C&C Transnational Inc. (Beijing Office)

Cheng-Ming Dasha, Tower C, Suite 1806

2 Xizhimen Nan Dajie

Beijing 100035, P. R. China

Tel: 010 ¨C 6651 8801/2/3/4/5/6

www.gotocanada.com.cn

¡¡

Ms. Elinor Caplan

Citizenship and Immigration Canada

Ottawa, Ontario

K1A 1L1

Canada

Dear Ms. Caplan,

    The new proposed Immigrationand Refugee Protection Regulations published in the Canada Gazette onDecember 15, 2001 have several serious flaws that we believe must beaddressed prior to their implementation. We will more fully elaborate theflaws of the new regulations(espe- cially regarding the skilled workerclass) in a separate letter. We are now only addressing the issue ofretroactivity of these new regulations, which we believe to have fundamentalproblems. This in no way represents Canadian values of fair play and wouldnever have even been contemplat -ed had Canadians been targets of theseregulations. Mass civil disobedience would have resulted There must be amethod to allow for applicants currently within the application process tobe evaluated on a basis consistent with the criteria they considered whenthey made their appli- cation. Anything less will be seen as a method toinstantly dissolve the tremendous backlog at numerous Canadian Embassiesabroad, while at the same time keeping unearned application fees.Regulations of this type usually incorporate a Grandfather Clause, and it isnot understandable why the Canadian Government has chosen to ignoreprecedent. We can see no advantage to apply these newly publishedregulations retroactively. It will only damage Canadian national interestsin the long run.

    The proposed pass mark of 75points for those applications received before December 17, 2001 can, in noway, be considered equivalent to the old pass mark of 70. How does theCanadian Government explain to an applicant who has been waiting patientlyin a queue for two years that suddenly he is to be evaluated against adifferent set of criteria? It is certainly not the fault of the applicantthat he has had to wait so long, that fault lies clearly at the feet of theCanadian Government, yet it is he who is paying the price without any optionfor recourse. The price he pays is not only failing to achieve 75 points,but also the application fees he paid for himself and his family, based onthe information provided by the Canadian Government, money wasted that couldhave certainly been better spent. The application fees charged represent asignificant sacrifice to people in the third world. People pay these feeswith the expectation that they will earn it back in the future. It is simplycrude to take fees from the pocket of a poor man with no intention of everliving up to his expectations. Four years ago he would not have worriedabout changes to the immigration regulations, because he could point to thelast time there was a change, May 1997, and know that applications receivedbefore this date were locked in under the old system. He was protected; hewas secure in the knowledge that he would receive an evaluation based oncriteria he was comfortable with. Suddenly, in the space of a day, hisconfidence is shattered, his future in serious doubt. The CanadianGovernment wants to revamp its Immigration Regulations, it certainly iswithin their domain of responsibility, but not on the backs of people whowhere blind to criteria they had never had the chance to measure themselvesagainst. If given the opportunity to evaluate themselves against these newcriteria before applying, how many would have actually done so? Almostcertainly only a small fraction of those who actually did. Nearly all thoseapplicants who are ¡®locked in¡¯ face the same danger and will regard theactions of the Canadian Government as a way to cheat them. How will theGovernment respond to this criticism?

Let us look at a typical example of an applicantfrom China.

Statistics: Bachelor degree inElectrical/Civil/Chemical Engineering; 30 years old; 6 years R&D workexperience in a multinational company; good English skills; and spouse has abachelor degree.

Old system:                              New system:

Age: 10                                  Age: 10

Education:                               15 Education: 20
Occupational Factor: 5                   Experience: 25
ETF: 17                                  Language: 10
Work experience: 8                       Adaptability: 4
Language: 6                              
Demographic Factor: 8                   
Suitability: 6
Total: 75                                Total: 69
(Passing points: 70)                     (Passing points: 75 or 80)

     If we were tosubstitute an applicant with a PhD, several years of work experience, goodEnglish skills, and 35 years old, that person would still fail to earn thenecessary 75 points, let alone 80 points. The new proposed model is far morestringent than the old model; it is hard to imagine raising the passing markin addition.

     How is it possible thatif this person had an interview last week he would have passed with flyingcolors; yet six months from now he will fall well short of the pass mark.Even if he were to have a letter offering him a job at a future interview,he would still fall short of the nece -ssary 75 points! Canadian companiescontinue to bemoan the shortage of highly skilled profess- ionals and theseregulations will only serve to exacerbate their problems.

     People consider manyfactors when they make the decision to immigrate to Canada. One factor theyconsider is Canada¡¯s respect for fairness, which is part of our socialvalues and princi- ples. Can we as a country imagine destroying such moralstandards to simply facilitate solving a particular problem? Does Canadacare about how it is perceived by the world? These new proposed regulationsdo not represent the qualities that the vast majority of Canadians treasure.In- stead they are underhanded and manipulative and bring out the worstimages of our country.Cana- da will be seen as wanting to raise the bar sohigh as to allow only a very select few to pass, while grabbing theapplication fees of all those who made their application under the old sys-tem. As Canadian representatives in a foreign land we are on the front lineand have face-to-face daily contact with applicants who are not shy to sharetheir feelings with us. We are not shielded to the harsh reality sittingback in Ottawa or even behind the gates at the Canadian Embassy. Our fingersare on the pulse of a nation and what it tells us is not pleasant. If Canadawants to continue to be held in high regard, it must produce regulationsthat are in keeping with our long history of accepting qualified immigrantsto our shores who can demons- trate they can contribute to the continuedsuccess of Canada.

    We think it is imperative forthe Government of Canada to consider the futures of 150,000 applicationscurrently in processing backlog and the long-term reputation of Canada onthe world stage before rashly making these proposed Immigrations Regulationsretroactive. If the Gover- nment feels there is no other option than fullretroactivity, then a review of the new pass mark so as to make itequivalent to the current passing mark would be necessary. The CanadianGover- nment should take the lead by acting openly, responsibly andcompassionately towards people whose only desire is to join and contributeto our country and way of life.

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