×Ô¼ÓÄô󹫲¼ÐÂÒÆÃñ·¨¹æÒÔÀ´£¬Õë¶Ôз¨¹æÖеÄÖÖÖÖÎÊÌ⣬¼ÓÄôóC&Cå¾Çò¹«Ë¾Ê×ϯ´ú±íÃÏ·±»Ô¼°ÒÆÃñ¹ËÎÊÂí¿ËÍþÎ÷¶à´ÎÖº¯¸ø¼ÓÄôóÒÆÃñ²¿³¤¿¨ÆÕÀ¼¡¢ÒÆÃñ²¿ÆäËûÊ×ÄÔ¡¢ÒÔ¼°ÖÚ¶àµÄ¹ú»áÒéÔ±£¬Ç¿ÁÒÅúÆÀз¨¹æÖеIJ»ºÏÀíÖ®´¦£¬²¢Ìá³öÐí¶à½¨ÉèÐÔÒâ¼û¡£ÔÚÐÂÒÆÃñ²¿³¤¼ÌÈÎ֮ʱ£¬ÓÖÖº¯¸øÐÂÈβ¿³¤DenisCoderre¡£ÕâЩÅúÆÀºÍ½¨ÒéÒ²ÔÚ¼ÓÄôóµÄÈô¸ÉÓÐÓ°ÏìµÄ±¨Ö½·¢±í¡£C&Cå¾Çò¹«Ë¾µÄÒâ¼ûµÃµ½ÁËÏ൱ÊýÁ¿¹ú»áÒéÔ±µÄÖ§³Ö¡£ÒÔÏÂÊÇÐżþµÄ²¿·ÖÄÚÈÝ£º

ÐÅ ¼þ Ò»¡¢ ¹Ø ÓÚ »Ø ËÝ Éó ºË µÄ ÎÊ Ì⣺

Mr. Denis Coderre
Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Jean Edmonds Tower South
365 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 1L1
Canada

Re: Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, published in Canada Gazette,Part 1, December 15, 2001 - New Model

Dear Mr. Coderre,

Following the release last month of the proposed Immigration and Refugee ProtectionRegulations by the Canadian Government we felt compelled to write a letter toMs. Caplan to address some problems in the new regulations and our anticipationof how these regulations will affect the future immigration of skilled workersto Canada and impact the majority of applicants already under the applicationprocess. With your recent appoint as Minister of CIC we wanted to ensure youwere aware of our concerns. It would not be understating the impact of theseproposed regulations to say that they represent the greatest threat to continuedgrowth in Canada over the last 20 years. Rather than making it easier for skilledimmigrants to come to Canada and contribute to the economy, these regulationswill have just the opposite effect by barring highly skilled and qualified candidateswho are desperately needed by Canadian companies to maintain their competitiveedge in the new economy. There are several areas of concern that we have andseveral suggestions of items to modify and keep these regulations fair to all.After all, in its current state it will be absolutely impossible to realizethe planned annual immigration levels next year or for even the next few years,and we will never approach the 1% yearly intake as long proposed in your government'sRed Book. We wish to be clear from the outset - it goes without saying our interestswill be affected by these regulations, but there are broader issues to consider,issues of Canadian national interests, fairness, and future implications thatare more important than simply the interests of any particular person, company,group or association.

As discussed in another letter in greater detail, the most nefarious aspectof these regulations is the retroactivity clause. Canadian values of fair playhave not been respected and would never have even been contemplated had Canadiansbeen targets of these regulations. There must be a method to allow for applicantscurrently within the application process to be evaluated on a basis consistentwith the criteria they considered when they made their application. As theseregulations stand now, they are nothing more than a tool to instantly dissolvethe tremendous backlog at numerous Canadian Embassies abroad.

Both the point evaluation system in the new regulations and passing mark seemtoo rough, with sharp edges of five point intervals and can be seen as crude,a work in progress. It must be clearly noted that just 1 or 2 points can meanthe difference between a pass and a fail. If left in its current state, theresults that will be produced will illustrate the inherent flaws of the wholeimmigration system of evaluation. The strategy of rounding off to 5 point intervalswas applied nearly everywhere. Could it be more precise? Yes. Is it more difficultto be more precise? No. Simply split the 5 points intervals into finer intervals.

Under the education criterion there is no longer any distinction between abachelor degree and a three-year college diploma. How can these two be consideredequivalent? A three-year diploma from a community college may be sufficientfor some technical jobs, but can an engineer, who is required to have a bachelordegree, be compared to a technician? An engineer requires licensing and rigorousexaminations before being allowed to approve any structure or process that couldimpact Canadian citizens. A technician has no such responsibility or ability.Additionally, an engineer may easily apply their skills to the position of technicianif need be, but not vise-versa. With the same points earned for their work experience,there must be some difference between these two groups. There should be a rewardfor education and grouping bachelor degrees with three-year diplomas is an insultto those who have worked so hard. It would be far fairer to separate these intotwo distinct categories and award bachelor degrees 22 or 23 points and diplomaholders 20 points.

The number of points awarded under the experience factor is again awarded infive point intervals. What about the candidate with 2.9 years of experience?According to the regulations, he would only receive credit for 2 years of experience,a clear injustice to the applicant. If this is to remain in place, recognitionfor 1.5, 2.5, and 3.5 years should be given. Perhaps 12/13, 17/18, and 22/23points respectively.

The new regulations allow for appointment of third party language testing.Under the current system in use in Beijing and Hong Kong, the IELTS examinationis used. We would propose that Bands 6.5 and higher be considered high leveland Bands 5.0-6.0 be considered moderate level. The slight change takes intoconsideration the regulatory change from 4 levels of English to 3 levels.

Some of the new criteria for Adaptability also present future potential problems.Two of the most notable are the bonus points awarded for offers of employmentthat do not require HRDC approval and the bonus points for a spouse's education.

Firstly, the offer of employment. Due to the fact it does not require HRDCapproval, what mechanism will be in place to authentic these letters? By ourcalculations nearly every applicant, in order to achieve 80 points, will requireone of these letters. From the current immigration evaluation practice, we knowthat 1 or 2 points can make the difference between a pass and a failure in theresult of an application, never mind 5 points. However, this factor is not areal measure of the adaptability of the applicants, but a measure of who canobtain a letter, regardless of the method. As a matter of fact, a great majorityof the applicants, although they have potential to adapt themselves in Canada,will not be able to obtain such a job offer without help from Canadians. SeekingCanadian assistance may become more and more important in order to ensure thesuccess of an application. The Government of Canada will have created a cottageindustry in Canada whose sole purpose will be to set up companies to issue offersof employment. It will be virtually impossible, without bringing the processto a crawl, to verify that each letter is authentic and represents a real offerof employment. The Government might as well give the 5 points to every applicantbecause inclusion of an employment offer will become standard operating procedureand no one, not the applicant, not his representative, and not the CanadianGovernment will be able to sift the real offers from the fake offers. It isour suggestion to remove this altogether. For many immigration practitioners,this factor may be a good tool to help ensure a stable and constant flow ofclients and money. As practitioners, we are trying to formulate a fair, objectiveand practical model.

The proposed pass mark of 75 and 80 are seemingly plucked from thin air. Whynot 74 and 81? Why not 76 and 79? Five point intervals mark the education, experienceand most of the adaptability criteria. It would seem to make more sense to roundthese sharp corners by making the intervals not so severe. Nowhere is it writtenthat the pass mark need be a round number. Instead it should reflect the possibilityfor a certain percentage of qualified candidates to meet and or exceed. Youmay argue it currently achieves this, and it does, but the percentage able toearn 80 points is perversely small when compared to the number of candidateswho were qualified just a month ago under the old system.

The proposed new regulations will effectively eliminate a huge pool of highlyqualified candidates. For instance, let us look at three skilled applicantsand see if under the new regulations they can earn 80 points:

Scenario 1: bachelor degree in Electrical engineering, working for 4 yearsin a foreign company, 30 years old, good English skills, single, offer of employmentletter, never having studied or worked in Canada.

Education: 20 points
Age: 10 points
Experience: 25 points
Language: 12 points (4 points each for reading and writing, 2 points each forspeaking and listening)
Adaptability: 5 points (offer of employment)
Total: 72 points
Result: Failure, and even a more severe failure if without an offer of employment.

Scenario 2: Master's degree of Mechanical Engineering; working 4 years, 32years old, good English skills, spouse with three year college diploma in IT,never having studied or worked in Canada.

Education: 25 points
Age: 10 points
Experience: 25 points
Language: 10 points (4 points for reading, 2 points each for speaking, writingand listening)
Adaptability: 3 points (3 points for spouse's education)
Total: 73 points
Result: Failure

Scenario 3: PhD degree in chemical engineering; working 8 years, 36 years old,good English skills, spouse with bachelor of engineering, offer of employmentletter, never having studied or worked in Canada.

Education: 25 points
Age: 10 points
Experience: 25 points
Language: 10 points
Adaptability: 9 (4 points for spouse's education; 5 points for offer of employment)
Total: 79 points
Result: Failure

It is a fact that Canadian companies need highly qualified and skilled employees.This is evident by simply opening any classified section of any Canadian newspaperover the last five years. Why then would the new regulations seek to limit theentrance to the Canadian labor market of such people? There is something seriouslywrong if the applicants in the above Scenarios cannot pass. A pass mark of 72points would have the desired effect of raising the bar, while still allowinghighly desirable applicants to immigrate to Canada.

How might such selection criteria look? Education: remains the same with onlythe separation of Bachelor degrees (22 points) and three-year diplomas (20 points).Age: remains the same. Experience: remains the same, but half-year intervalsadded, 1.5, 2.5 and 3.5 years (12/13, 17/18 and 22/23 points respectively).Approved job offer: remains the same. Language: remains the same. Adaptability:unmarried applicants receive 3 points; employment offer letter removed. Thisfine tuning combined with a reasonable passing mark of 72 will ensure the mostqualified will still be admitted to Canada while barring those with less desirableeducation or experience.

If we re-evaluate the three above scenarios we see:

Scenario 1: Education: 22 points
Age: 10 points
Experience: 25 points
Language: 12 points
Adaptability: 3 points
Total: 72
Result: pass

Scenario 2: Education: 25 points
Age: 10 points
Experience: 25 points
Language: 10 points
Adaptability: 3 points
Total: 73 points
Result: pass

Scenario 3: Education: 25 points
Age: 10 points
Experience: 25 points
Language: 10 points
Adaptability: 4 points
Total: 74 points
Result: pass

If the applicants in the above three scenarios pass, who would not pass?

Scenario 4: Education: 20 points (three-year diploma)
Age: 10
Experience: 25 points
Language: 10 points
Adaptability: 4 points
Total: 69
Result: failure
Analysis: by diligent study and improving the points awarded for language, whichwill ultimately make them more employable, this applicant will also be ableto pass

Scenario 5: Education: 25
Age: 5
Experience: 25 points
Language: 8 points
Adaptability: 5 points
Total: 68
Result: failure
Analysis: older applicants with moderate English skills will not be accepted

Our proposed model will have the desired effect of accepting those truly qualifiedwhile barring those on the fringes or delaying their immigration to Canada untilthey improve their skills necessary to function effectively in our society.It would be irresponsible were Canada to raise the passing mark so high as toeliminate such applicants as described in scenarios 1 through 3.

Canada has always enjoyed a reputation abroad as being open-minded and fair,compassionate and reasonable. All of these qualities that have taken years ofeffort to build up and maintain are now in serious jeopardy. These new proposedregulations do not represent qualities that the vast majority of Canadians treasure.If Canada wants to continue to be held in high regard, it must produce regulationsthat are in keeping with our long history of respecting equality. Our finalobjective is to accept a certain number of qualified immigrants to our shoreswho can demonstrate they can contribute to the continued success of Canada.

We would be happy to discuss any of our suggestions in greater detail, pleasedo not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Frank Meng£ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ Dwight D. McWethy
Chief Representative£ £ £ £ £ £ Senior Consultant
Licensed Member AICC£ £ £ £ £ £ Licensed Member AICC

CC:
Alain Theault, Director General, Legislative Review and Implementation Branch,CIC,
Mark Davidson, Director, Economic Policy and Programs, Selection Branch, CIC,
and many Members of Parliament

¼Ó Äà ´ó Ç° ×Ü Àí Joe Clark ÏÈ Éú ¸øC&C å¾ Çò ¹« ˾ Ê× Ï¯ ´ú ±í µÄ »Ø ÐÅ

¼Ó Äà ´óC&C å¾ Çò ¹« ˾ ¶Ô РÒÆ Ãñ ·¨ ¹æ µÄ Åú ÆÀ ºÍ ½¨ Òé µÃ µ½ ÁË Ïà µ± Êý Á¿ ¹ú »á Òé Ô± µÄ Ö§ ³Ö¡£ ÒÔÏ ÊÇ ¼Ó Äà ´ó Ç° ×Ü Àí Joe Clark ÏÈ Éú ¸ø ¹« ˾ Ê× Ï¯ ´ú ±í ÃÏ ·± »Ô ¼° ÒÆ Ãñ ¹Ë ÎÊ Âí ¿Ë Íþ Î÷ ÏÈ Éú µÄ »ØÐÅ£º

Dear Mr. Meng and Mr. McWethy,

Canada is a country of immigrants. Immigration has profoundly shaped thisnation throughout its history. Canada has benefited immensely from immigrationin the past, and it continues to do so today.

Today, immigration has become perhaps even more important because Canada hasan aging population and a declining birth rate. These two trends combined willgreatly affect Canada's society and economy in the coming years. It will placea greater and greater strain on a smaller workforce, while a larger and largershare of resources will have to be devoted to health care and support of anexpanding elderly population. Without an influx of immigrants, our population,labour force and economy will begin to contract. Immigration will allow Canadato continue to grow and prosper in the years ahead, providing skills and peoplethat this country needs.

There can be no doubt that immigration is reshaping our society. However,though there may be difficulties, it is my belief that Canadians, wherever theywere born, can continue to work together to build a strong and prosperous society.

My colleagues and I have been raising similar concerns in the House of Commons.Below, I have included a copy of a press release issued by my colleague, MPInky Mark, who serves as our Immigration Critic, dealing with the changes thathave been introduced. Mr. Mark shall be raising this issue again when the StandingCommittee on Citizenship and Immigration meets to discuss the proposed Regulationsonce the House of Commons re-opens.

Thank you for your correspondence.

Best wishes,
Joe Clark
For Immediate Release January 14, 2002