsible when graduates do not receive the work permits they expected?

Based on the information currently available, the answer cannot be reduced to the students, the school or the government alone.

The deeper issue is that Canada’s international student system is moving from a period of rapid expansion toward a more selective model.

The Calgary hunger strike is one of the clearest examples of the tension created by that transition.

The most important lesson is not that graduation should automatically lead to a PGWP.

It never has.

The real question is why these students believed their programs would make them eligible, what information that belief was based on, and whether that information was accurate.

For future applicants, careful verification at the beginning of the process may be far more valuable than searching for a remedy after graduation.