Andrew Miller

Pavel,

The problem is that you want to give preferential treatment to certain occupations
as it was in the old law, while new system is not giving any permanent preferences.
You see it from the perspective of a programmer only. Please note that IT bubble
imploded some time ago and this is why you have hundreds of thousands layoffs in the
US and most of those laid off don't have Master degree, but just by being
programmers or system analysts they benefited greatly from our old GOL regardless
the fact that there are no jobs for them in Canada either. We don't need hundreds of
thousands IT professionals every year, we need few thousand per year. So, why we
shouldn't take advantage here and pick from those laid off in US only few thousands
of best educated?

Again, I strongly support no occupational preferences embedded into law as market
needs are changing rapidly, faster than immigration law - and those, mostly short
term needs may be covered by special programs for EA or by blank, general HRDC
validations. New Regulations allow for general HRDC validation, like the one
currently in place for certain IT professionals. So, if they have a real job offer
and match requirements of Pilot Program for Software Professionals then they don't
need under new law an individual job offer validation in order to get extra 10 points
for arranged employment - so we already have some preferences you are looking for.
Under the old law to get points for arranged employment person was required to have
job offer validated by HRDC, even if he or she was already in Canada on EA under
pilot program not requiring individual validation. As you can see there is already a
temporary preference for some IT professionals which may be amended overnight as
needed without going through years of amending the law.

Do you know that by 2010 healthy growth of work force in Canada will rely completely
on immigration - do you think that we will need only IT professionals by then? We
will need teachers, engineers, scientists,
psychologists, nurses, doctors and tons of others with various occupations. Every
segment of economy will need new blood.

--

../..

Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
[email protected] (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
sending email)
________________________________

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

[usenetquote2]> > Pavel,[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > I have to disagree with you. GOL covers les than 50% of occupations[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > in Level 0 and Skill Levels A and B, so abandoning GOL is one of the best things[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > of the new system. Remember that Canada needs a lot more than just programmers[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > and new law opens the door to those who previously had no[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > because their occupation wasn't listed on outdated GOL or was rated very[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > As it is indicated in the Analysis Statement during the first period of[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > there will be no "black list" of occupations either, so the door is really[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > open. We'll have to see if 80 points pass mark stands and if it does what effect[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > it will really have on the number of applications submitted and[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > granted.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Today's (or should I say already yesterday's) "hot skills like C++ or[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > be very cold tomorrow and someone who is a self-educated programmer with[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > experience in programming only will find himself or herself on welfare[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > market decides that his or her skills are no longer needed or when those[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > currently finishing their degree in computer science in Canada will enter[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > market. Very soon majority of self-educated programmers with no formal university[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > education will be at the bottom of food chain - although there[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > be some exceptional talents who will survive and strive. But in this world there[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > is a room for only one Bill Gates and for very few like him.[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > from universities and technical/technology institutes will take over in[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > short period of time. The immigration policy has to be tailored towards[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > long term, short term needs can always be taken care of by work visas[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > certain pilot programs.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > So, I and most of my colleagues I already have spoken with are happy with[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > end of GOL, although I'm still in shock with the pass mark. I assume that[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > are some reasons behind such high barrier to be set initially and I hope[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > it will be lowered rather soon after initial period - maybe not a lot but[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > enough to accommodate those with Bachelor degrees and just 2 or 3 years of[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > experience.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > I agree with you that there is no "silver bullet" or perfect system, but[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > current system stopped serving our country long ago and we badly needed[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > more flexible system. And I think that what we see may be just what we[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > but new system will require some tweaking and pass mark left outside of[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > and Regulations to the discretion of the Minister is one of those tweaks.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > --[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > ../..[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > [email protected] (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > sending email)[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > ________________________________[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Unfortunately every change in law takes long time to show real effects and[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > weaknesses of new system and majority of us here are looking at new[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > from the rather small perspective of our own circumstances today.[/usenetquote2]

[usenetquote2]> > > Thank you Andrew for review. I agree with you and want just add the following:[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > The major mistake they make is discontinuing an occupation-based[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > > system. While there are problems with it, it should just be frequently reviewed[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > and improved, but not be abolished altogether. It is much[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > > find a job for computer programmer with hot skills like C++ or Java, who[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > > just a bachelor's degree and moderate command of English, than it is for[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > mechanical or civil engineer with Master's and fluent English. The government[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > has means and resorces to monitor the labor market, they just don't want to do[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > their job. The GOL pretty much covers majority of professional occupation, and[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > I think there's no large pool of people who cannot apply due to their[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > occupation or education which they anticipate. The selection system if fine;[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > what they really should do is to combat[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > > There is huge amount of cases with fishy diplomas and work experiences[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > > Asian, Afrikan and Eastern European countries. Those people come here,[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > > menial jobs or just sit on welfare. They don't want to do their job, and want[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > to cover that by devising a new magical selection system. But there's no silver[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > bullet.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]

Pavel

OK Andrew,

now I have to agree with you. In the long run this should be more effective that
occupation-based selection.

And yes I'm speaking from the programmer's perspective, because that's my passion,
that's my education, that's my profession for the last 5 years, and that's the way I
got into Canada. I guess the alternatives for programmers and other technical
specialists would be to go to school for their master's degrees, or to find a job in
Canada - or to be left out. Thus, selection would work within each occupation - yes,
this is better! There will be initial shock, but people will adapt eventually.

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
only.
    >
    >
have
    >
benefited
    >
them in
    >
year,
    >
and
    >
    >
    >
    >
those,
    >
blank,
    >
validation,
    >
have
    >
    >
    >
    >
get
    >
validated
    >
not
    >
temporary
    >
needed
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
occupations.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

Andrew Miller

The maximum number of points in the adaptability factor is 10, regardless how many
points were gained in each sub-factor.

Sub-factors and points are:

- Spouse's education - Master or Ph.D. 5 points; Bachelor or 3 years diploma 4
points; 1 to 2 years post-secondary education 3 points.

- Minimum 1 years full time employment in Canada (principal applicant or spouse)
- 5 points

- Minimum 2 years of full time post-secondary study in Canada (principal applicant or
spouse) - 5 points

- Informal job offer in Canada keeping with past experience or education (principal
applicant only) - 5 points

- Family member in Canada - 5 points

I have no idea how many applicants who qualified under old rules will be refused, but
just by looking into my own clients' base in the Independent category I can see that
about 90% of them will not reach 80 points mark, although it doesn't mean that all of
them will be refused. I strongly believe that most of them will be approved as
processing officers will have the discretion to approve applicants who didn't reach
the pass mark if in their opinion person has good chance for successful establishment
in Canada. And I believe in my abilities to present my clients' cases in the
strongest possible way. But, we'll have to wait and see in how many cases I will have
to refund my service fee for job already done well under old rules.

--

../..

Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
[email protected] (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
sending email)
________________________________


[usenetquote2]> >So, I and most of my colleagues I already have spoken with are happy with[/usenetquote2]
the
[usenetquote2]> >end of GOL, although I'm still in shock with the pass mark. I assume that there[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >are some reasons behind such high barrier to be set initially and I hope[/usenetquote2]
that
[usenetquote2]> >it will be lowered rather soon after initial period - maybe not a lot but just[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >enough to accommodate those with Bachelor degrees and just 2 or 3 years of work[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >experience.[/usenetquote2]
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
(canadian
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
already
    >
come
    >
    >
earn
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
potential
    >

Andrew Miller

I'm glad that we finally agree

--

../..

Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
[email protected] (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
sending email)
________________________________

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

[usenetquote2]> > Pavel,[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > The problem is that you want to give preferential treatment to certain[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > occupations as it was in the old law, while new system is not giving any[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > permanent preferences. You see it from the perspective of a programmer[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > Please note that IT bubble imploded some time ago and this is why you have[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > hundreds of thousands layoffs in the US and most of those laid off don't[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > Master degree, but just by being programmers or system analysts they[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > greatly from our old GOL regardless the fact that there are no jobs for[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > Canada either. We don't need hundreds of thousands IT professionals every[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > we need few thousand per year. So, why we shouldn't take advantage here[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > pick from those laid off in US only few thousands of best educated?[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Again, I strongly support no occupational preferences embedded into law as market[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > needs are changing rapidly, faster than immigration law - and[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > mostly short term needs may be covered by special programs for EA or by[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > general HRDC validations. New Regulations allow for general HRDC[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > like the one currently in place for certain IT professionals. So, if they[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > a real job offer and match requirements of Pilot Program for Software[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Professionals then they don't need under new law an individual job offer[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > validation in order to get extra 10 points for arranged employment - so we[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > already have some preferences you are looking for. Under the old law to[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > points for arranged employment person was required to have job offer[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > by HRDC, even if he or she was already in Canada on EA under pilot program[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > requiring individual validation. As you can see there is already a[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > preference for some IT professionals which may be amended overnight as[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > without going through years of amending the law.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Do you know that by 2010 healthy growth of work force in Canada will rely[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > completely on immigration - do you think that we will need only IT professionals[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > by then? We will need teachers, engineers, scientists,[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > psychologists, nurses, doctors and tons of others with various[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > Every segment of economy will need new blood.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > --[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > ../..[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > [email protected] (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > sending email)[/usenetquote2]
    >

Muffin

The point 3 apply for mexicans?

"David R. Tucker" wrote:
    >
    >
    >
[usenetquote2]> > If Minister will set the pass mark at 80 points as indicated then it will be[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > extremely difficult to reach such mark for most of applicants. I strongly believe[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > that the pass mark should be lowered, 80 points is well too high....[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > Anyone else contributing to this group cares to comment?[/usenetquote2]
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

Nkris

Dear Mr. Miller,

The cases filed before the publication of the new regulations will be assessed with
75 as passmark. Is my understanding correct? This is being posted because you have
not mentioned ( many places atleast) about this .

Correct me if I am wrong. Since my case is pending at Hongkong and I get 74 marks. I
have french lang. ability( done upto prediplome& continuing with Diplome). Will I be
called for the interview?

Will they apply these rules for the pending cases( 75 Marks )immediately or they will
wait? If they apply how much more time they would take to call me for the interview?
My case filed in 5 th of May'99(filed from India) and CIC board says they have
cleared upto 8th of April'99 for interview in Feb.'02.

I would appreciate your answers & thank you in advance.

May I wish you and your team members a merry christmas & a happy new year.

Continue your great job on this board, Thanks

nkris

"Andrew Miller" <[email protected]>
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

[usenetquote2]> > >So, I and most of my colleagues I already have spoken with are happy with[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > >end of GOL, although I'm still in shock with the pass mark. I assume that there[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >are some reasons behind such high barrier to be set initially and I hope[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > >it will be lowered rather soon after initial period - maybe not a lot but just[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >enough to accommodate those with Bachelor degrees and just 2 or 3 years of work[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >experience.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Andrew, can you please tell us how they acount adatability? I was told it acounts[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > spouse's education (max 5 points) and spouse's canadian education (5 points),[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > work experience (5points) or job offer (5 points). But I rather think, after I[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > read your post, the last 3 adatability consideration[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > education, work experience, informal job offer and relative are for principal[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > applicant)[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Re 80 pass mark, I think it is clear that the Canadian Government wants only[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > those who have at least a Master Degree and 4 years work experience and[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > have a sort of tie with Canada (education, work experience, job offer) to[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > to Canada. As under the new regulation, One can only afford the minus in Language[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > (no French -4), validated permenant employment (-10), and should[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > at leat 4 points in the adaptability, either married to a Bachelor holder, or has[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > a tie with canada in education, work experience, job offer.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > and idea how many of those who is eligible under old regulation will be refused?[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > I am currently working at UBC on EA (HRC validation exemption under[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > R20(5)(e)(iii), I have a PhD degree. As I quite like Vancouver, so a[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > applicant. I was wondered how will the adaptability be acounted.[/usenetquote2]

Berto Volpentesta

That is a good observation. The way they were supposed to regulate the = system was
to use the Demographic Factor. Never touched it though. =20

Instead they chose to use the occupation list. Now with that gone, can = you imagine
the backlog if they don't have retroactivity. They must.

Also, don't be fooled. The government can certainly collect labour = market
information, but they are historically poor at using the = information to any
advantage. Too slow and too big.

However, if you make a general selection system where you get only the = extreme
cream and then let supplementary programs (work permits, = special work programs and
Provincial programs) take care of labour = needs, then in the end it should work out.

--=20 Good luck,

Berto Volpentesta, B.A. (Spec. Hons.), B.Ed. Member, OPIC Director, OPIC and
Education Committee Chairman

Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving people around the world since 1991

www.svcanada.com

    >
    >
selection
    >
    >
easier to
    >
who has
    >
for
    >
    >
just
    >
    >
who
    >
anticipate.
    >
fraud.
    >
in
    >
go to
    >
and
    >
    >
    >

Berto Volpentesta

Well that would be nice. However, they have indicated several times = that backlog
reduction is a main objective. If so, officers will be = limited in their discretion
in the practical sense.

Also, even lowering the pass mark to 75 leaves out about 50-75% of good = applicants
now. So we can see in places like China, India, Pakistan = and the Philippines where
they may have anywhere between 500 000 and a = million applications waiting, that is
a major reduction and savings. = Perhaps enough for a few lawsuits.

--=20 Good luck,

Berto Volpentesta, B.A. (Spec. Hons.), B.Ed. Member, OPIC Director, OPIC and
Education Committee Chairman

Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving people around the world since 1991

www.svcanada.com

    >
regardless how
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
diploma 4
    >
    >
    >
or
    >
    >
    >
(principal
    >
    >
    >
education
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
be
    >
Independent
    >
mark,
    >
believe
    >
the
    >
their
    >
And I
    >
possible
    >
refund my
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

[usenetquote2]> > >So, I and most of my colleagues I already have spoken with are =[/usenetquote2]
happy with
    >
[usenetquote2]> > >end of GOL, although I'm still in shock with the pass mark. I =[/usenetquote2]
assume that
[usenetquote2]> > >there are some reasons behind such high barrier to be set initially and I =[/usenetquote2]
hope
    >
[usenetquote2]> > >it will be lowered rather soon after initial period - maybe not a =[/usenetquote2]
lot but
[usenetquote2]> > >just enough to accommodate those with Bachelor degrees and just 2 or 3 =[/usenetquote2]
years of
[usenetquote2]> > >work experience.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Andrew, can you please tell us how they acount adatability? I was =[/usenetquote2]
told it
[usenetquote2]> > acounts spouse's education (max 5 points) and spouse's canadian =[/usenetquote2]
education (5
[usenetquote2]> > points), work experience (5points) or job offer (5 points). But I =[/usenetquote2]
rather
[usenetquote2]> > think, after I read your post, the last 3 adatability consideration[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > education, work experience, informal job offer and relative are for =[/usenetquote2]
principal
[usenetquote2]> > applicant)[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Re 80 pass mark, I think it is clear that the Canadian Government =[/usenetquote2]
wants only
[usenetquote2]> > those who have at least a Master Degree and 4 years work experience =[/usenetquote2]
and
    >
[usenetquote2]> > have a sort of tie with Canada (education, work experience, job =[/usenetquote2]
offer) to
    >
[usenetquote2]> > to Canada. As under the new regulation, One can only afford the =[/usenetquote2]
minus in
[usenetquote2]> > Language (no French -4), validated permenant employment (-10), and =[/usenetquote2]
should
    >
[usenetquote2]> > at leat 4 points in the adaptability, either married to a Bachelor =[/usenetquote2]
holder, or
[usenetquote2]> > has a tie with canada in education, work experience, job offer.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > and idea how many of those who is eligible under old regulation will =[/usenetquote2]
be
[usenetquote2]> > refused? I am currently working at UBC on EA (HRC validation =[/usenetquote2]
exemption under
[usenetquote2]> > R20(5)(e)(iii), I have a PhD degree. As I quite like Vancouver, so a[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > applicant. I was wondered how will the adaptability be acounted.[/usenetquote2]
    >

Alex Oren

Andrew Miller wrote:

    >

I am not. In fact, I apologize for my statement. Clearly Canada is totally free of
corruption, Canadians are above all suspicion and the "fink fund" scandal is a
figment of Fantino's imagination.

    >
    >

Not really. I just happen to agree with Lord Acton that "All power tends to corrupt;
absolute power corrupts absolutely."

If the approval of 90% of the applicants (your estimate) will depend almost solely on
the discretion of the processing office, that's a lot of power.

Corruption doesn't necessarily mean bribes, tt can be any abuse of power. Thinking
"This person's last name suggest an <ethnic> descent that I don't like so I will not
approve his application" is one possible example.

    >
    >
    >

Nationalistic feelings aside, does it really matter whether Canadians or "locals"
were to blame? We're talking about a principle, not pointing fingers.

    >

And if you failed to notice the smiley at the end of that statement, you must be
drinkin' somethin'...

Didn't you state yourself that a high pass mark means more clientele for immigration
consultants?

Back on topic. Official statement: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/coming/new-regs.html

Best regards, Alex.

--
My email address is intentionally mangled to foil spambots. For replying, remove the
"-decoy" from the address. Sorry for the inconvenience.