CIMM Committee Report

Of the various issues brought to the Committee’s attention, the retroactive nature of the proposed selection system was the most commonly raised and urgently pressed.

The Department has proposed (as revised on February 26, 2002) that skilled workers who applied before December 17, 2001 (the first working day the proposed selection system became public) and who have not received a selection decision before June 28, 2002 (the target date for implementation of the Act and regulations) continue to be selected under the current criteria until the end of this year. Those who have not received a selection decision by that time will be assessed under the new criteria, but with a proposed pass mark of 70. This recognizes the fact that some applicants who probably would have been accepted under the current system may not be accepted under the new one. The Department also announced that those who applied before December 17 may, if they wish, have their application fees refunded if their files have not been paper-screened. The Committee strongly supports that announcement.

The Committee is pleased that on February 26, 2002 the Minister revised the original proposal, which had been to subject all pre-December 17 applicants who had not received a selection decision by the time the regulations came into force to the new criteria, with a lowered pass mark of 75. Clearly, the government was listening to the concerns of the Committee and the public.

We do have some difficulty with the December 17 date. Choosing that date seems to assume that communication of a government decision is received instantaneously by all potential immigrants and that they can thus act accordingly and adjust their expectations. This is clearly not the case. The Committee feels that a date of December 31, 2001, while not without difficulty, is at least a little more realistic.

The Department’s decision to continue processing files in the inventory until the end of 2002 means that the impact will be felt by far fewer people than would have been the case originally. The Committee was encouraged by the Department’s testimony that by the end of this year some 90,000 files in the current inventory will have been processed. Unfortunately, by January 1, 2003 there will still be approximately 30,000 files remaining.

Although the Committee appreciates the government’s responsiveness on this issue, we have concluded that the revised proposal does not go far enough. Those who will not have received a selection decision before the end of 2002 have the same hopes and dreams of immigrating to Canada as those who will receive a decision before that time. We believe that more of an effort can and must be made to process as many of these applications as possible by extending the deadline by three months.

A deadline of the end of this year will have a differential impact depending on the location of the post abroad. Applicants at posts with faster processing times will have a better chance of receiving their decision before the deadline than those at posts with longer time frames. Yet it must be admitted that the applicants at both posts could be equally qualified.

The Committee also notes that if the Department has concluded that it can administratively process skilled workers under two sets of criteria for a period of six months, there is no inherent reason why it cannot continue for a slightly longer period of time. We note also that the new selection system requires information that will not necessarily be on the files of applicants in the inventory. Obtaining and assessing that information will take additional processing time, and could require a higher than normal interview rate. Thus, to continue under the existing system for this group for a further period could save time administratively, as well as being fairer to more applicants. We therefore recommend that processing of applications received before December 31, 2001 should continue until the end of March, 2003.

RECOMMENDATION 1

All skilled worker applications received before December 31, 2001 should be processed under the existing selection criteria until March 31, 2003.

An extension of processing time to the end of March will be of little or no value if processing the inventory is not made a very high priority of the Department. This is particularly true in high-volume posts where processing times are long. It is unfair and inequitable not to address the particular challenges posed by those posts.

What will be necessary to achieve the utmost fairness and equity in dealing with the existing inventory between now and March 31, 2003? We believe four things are essential. First, there must be a corporate commitment — one that extends to all employees — to processing these files on a priority basis. All staff involved in dealing with the inventory must realize that every application represents individuals whose hopes and dreams for the future are resting on their plans to immigrate to Canada, plans that were realistic at the time they submitted their applications.

When the Minister appeared before the Committee, he stressed his desire to look forward rather than backward, noting that the front windshield of a car is much larger than the rear-view mirror. In this vein, the Committee believes that our skilled worker applicants also wish to look ahead. Staff should share that desire to the fullest extent possible. They should recognize as well that Canada’s reputation for fairness is at stake.

The Committee’s next recommendation relates to processing procedures. Staff at each post with a significant skilled worker inventory should reassess their general approach to interviews — when they are essential and when they can be waived. The more applicants that can safely be given a positive selection decision on the basis of the documents submitted, without the necessity of an interview, the faster the inventory will be cleared. Officers should scrutinize every file carefully and ask the question: "Is the information I would be seeking in a personal interview essential to my selection decision?" Of course, we speak only of selection; criminality and security assessments must never be compromised.

The third recommendation concerns resources. A commitment to clearing the backlog is of little value without the necessary resources. This can mean an internal arrangement of staff in a mission; it can mean deployment of teams of officers from posts with a lower inventory to those posts where the challenge is greater ("SWAT teams"); and it can mean new resources. We feel confident that the Minister can make an excellent case to his colleagues that fairness and equity to individual applicants, as well as maintaining Canada’s reputation abroad, require that additional resources be marshalled to get the job done.

The Committee heard concerns about almost all aspects of the skilled worker point system. It became clear that the system as presented in the proposed regulations is not satisfactory and must be changed. The vast majority of the skilled workers needed by this country will not be able to qualify for permanent residence either as a result of the point distribution in the grid or because the proposed pass mark of 80 is simply too high. Numerous examples were provided of highly educated technology professionals, fluent in an official language, who would not have a successful application. And skilled trades people would fare even worse.

In this section, the Committee will express its specific concerns and provide recommendations for change in respect of individual criteria and the overall pass mark. It should be clear, however, that a piecemeal response from the Department will not be acceptable. If we expect to meet our target immigration levels, many aspects of the point system must be adjusted in a manner that addresses the Committee’s many concerns. At the conclusion of this section, a point grid is suggested based upon our findings and a pass mark is proposed that, using the Committee’s grid, will address Canada’s need to attract skilled workers.

1. Education

One of the criteria in the grid that garnered much discussion and criticism was the allocation of points for different levels of education, particularly in respect of trades people. Without exception, the witnesses who addressed this topic confirmed that the proposed regulations would effectively shut the door on the skilled trades. To be able to obtain the equivalent point score as someone with a university bachelor’s degree, the carpenter, the tool-and-die maker, or the electrician would have to have a diploma, trade certificate or apprenticeship requiring 3 years of full-time studies, and a total of 15 years of full-time study or training. Fifteen years of full-time study and training, many witnesses confirmed, is virtually unheard of in the trades. Many countries focus vocational training at the upper secondary school level and trades people generally have 11 to 12 years of education. The Committee believes that the requirement of a total number of years of study in addition to the degree, diploma, trade certificate or apprenticeship period of study should be deleted.

RECOMMENDATION 6

The requirement that an applicant complete a specified total number of years of study when assessing educational credentials should be eliminated.

It is also problematic to penalize trades people whose apprenticeship or trade program required only a year or two of study instead of three or more. Some trades programs require more classroom or study time than others, and the length of time involved in qualifying for a particular trade may have little to do with the needs of Canada’s labour market. To address this, the Committee proposes awarding 15 points for diplomas, trade certificates and apprenticeships that require one or two years of full-time study. As we feel that the inclusion of "total years of study" is unnecessary but wish to recognize the potential benefit of a high school diploma for trades people, the Committee suggests that the five points for a completed secondary school diploma be awarded cumulatively for those with trade qualifications that required one or two years of study.

RECOMMENDATION 7

Fifteen points should be awarded for diplomas, trade certificates and apprenticeships that require one or two years of full-time studies, and an additional five points should be awarded to applicants in this group who have a high school diploma.

The Committee is also concerned that the proposed regulations do not clearly recognize second degrees at the undergraduate level. Lawyers, for example, will typically have an undergraduate degree in addition to a Bachelor of Laws. Similarly, most teachers obtain a first degree before pursuing a Bachelor of Education. A second undergraduate degree should be awarded the same number of points as a Master’s degree.

RECOMMENDATION 8

An applicant with two or more undergraduate degrees should be awarded 25 points under the education criterion.

Some witnesses also raised the definition of "full-time" study or training as an issue. Clause 67(1) of the proposed regulations defines full-time as meaning 15 hours of instruction per week. The Committee heard that in many universities, including those in Canada and the United States, full-time study involves classroom instruction of only 11 or 12 hours per week. The same may be the case with apprenticeship and certification programs in the skilled trades. It should also be clear in the regulations that co-op programs are counted as full-time studies.

RECOMMENDATION 9

"Full-time" in relation to studies or training should be defined as at least 12 hours of instruction per week, and should include co-op programs.

2. Language

Three main issues arose in the testimony regarding the points awarded for proficiency in one or both of Canada’s official languages. To begin with, the Committee is concerned that the regulations would not award any points for a basic proficiency in an official language. Another concern was the gap between the points awarded for "high proficiency" compared to "moderate proficiency" in the applicant’s first official language. Third, the gap between the points awarded for proficiency in the first language and the points awarded for proficiency in the second language does not, in the Committee’s view, adequately reflect the importance of bilingualism in Canada.

The proposed grid treats an applicant with basic official language proficiency the same as an applicant with no official language abilities whatsoever. In the Committee’s view, this does not recognize the fact that new immigrants with a basic understanding of French and/or English will likely improve their linguistic skills quite rapidly once in Canada. There should therefore be four categories of language ability: high proficiency, moderate proficiency, basic proficiency and no ability. This will require the creation of a definition that distinguishes between basic and no proficiency in clause 68.

The proposed regulations award 16 points for "high proficiency" in the first official language, only 8 points for "moderate proficiency," and zero points for "basic proficiency."

The Committee heard that emphasizing high proficiency to such a degree will exclude many of the skilled workers Canada wishes to attract. Fluency in an official language is not necessarily the best indicator of potential success in Canada, particularly for the skilled trades. The Committee is also mindful of the fact that language skills will likely improve once in Canada, particularly for those who already have a moderate command of English or French.

It was also suggested to the Committee that the gap between the points awarded for high proficiency in the first official language and the points awarded for proficiency of any degree in the second official language does not recognize the importance attached to bilingualism in Canada. High proficiency in the second official language, which would obviously include complete fluency, is worth only 4 points. No points are awarded for moderate or basic proficiency in the second language.

The Committee finds it odd that no value is placed on moderate proficiency in the second official language, but is aware that increasing the points awarded in the second language category would affect the overall weight of language in the grid. It was suggested that this could be addressed through the use of adaptability points.

RECOMMENDATION 12

The points awarded for high proficiency in the applicant’s second official language should be increased to eight, the points awarded for moderate proficiency should be increased to six and four points should be awarded for a basic proficiency in the second official language. The maximum total points available for language skills should remain at 20 with additional points being available under the adaptability criterion when an applicant has a high proficiency in both official languages.

3. Age

The points awarded for age would not change from the current system wherein emphasis is placed on applicants between the ages of 21 and 44. Some witnesses argued that the top age limit for the maximum points (10) should be increased from 44 to 50 to recognize that people are remaining in the workforce for longer periods. The Department indicated that demographics merit a focus on younger workers but it is equally true that a projected stagnation of growth in Canada’s labour force makes it important to attract a wider spectrum of workers.

RECOMMENDATION 13

Ten points should be awarded for applicants between 21 and 50 years of age, with a decrease of 2 points for each year younger or older.

4. Adaptability

The Committee supports the replacement of the current factor "personal suitability" with the use of adaptability points relating to specific, objective factors. It is also laudable that clause 64(3) of the proposed regulations maintains the possibility of positive discretion on the part of the visa officer. Applicants will thus be able to have some security when estimating their likely point total and those who fall short may be granted permanent residence should a visa officer determine that they would nonetheless be capable of successful economic establishment in Canada.

Various suggestions regarding other important factors relating to the likelihood of successful establishment were offered by witnesses as possible point sources under this criterion. Concerns were also expressed in respect of some of the adaptability factors in the proposed regulations.

One concern that was expressed by some witnesses relates to the 5 points for an informal job offer in Canada. It was suggested that this factor would be subject to abuse and that, in fact, shell companies are already being established with the intention of providing fraudulent job offers.

RECOMMENDATION 14

Adaptability points should not be awarded for an informal job offer in Canada.

The maximum points available for adaptability was also of concern. It was suggested that 10 points does not adequately recognize the value of adaptability factors in respect of successful establishment. The Committee concurs.

Numerous suggestions for additional adaptability factors were received and the Committee found many to be quite compelling. The factors suggested recognize the importance placed on various attributes that would likely indicate a greater ability to successfully establish in Canada. After much deliberation, the Committee has decided that the following should be included in the point system.

RECOMMENDATION 16

Five points should be awarded under adaptability for those who do not have arranged employment in Canada but who would otherwise meet the requirements of special sectoral agreements, such as the pilot project for software professionals.

RECOMMENDATION 17

Seven points should be awarded under adaptability for those who can satisfy an immigration officer that they intend to settle in a region of low immigration. This should be monitored for effectiveness on an ongoing basis.

RECOMMENDATION 18

Five points should be awarded under adaptability for those who have the support of a local community organization and can provide a settlement plan.

RECOMMENDATION 19

Five points should be awarded under adaptability for those who have previously visited Canada, provided they have not received points for previous study or work in Canada.

RECOMMENDATION 20

Four points should be awarded under adaptability for those who demonstrate a high proficiency in their second official language.

5. Pass Mark

Given the point distribution for the criteria contained in the proposed regulations, most witnesses were critical of a pass mark of 80 points, which the Department indicated in its impact analysis was likely to be the pass mark. Clearly, 80 points is inappropriate given the grid as it currently stands, but the Committee is confident that changes will be made. Indeed, the Minister has indicated his willingness to consider alterations proposed by this Committee and other interested parties.

The Committee was troubled by the various examples provided of desirable skilled workers who would not qualify under the proposed regulations. In fact, some witnesses argued convincingly that a pass mark of 80 with the proposed grid amounts to a moratorium on immigration. If a 30-year-old computer systems analyst with a bachelor’s degree who is fluent in an official language and has four years of experience would not be successful unless she obtained the maximum points for adaptability or had a job validation, the proposed pass mark is too high. Equally, if a similarly situated skilled trades person has almost no chance of success, the pass mark is too high. After much consideration, it was determined that an appropriate pass mark for the grid proposed by the Committee is 70 points.

RECOMMENDATION 21

Following the adjustment of the selection system criteria as the Committee has recommended, the pass mark should be set at 70 points.

RECOMMENDATION 22

After two years, the Department should analyze the impact of the changes to the grid and the pass mark and report its findings to Parliament.

7. Settlement Funds Required for Permanent Residence Applicants

Clauses 64(1)(b) and 126 of the proposed regulations require that applicants demonstrate that they have sufficient funds to establish in Canada. The measure to be used is the low income cut-off ("LICO") figures set by Statistics Canada. The Committee heard that the amount currently required is $10,000 for the principal applicant, plus $2,000 for each dependent, and that use of the LICO will approximately double the required settlement funds for a family of four.

Witnesses argued that the amount required under the proposed system is much too high and will adversely affect many desired applicants, particularly those from developing countries. It was suggested that only a six-month (not one year) LICO requirement should apply for applicants not already in Canada.

RECOMMENDATION 23

Clause 64(1)(b) should be amended to provide that the minimum settlement funds required for skilled worker applicants and their family members should be sufficient to support them for a period of six months after they enter Canada, not one year, using the LICO figures.

8. Ongoing Applicability of the Selection Criteria

Several witnesses brought clause 65 to the Committee’s attention. It states: "For the purposes of [visa issuance] the requirements and criteria set out in [the selection system] must be met at the time an application is made as well as at the time the permanent resident visa is issued." They pointed out that this would allow the government to change the selection criteria, including the pass mark, after an application had been made, introducing unacceptable uncertainty into the selection process.

Altering the selection system after an individual has made an application is unfair and cannot be tolerated. The clause must be redrafted to ensure that this will not happen. That said, it may be reasonable to require that an applicant meet most of the requirements of the selection system before a visa can be issued. For example, using the criteria as currently proposed, if an applicant received 10 points under adaptability because of the spouse’s education and job experience, but by the time the visa was to be issued the couple had separated, those points should probably be re-evaluated. If that same person had upgraded their education, that too should be taken into account. On the other hand, a person who received a certain number of points for age at the time of application should not be penalized merely because the processing time was two years. We have concluded that this clause needs to be redrafted to better reflect the variety of situations that can occur.

An issue that is not addressed by the proposed regulations but is one that arose repeatedly in the course of the Committee’s hearings is the problem faced by a significant number of immigrants who come to Canada expecting to work in their field of expertise. Because they were accepted for permanent residence based on a specific occupation, many immigrants are under the impression that they will be able to find employment in that occupation in Canada. This is not an unreasonable assumption, particularly given the current system that is ostensibly based upon Canada’s workforce requirements. The proposed point system, while less restrictive in terms of the specific occupations that are eligible for permanent residence, still does not address this problem.

What consistently happens, and what will certainly continue to occur, is that skilled workers arrive in Canada expecting to be able to apply for jobs as engineers, electricians or physiotherapists, only to discover that licensing requirements preclude them from seeking work in their profession or trade. Although the Regulation of professional and trade accreditation is primarily within the jurisdiction of the provinces, the Committee feels that more can and should be done by the Department. Not only should prospective immigrants be told of the possibility of licensing requirements and advised to discuss such issues with the appropriate regulatory bodies before applying to immigrate, the federal government should act as a facilitator in assisting licensing bodies to determine foreign equivalencies.